Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh, lord.
    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
      Oh, lord.
      Is this the best you've got, or should we expect something better in the future?

      JM

      Comment


      • #18
        Further Problems with the Double Imputation Theory –

        RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.

        “…If any statement summarizes and capture the essence of the Reformation view, it is Luther’s famous Latin formula ‘simul justus et peccator.’ ‘Simil’ is the word from which we get the English ‘simultaneous;’ it means ‘at the same time.’ ‘Justus’ is the Latin word for ‘just’ or ‘righteous.’ ‘Et’ simply means ‘and.’ ‘Peccator’ means ‘sinner.’ So, with this formula, – ‘at the same time just and sinner’ – Luther was saying that in our justification, we are at the same time righteous and sinful. …He was saying that, in one sense, we are just. In another sense, we are sinners. In and of ourselves, under God’s scrutiny, we still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.”

        “This is the very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ? If I have to trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed. But when we see that the righteousness that is ours by faith is the perfect righteousness of Christ, we see how glorious is the good news of the gospel. The good news is simply this: I can be reconciled to God. I can be justified, not on the basis of what I do, but on the basis of what has been accomplished for me by Christ.”

        “Of course, Protestantism really teaches a double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Jesus and his righteousness is imputed to us. In this twofold transaction, we see that God does not compromise his integrity in providing salvation for his people. Rather, he punishes sin fully after it has been imputed to Jesus. This is why he is able to be both ‘just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ as Paul writes in Romans 3:26. So my sin goes to Jesus and his righteousness comes to me.”

        “This is a truth worth dividing the church.”

        “This is the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on which we all stand or fall.”
        The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

        Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

        1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

        2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

        3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

        4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

        5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

        6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

        7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

        8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

        9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

        10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

        11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

        The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

        1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

        2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

        3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

        4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

        5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

        The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

        Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

        One other criticism of the theory - the theory requires that God's law be perfectly kept all the time. The theory also teaches God is a Trinity of persons. Hence the theory assumes the supernatural (SN) life within God is real. This (SN) life implies that those who get to see God face to face, see Him as a Trinity. So even if men kept the 10 commandments perfectly they still would not be albe to see God, for only men granted grace of divine sonship can see God. Keeping the law perfectly would only bring man to a natural end as the true end of keeping laws within human nature. But by assuming the SN life of God is true, the theory requires that not only is man required to keep the law, but even if he did, he still would not get to heaven. Hence the premise within the theory of mans requirement to keep the law is superfluous to the end of the theory, which is the justification of man and final glorificaion in heaven. In other words, the theory is inconsistent with its appliction of the meaning of what the law is, and is consequently illogical.

        Stated another way, the theory is based upon a premise that requires men to perfectly keep the law, but then ignores the consequence of what would occur if men actually did perfectly keep the law - they still would not get to heaven. Yet the theory assumes the perfectly keeping the law would bring men to heaven. Hence the theory requires a false understanding of what the law is and what would occur if the law was kept. The theory implies that if the law was kept perfectly then men would go to heaven, when in fact it has been revealed in the bible that God has elevated men to the SN life of God in heaven. As the SN life of heaven is above keeping any law, even by perfectly keeping the law, does not conclude to men would get to heaven. Hence the theory requires a false understanding of what the law does when promulagated by God and what keeping the law does for men. Hence the theory is false.

        Staed in short - the final end of perfectly keeping the law is only a natural beatitude and not the SN beatitude of the biblical heaven, where the Trinity is seen face to face. The theory assumes the Trinity would be seen if men perfectly kept the law, when such is not possible. For natural acts have natural ends, and heaven is not a natural end, but a SN end, above the natural end of the law.

        JM

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          According to Wiki the Westminster confession is the standard confession of faith for the Anglican Church, ...
          Edited by a Moderator
          Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-14-2016, 09:28 AM.
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • #20
            Moderated By: Bill the Cat

            Roy, this is Ecclesiology 201. You are not allowed to post here without moderator approval.

            ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
            Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            - Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #21
              Hello moderator

              I don't mind if Roy makes some posts. I'm interested to see what he has to say.

              JM

              Comment


              • #22
                Moderated By: Bill the Cat

                From this point on, Roy has permission to post in this thread.

                Please remember the restrictions of this forum: Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first

                ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #23
                  Further problems with the theory of double imputation.

