The Westminster Confession of Faith Blasphemy

[SavedByGrace]

Yet, you tell us that Augustine and Calvin got it horribly wrong. If you only read the Bible then how would you know this?
You are either not being truthful about your knowledge of Augustine, Calvin, or any other Christian beside yourself, or you are not being truthful about only reading the Bible.
What is easy to discern is that you think very highly of yourself and your personal viewpoint, while dismissing all of Christendom as beneath you and even blasphemous when you do leave your bubble and read their viewpoints.

sbc, do you see a pattern? I certainly see one.

I think you have problems with understanding the English language. Read again what I wrote. I said that I don't get my theology from the church fathers and Theologians. This is very different from saying that I don't read them

 

[AustinC]

I think you have problems with understanding the English language. Read again what I wrote. I said that I don't get my theology from the church fathers and Theologians. This is very different from saying that I don't read them

So you have read their writings and have an understanding of who is right and who is wrong.
Clearly you think Augustine is wrong. Which contemporary of Augustine was correct? What made them correct as opposed to Augustine? I am aware of the disagreement between Augustine and Pelagius. Do you uphold Pelagius as being correct?
Since, in your opinion, Calvin was wrong, who then was correct? Was it the Pope, Zwingli, Luther, Simons, etc? Please provide your scholarly insight for us.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you have problems with understanding the English language. Read again what I wrote. I said that I don't get my theology from the church fathers and Theologians. This is very different from saying that I don't read them

Didn't the Reformers gets their theology from scriptures only?

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you have read their writings and have an understanding of who is right and who is wrong.
Clearly you think Augustine is wrong. Which contemporary of Augustine was correct? What made them correct as opposed to Augustine? I am aware of the disagreement between Augustine and Pelagius. Do you uphold Pelagius as being correct?
Since, in your opinion, Calvin was wrong, who then was correct? Was it the Pope, Zwingli, Luther, Simons, etc? Please provide your scholarly insight for us.

Augustines view on the Atonement is heretical. Calvin is completely right on the extent of Jesus' death which he says on John 3.16, was for everyone without exception. I am anti pope as the greater majority of them were heretics teaching doctrines of demons

 

[Yeshua1]

So you have read their writings and have an understanding of who is right and who is wrong.
Clearly you think Augustine is wrong. Which contemporary of Augustine was correct? What made them correct as opposed to Augustine? I am aware of the disagreement between Augustine and Pelagius. Do you uphold Pelagius as being correct?
Since, in your opinion, Calvin was wrong, who then was correct? Was it the Pope, Zwingli, Luther, Simons, etc? Please provide your scholarly insight for us.

he seems to think the reformers based theology upon other sources, but did not Luther and Calvin both state that the Bible only was their sure foundation standing on?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Didn't the Reformers gets their theology from scriptures only?

How could they when they denied that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception. Except those like Calvin who was right as seen from his comments on John 3.16

 

[SavedByGrace]

he seems to think the reformers based theology upon other sources, but did not Luther and Calvin both state that the Bible only was their sure foundation standing on?

Shows how much you guys don't know. Luther for example believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. Do you think that this is Biblical

 

[SavedByGrace]

So you have read their writings and have an understanding of who is right and who is wrong.
Clearly you think Augustine is wrong. Which contemporary of Augustine was correct? What made them correct as opposed to Augustine? I am aware of the disagreement between Augustine and Pelagius. Do you uphold Pelagius as being correct?
Since, in your opinion, Calvin was wrong, who then was correct? Was it the Pope, Zwingli, Luther, Simons, etc? Please provide your scholarly insight for us.

10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism

 

[SavedByGrace]

Didn't the Reformers gets their theology from scriptures only?

Augustine and some of the Reformers belived in Double Predestination, do you guys believe this, and is it taught anywhere in the Bible?

 

[Reformed1689]

Calvin is completely right on the extent of Jesus' death which he says on John 3.16, was for everyone without exception.

Pretty sure Calvin does not say that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Pretty sure Calvin does not say that.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found inthe world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

 

[Reformed1689]

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found inthe world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Notice there is nothing in there stating Christ died for every individual without exception now is there? Just like Scripture, you added that in.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Notice there is nothing in there stating Christ died for every individual without exception now is there? Just like Scripture, you added that in.

can you not read? "he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life" If this does not mean that Jesus had to die for the entire human race, then I suggest you refresh your English language understanding!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Notice there is nothing in there stating Christ died for every individual without exception now is there? Just like Scripture, you added that in.

But, let us not stop at Calvin’s comments on John 3:16. Here his own words on John 1:29;

“Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.”

Then we have Romans 5:18;

“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him”

Here Calvin clearly says that Christ’s suffering for “the whole world” is “offered…to ALL”, but the “ALL” of the “human race” do not receive this gift from the Lord. Nothing could be plainer of the Universal Atonement as taught by Calvin.