                  1) The theory requires that faith is an instrument by which Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner. Those who advocate faith as an instrumental cause do so by citing passages such as the following –

                  According to RC Sproul –

                  “Of course, Protestantism really teaches a double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Jesus and his righteousness is imputed to us. In this twofold transaction, we see that God does not compromise his integrity in providing salvation for his people. Rather, he punishes sin fully after it has been imputed to Jesus. This is why he is able to be both ‘just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ as Paul writes in Romans 3:26. So my sin goes to Jesus and his righteousness comes to me.”
                  Romans 3:26 says he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Yet there is nothing here that demonstrates faith is the instrumental cause of justification. The reformers simply do not have any text that says faith is an instrumental cause of justification. Every text they use is merely an exercise in eisegesis of the text to project their own theory into the passages presented.

                  According to the Westminster Confession –

                  II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]

                  JOH 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
                  The power God gave to men of faith is not the imputed righteousness of the reformers, but the power of divine sonship. Divine sonship is a Catholic doctrine, whereby sonship is an effect of God infusing grace into the soul. The grace given makes men just as sons of God. John 1:12 only shows justification is Catholic and not Reformed. Further, there is no evidence in John 1:12 that faith is an instrumental cause.

                  ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

                  ROM 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
                  The preposition by in the above two passages does not provide any evidence for faith as an instrumental cause. The preposition by can be understood as faith as a virtue within man acting to cause men to believe what God has told men. The virtue of faith acts along with grace within the soul to cause justification. Rom 3:28 and 5:1 are better understood within the Catholic teaching of faith as a theological virtue that acts with hope and love and sanctifying grace to procure justification.

                  Faith is not stated to be an instrument in the biblical text, as required by the double imputation theory. As the Reformation theory has no examples from the bible showing faith is an instrument, the theory relies upon an understanding of faith that is unbiblical.

                  2) The theory requires that faith is an instrumental cause of the elect being justified. The elect are those predestined to get to heaven by God granting faith to men, who would otherwise not believe. When those who have faith also have righteousness imputed to them, they are seen by God as just and righteous. Yet in heaven, men do not have faith, nor are they sinners. So for the double imputation theory to hold, the theory must account for how the elect are sinners with imputed righteousness in this life, but in the next life are saints who perfectly keep the law in heaven, without faith and hence without imputed righteousness.

                  The double imputation theory then requires that faith causes righteousness without men actually being righteous. Then men without faith in heaven do have infused righteousness as the cause of lawful action, without imputed righteousness which had previously been attained in this life by faith alone. As such, the elect must go through a process of justification and sanctification in this life, where sanctification grows, making men intrinsically righteous. And justification diminishes, making men less and less extrinsically righteous until justification is no longer required in the next life where there is no faith. The theory then requires the sole cause of justification in this life, is no longer a cause of justification in the next.

                  The theory then requires that God who can and actually does make men intrinsically righteous, does not do so in justification in this life, but does so in sanctification in this life. God then does not act consistently with His means of justification in this life, with men in the next life, and continue to impute Christ’s righteousness by faith alone, but must grant Christ’s righteousness to men by another manner. The manner of imputing righteousness to men in the next life, done without faith means God can also justify men in this life without faith, yet He chooses not to do so. The convoluted and arbitrary nature of God’s dealing with men implies the double imputation theory is false, by making God’s means of causing justification arbitrary.

                  Alternatively, the theory requires that those in heaven still have an imputed righteousness in heaven. Yet so, the imputed righteousness is procured without the instrumental cause of faith, as the sole means of justification. If so, the double imputation theory is inconsistent in its claims concerning the sole cause of faith as an instrument of imputed righteousness. Hence the theory is false.

                  3) The double imputation theory posits that faith alone is required to impute Christ’s righteousness to a mans account. Hence the Reformers say there is no need for purgatory where men are purged from sin and are justly given the punishments for sin. Yet in heaven the elect are no longer sinners and perfectly keep the law, or they don’t. If they don’t then they live with the Father, who has the power to make the elect keep the law, but does not grant them the power to do so. If so, the Father is deficient and is not the true Father God of the bible. If they do keep the law, then sinners in this life must be transformed into saints to stop sinning and keep the law. Hence there must be an intermediate stage between sinners who die and saints who live in heaven. Yet such an intermediate state is denied by the double imputation theory. Hence the theory is inconsistent with its affirmation and denial of an intermediate state between this life and heaven. Therefore the double imputation is false.