Commenting on Mark 14:24, where Jesus says that His death is a “ransom for many”. Calvin says:

“Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”

On Colossians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"

 

[AustinC]

Augustines view on the Atonement is heretical. Calvin is completely right on the extent of Jesus' death which he says on John 3.16, was for everyone without exception. I am anti pope as the greater majority of them were heretics teaching doctrines of demons

That's it???
You railed on Augustine. Who is the person of that era that spoke your doctrinal bent? Was it Pelagius or is there some other writer who expressed your views.
It comes across that you really aren't very well read, but the one or two secondary source articles you read about these men has created a bias and prejudice.

Would it be fair to think that you really haven't read the Westminster Confession, but you did a quick, cursory reading and then fixated on their use of the word "pleased." Having fixated on it, you then imagined, in your bias and prejudice, that the confession was saying God was pleased with sin. It never occurred to you that God's pleasure is in providing the redemption for sin, therefore God allowed man (just as he allowed the angels) to rebel against His Supremacy.

 

[SavedByGrace]

That's it???
You railed on Augustine. Who is the person of that era that spoke your doctrinal bent? Was it Pelagius or is there some other writer who expressed your views.
It comes across that you really aren't very well read, but the one or two secondary source articles you read about these men has created a bias and prejudice.

Would it be fair to think that you really haven't read the Westminster Confession, but you did a quick, cursory reading and then fixated on their use of the word "pleased." Having fixated on it, you then imagined, in your bias and prejudice, that the confession was saying God was pleased with sin. It never occurred to you that God's pleasure is in providing the redemption for sin, therefore God allowed man (just as he allowed the angels) to rebel against His Supremacy.

How about responding to the OP from the Bible

 

[DaveXR650]

Augustine and some of the Reformers belived in Double Predestination, do you guys believe this, and is it taught anywhere in the Bible?

Can't speak for anyone else but I don't. The way I understand it is that if left to ourselves none of us would seek God. So anyone who comes to a saving faith in Christ has had some active working of the Holy Spirit on him. God has intervened on their behalf. Those that do not come to faith in Christ were allowed to continue on their own path according to their own free will. God did not actively intervene to damn them. But some Calvinists do believe that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Can't speak for anyone else but I don't. The way I understand it is that if left to ourselves none of us would seek God. So anyone who comes to a saving faith in Christ has had some active working of the Holy Spirit on him. God has intervened on their behalf. Those that do not come to faith in Christ were allowed to continue on their own path according to their own free will. God did not actively intervene to damn them. But some Calvinists do believe that.

But what you believe makes God unjust and actually sending them to hell. I thought that reformed teaching is that sinners do not have a free will

 

[Reformed1689]

But, let us not stop at Calvin’s comments on John 3:16. Here his own words on John 1:29;

“Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.”

Then we have Romans 5:18;

“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him”

Here Calvin clearly says that Christ’s suffering for “the whole world” is “offered…to ALL”, but the “ALL” of the “human race” do not receive this gift from the Lord. Nothing could be plainer of the Universal Atonement as taught by Calvin.

Commenting on Mark 14:24, where Jesus says that His death is a “ransom for many”. Calvin says:

“Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”

On Colossians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"

And notice he is talking about PEOPLE GROUPS. Jews/Gentiles.

 

[Dave G]

Really for you to say that just shows that you lack the ability to read clear text.

I have no trouble reading the text, I assure you.

As I said the text of the LBCF & WCF both present God as the author of sin yet you accuse me of saying that.

No they do not, but I do understand why you would see it that way.

Perhaps studying the Psalms and Proverbs, as well as the rest of the Old Testament, and paying careful attention to the language of what the Lord's prophets had to say, would go a long way towards understanding why those who formulated those confessions, believed as they did.
My hope is that you do.

Repeat not I but the LBCF & WCF. please get it straight.

Since I am in agreement, at least in principle, with much of what is written in those confessions, then to me, I am getting it straight...
and to me, it has occurred to me that you don't understand the God of the Bible and how very terrible He is to His enemies, and how very loving He is to His people.

But if the LBCF & WCF and those that agree with those texts wish to go beyond what the Scriptures say and accuse Him of being the author of sin and wickedness, then that is their choice.

I don't see anywhere in the statement in question, that they are accusing Him of being the author of sin and wickedness.
But I do see you arriving at that conclusion for yourself.

To me, by not accepting that God does as He wishes in the armies of Heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth as the Scriptures say in the details,
You are concluding that what you call "Calvinism" is making Him to be that.

In other words, as I see it, you're refusing to accept that the Lord is sovereign over the affairs of men;
That He rules the world and His creation as He sees fit.