                  4) The double imputation theory requires the Holy Spirit (HS) causes faith and santification within men. So when the HS acts within men to cause faith, the Father imputes Christ's righteousness apart from any santifying cause of the HS acting within men. As the Father declares men righteous, even though the HS has made men righteous, the Father's declaration is 1) merely nominal and then false, and 2) made contrary to the intent of the DI theory which says men are declared righteous but remain sinners. Hence the DI theory requires a false understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit and righteousness within men. Hence the theory is false.

                  5) The double imputation theory requires the Holy Spirit causes the process of sanctification within men. Yet when the Holy Spirit causes faith within men, that faith is credited as an extrinsic, alien righteousness apart from any sanctification caused by the Holy Spirit. Such a crediting of extrinsic righteousness apart from the sanctifying cause of the Holy Spirit implies the crediting of righteousness is indifferent to the work of the Holy Spirit, who is God, yet disposed towards the work of Christ who is God. So to credit righteousness, God must ignore the sanctifying work of God as the Holy Spirit, but must be arbitrarily disposed to acknowledging the work of Jesus on the cross. Such arbitrary judgement by God in the act of crediting righteousness means God must ignore the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, even though Jesus died, and ascended into heaven to send the Holy Spirit. The Spirits work in men is then caused by Jesus, but ignored by God when God acts to justify. God must then both acknowledge Jesus work on the cross but ignore Jesus work in sending the Holy Spirit as the cause of sanctity in men.

                  Of course, because the Holy Spirit is God, justification is a declaration by the Holy Spirit, who causes sanctity, but must ignore His own work within men and only focus on the past act of Jesus on the cross. This judgment by the Holy Spirit is eclectic and against the nature of God who always judges in accord with the real. The arbitrary nature of the legal declaration, which both acknowledges and ignores the work of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in different respects indicates that the double imputation theory is false.

                  6) The double imputation theory requires that God credit righteousness when righteousness is not inherent within men. The crediting is meant to bring peace between an angry God and sinful men. Yet such peace is only a fiction, for men still remain sinners, whereby sin is a cause of turmoil. The peace achieved through legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a false solution that brings a false peace. As the real God does not act falsely, but is required to act falsely within the theory, then the god of the double imputation theory is a false god. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

                  7a) The double imputation (DI) theory teaches men are justified by faith alone. When men have faith, they are justified. When men do not have faith, they are not justified. So if a man has faith, then loses faith, he moves from justification to condemnation. The DI theory teaches that Jesus suffered for all the sins of the elect, except sins against faith. For if faith is lost and not regained then those who permanently lose faith go to hell. Yet if faith is lost and regained, then Christ did die for sins against faith committed by the elect, when faith is regained. So according to the DI theory, Christ did not die for sins against faith, for those predestined to hell, but did die for sins against faith, for those predestined to heaven. Therefore the sins against faith are both redeemed by Jesus for some and not for others. The cross then becomes the arbitrary tool of God’s will, who chooses to redeem some sins of the elect and not the same sins of the non-elect. The arbitrary nature of redemption within the DI theory makes the theory false.

                  7b) Alternatively, the DI theory says faith can never be lost. So if one has faith, then seems to lose faith at a later time, the original act of faith made either in the past or present, must be accounted as no faith. So as we do not know the future, we do not know if a man will seem to lose faith in the future. Therefore we do not know if anyone really has faith in the present for the future may reveal a present, apparent believer is really only a pretend believer. Therefore, as we do not know who has faith in the present, then all assurance of justification is lost, by the lack of knowledge of any future apparent sins against faith. The inherent instability regarding the nature of faith within the DI theory shows the theory promotes a false assurance of justification. Hence the theory is false.

                  8) The double imputation (DI) theory says God predestines all things, which includes God acting to predestine men to have faith and others not to have faith. God predestines some to demonstrate His mercy and others to demonstrate His justice. God could predestine all men to believe but choses not to do so. Therefore because God has chosen not to grant all men justifying faith, God has preferred that some men be damned rather than saved. As the work of faith is entirely from God and men cannot freely act to believe, God’s predestining will for the damned is an act of malice towards sinners, done for the sake of God demonstrating the perfection of justice towards some. But to demonstrate justice towards some by choosing not the act to save some, God does not demonstrate the perfection of mercy to those men. By God acting this way towards men, the DI theory requires God to act in the manner of a creature, where God creates out of a need to demonstrate some perfection to some creatures and not to others. The need to demonstrate perfections to creatures is a need that anthropomorphises God, and thereby reduces God down to a creature with needs. The DI theory requires God to be a creaturely, arbitrary despot who manipulates all outcomes for His own ego. As the DI theory concludes to an anthropomorphisation of God, the theory is false.

                  9) The bible tells us that God is love. So God must always act with good will towards all men. Yet the DI theory says God only acts with good will towards some men and not others. Therefore the DI theory is a theory that ignores the consequence of God’s good will to all men, and reduces God’s love, to a love of free choice of some over others, rather than a love from the nature of God. The DI theory requires that God not act as love, making the theory false.

                  10) The DI theory says God predestines some to demonstrate His mercy and others to demonstrate His justice. But there is no reason ever given for why God need demonstrate anything through justice to some and mercy to others. So the DI theory is merely based upon an interpretation of some bible verses, without any justification for why those verse actually mean what the DI advocates think those verses mean. Hence the DI theory is without any explanatory value concerning 1) who gets to heaven and who does not, and 2) why Jesus suffered on the cross arbitrarily for some and not others. Hence the DI theory is false.

                  11) The DI theory concludes to God as having a profound schizophrenia towards sin. God is both 1) righteous and cannot tolerate sin in any man. And, 2) righteous, but does tolerate any sin whatsoever, other than sin against faith for the elect. The schizophrenia within God towards sin concludes that the DI theory is false.

                  12) The DI theory concludes to God viewing men as two distinct races, making humanity both united as human, but diverse when seen through the lens of the DI theory. The DI theory assumes all men have the same nature, as human. But the theory also says God sees the elect and non-elect through the lens of faith and justification, which is only caused by God. So God sees all men as men, but all men as two groups of the elect and non-elect. The elect are loved by God and the non-elect are hated by God. So all men are equally human, but some are the object of His love and others the object of His hate. Therefore the DI theory concludes to God sees what He wants to see in men, because He chooses to see what He wants to see. He chooses to see two races of humanity in humanity, when there is really only one humanity. Consequently, the god of the DI theory is the author of reality and therefore objective, but deals with reality in a subjective manner. The convoluted manner of God’s dealing with man as both the objects of love and hate, for no intrinsic reason within man is capricious. Therefore the DI theory is false. It’s as though the DI god has a fetish, and by golly someone’s gonna cop a hiding for that fetish, no matter how unnecessary that fetish is.

                  13) The DI theory requires a novel understanding of faith, the cross, Jesus suffering, law, righteousness, justification, sanctification, authority, exegetical method, ignorance of the Church fathers and so on. The novel meanings granted to these words indicates that the theory is entirely novel and foreign to the Lord who governs history. Hence the theories novelties signify that the theory is contrived and therefore false.

                  14) The DI theory is in part based upon the Luther narrative that tells us of Luther's trauma over his relationship to God. Apparently Luther suffered much over his sins and could not find relief concerning his troubled conscience. The Luther story says he found peace in his version of the gospel that says men are justified by faith alone (Rom 3:28). But for the story to have any currency, one must buy into the Luther problem as his own problem, and the Luther solution to the problem as the universal solution to the problem of sin. The problems with the Luther story are multiple.

                  A) Not all men suffer from the scrupulous problems Luther encountered, so his problem does not apply universally. Therefore both the Luther problem the solution to Luther's problem are not the Lutheran gospel of faith alone.

                  B) The Lutheran gospel assumes God sent Luther to teach humanity the true gospel apart from Church history. Such a claim is of course against the nature of God who owns church history and has taught the true gospel within the church from the time of the apostles. The Luther story is then contrary to the nature of divine revelation, and the divine power that governs history.

                  C) The Luther story has no genuine claim to authority. The story is only that of a troubled man and does not conclude to a divine mandate to force men to agree with the story, when the men within the story has no authority. The Luther story assumes an authority it simply does not have.

                  D) The Luther problem was not the problem of the Calvinists, nor the problem of other Protestants. So the Luther problem is not the occasion for the reformation version of the gospel, even according to the witness of the Reformers.

                  E) Luther claimed to be a reformer, yet his many novel doctrines concludes that he reformed nothing. The truth is Luther was a rebellious revolutionary who made up his own version of Lutheran theology, made apart from revelation and the Church.

                  F) Luther changed his mind many times during his career on many points of doctrine. Hence any claims that Luther was a reformer, must ignore his many doctrinal instabilities. If we are to maintain the notion that Luther was a reformer, logically because Luther changed his mind so often, Luther was also a reformer of his own version of Christianity.

                  G) Luther's story contains circumstantial evidence for his own abusive childhood catching up with him as an adult. The abusive nature of his upbringing can be traced to his own abusive manner of dealing with others who dissented from him. Lutheran theology is then a product of an abused man, which concludes to Lutheran theology as having no applicability to the universal church.

                  H) The Luther story is simply not a compelling narrative. The man promoted a version of Christianity that contains many doctrines equivalent to a fictional world of a novel. One such theory is the double imputation theory. To believe the narrative means one must believe the fictional version of Luther's fictional Trinity who capriciously acts to elect and damn for His own motives.

                  JM
                  Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-14-2016, 07:31 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    Is this the best you've got, or should we expect something better in the future?

                    JM
                    It means I foresee a 100,000 word book coming in each of your posts.
                    Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                      It means I foresee a 100,000 word book coming in each of your posts.
                      You can always ask a question in the spirit of the thread to further our mutual understanding of the topic at hand.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        Would you be interested in defending the catechism you hold to? What are the official documents of North American Anglicanism? To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism seems like a place to start if you wish.

                        I do not beleive the Westminster confession or catechism can be successfully defended.

                        JM
                        Given the intransigence displayed in your refusal to acknowledge your basic error regarding Anglicans and the Westminster Confession, I'm not exactly interested in debating the finer points of theology with you. Otherwise I might consider it as an academic exercise.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Given the intransigence displayed in your refusal to acknowledge your basic error regarding Anglicans and the Westminster Confession, I'm not exactly interested in debating the finer points of theology with you. Otherwise I might consider it as an academic exercise.
                          The Westminster confession represents the doctrine and church polity of 17th-century English and Scottish Presbyterianism.

                          Now can we discuss anything pertinent on the topic at hand?

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                            I don't mind if Roy makes some posts. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
                            I was pointing out that as usual your 'problems' stem from your own misunderstanding.

                            For example:
                            According to Wiki the Westminster confession is the standard confession of faith for the Anglican Church, ...
                            The basis of your post is wrong.

                            According to Wiki, the Westminster Confession was adopted by an act of parliament in 1648, amid the civil war, but that act was overturned in 1660 when Anglicism became the state church once more:

                            "After vigorous debate, the Confession was then in part adopted as the Articles of Christian Religion in 1648, by act of the English parliament, omitting section 4 of chapter 20 (Of Christian Liberty), sections 4–6 of chapter 24 (Of Marriage and Divorce), and chapters 30 and 31 (Of Church Censures and Of Synods and Councils). The next year, the Scottish parliament ratified the Confession without amendment.

                            In 1660, restoration of the British monarchy and Anglican episcopacy resulted in the nullification of these acts of the two parliaments."


                            The Westminster confession hasn't been sanctioned in England for more than 300 years. Any 'problems' you identify can be dismissed as being no longer relevant.

                            Also, a quick glance at your 'problems' shows that many are trivially resolvable:
                            Problem – The NT states the gospel was delivered orally by the apostles. How then does the example of the apostles square with the Westminster confessions claim that the oral gospel has ceased?
                            The Westminster Confession was written 1600 years after the apostles were preaching. That's plenty of time for the oral transmission of the gospel to cease.
                            Problem – If oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, why doesn’t the NT actually say such?
                            Probably because oral traditions ceased after the NT was written. This is akin to complaining that Tacitus's annals don't mention World War II.
                            Problem - if Christ's has priestly intercession in heaven what is the relationship to the work of the cross?
                            That's not a problem, only a question.

                            As with heliocentrism and relativity, the only problems are your ineptitude and lack of understanding.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              I don't mind if Roy makes some posts. I'm interested to see what he has to say.
                              I was pointing out that as usual your 'problems' stem from your own misunderstanding.

                              For example:
                              According to Wiki the Westminster confession is the standard confession of faith for the Anglican Church, ...
                              The basis of your post is wrong.

                              According to Wiki, the Westminster Confession was adopted by an act of parliament in 1648, amid the civil war, but that act was overturned in 1660 when Anglicism became the state church once more:

                              "After vigorous debate, the Confession was then in part adopted as the Articles of Christian Religion in 1648, by act of the English parliament, omitting section 4 of chapter 20 (Of Christian Liberty), sections 4–6 of chapter 24 (Of Marriage and Divorce), and chapters 30 and 31 (Of Church Censures and Of Synods and Councils). The next year, the Scottish parliament ratified the Confession without amendment.

                              In 1660, restoration of the British monarchy and Anglican episcopacy resulted in the nullification of these acts of the two parliaments."

                              The Westminster confession hasn't been sanctioned in England for more than 300 years. Any 'problems' you identify can be dismissed as being no longer relevant.
                              The problems are not so much about who believes the Westminster confession, but the content of the confession. The confession is believed by Presbyterians, rather than the Anglicans currently. Apparently there was a time when Anglicans did believe the confession.

                              The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
                              Also, a quick glance at your 'problems' shows that many are trivially resolvable:

                              Problem – The NT states the gospel was delivered orally by the apostles. How then does the example of the apostles square with the Westminster confessions claim that the oral gospel has ceased?

                              The Westminster Confession was written 1600 years after the apostles were preaching. That's plenty of time for the oral transmission of the gospel to cease.
                              And yet you have provided no evidence that the oral gospel has ceased. You only assume time has killed off the oral gospel. Nowhere in the NT did Jesus command any text to be written by any apostle. Jesus told the apostles to preach the gospel and that is what they did. Subsequently some of the apostles wrote down some of the gospel in the NT. The early Church practice and subsequent church life shows the church never depended only upon the NT for the full gospel. Historical Christianity is dependent upon the NT, oral tradition and the teaching authority in the church.

                              Problem – If oral traditions have ceased and are no longer binding, why doesn’t the NT actually say such?

                              Probably because oral traditions ceased after the NT was written. This is akin to complaining that Tacitus's annals don't mention World War II.
                              Again, no evidence is presented. You have only assumed the problem has been resolved historically. The problem will not go away that easily. The early church and later church practice was based upon more than one source of revelation.

                              Problem - if Christ's has priestly intercession in heaven what is the relationship to the work of the cross?

                              That's not a problem, only a question.
                              Protestants claim Christ's atoning work was finished on the cross. Yet Christ had to be raised from the dead and then intercede at the right hand of the Father. Post cross works of Christ mitigate against their claim. As usual, the Protestant theology is full of problems that don't go away when examined rationally.

                              As with heliocentrism and relativity, the only problems are your ineptitude and lack of understanding.
                              As usual, you make claims without much evidence. You have not demonstrated that the problems within the Westminster confession stem from my ineptitude or lack of understanding. In fact the only thing you have demonstrated is your ability to make another vacuous claim on this thread. The above problems remain unresolved as do all the probems and questions presented on this thread.

                              Observation - As we see above, I have noticed during my time at Tweb, that atheists and Protestants team up with each other from time to time. I wonger why that is so? Could it be that Protestantism is really agnostic, and the Protestants see a kindred spirit in the atheist unbeleiver, who is only a few logical steps away from them? Or does the atheist see the shambles of Protestantism and see a kindred, closet unbeliever in the Protestant?

                              Something to think about.

                              Note an example of Protestant agnosticism - there are several positions taken by Protestants on baptism. Hence the Protestant understanding of baptism is so mixed up that nobody can clearly state the true meaning and application of baptism. This is a clear example of agnosticism within Protestantism.

                              I also know from personal experience that when I ask a Protestant about whether the content of the doctrine in the bible can be known, the usual response is we cannot know what the doctrinal content of the bible is. Hence Protestantism leads to an agnostic understanding of divine revelation.

                              JM
                              Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-15-2016, 06:02 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                I also know from personal experience that when I ask a Protestant about whether the content of the doctrine in the bible can be known, the usual response is we cannot know what the doctrinal content of the bible is. Hence Protestantism leads to an agnostic understanding of divine revelation.

                                JM
                                As a former Protestant, I'm going to call bull on this.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X