Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 159

Thread: Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Please note that the following problems are only presented to be read. There is no obligation for anyone to answer all of the problems. The reader may answer any problems as seen fit to do so.

    IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]

    1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
    Problem - Inspiration requires that God is the principle cause and men are secondary, free instrumental causes of the text. The text is written by both God and men, hence must be identified by an authority other than by God alone. For what is authored by man is recognised by man. Hence the scriptures as authored by men must be recognised by a body of men. Yet only that body which has an authority from God to recognise the text as authored by God can truly claim to have any sufficient reason to know the extent of the canon. The Anglican claim in point iv above is in error.

    Problem - Point IV says the authority of the Holy Scripture does not depend upon the testimony of any man. Yet the OT states the OT canon was from Moses, and the prophets, who were all men. And the chair of Moses (Matt 23:2) was an authority outside the scriptures that had an authority from God apart from the scriptures.

    Problem - 1 TH 2:13 equates the word of God with oral tradition, but the confession equates the word of God with the scriptures. The confession requires a faith in a proof text that says oral tradition is no longer in existence and hence no longer the word of God. So the confession requires one to believe the inspired word of God is known just as the oral word of God was known, but is now not binding. Hence the word of God in the scriptures is known based upon inconsistent evidence.

    Problem – Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself)”, and gives examples from the scriptures of men accepting the word of God. The examples assume the acceptance of the word of God by men in the apostolic age is a testimony of the existence of the word of God. Hence the canon of scripture is dependent upon the testimony of men in the examples given, contrary to the claim in Point IV. Hence the confession is inconsistent with regard to its claims.

    Problem - Point IV says “the authority of scripture . . . depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church”, yet the examples given (1 TH 2:13) show the apostles, who were pillars of the Church and preached the word of God, did give testimony of the word of God as the Church. So the Church in the apostolic age gave witness to the authority of scripture, in an age when the NT was not written. Hence the claim that the authority of scripture is not dependent upon the Church is an error.

    IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
    Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, how does the scripture interpret itself when scripture is only a text? Doesn’t the statement the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself require that the scripture be a person with intellect and will to actually do the interpreting of the text by itself without the need for any human agency?

    Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when scripture does not say this?

    Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, where does this doctrine come from when the scriptures does not teach men need go only to the scriptures to find doctrine?

    Problem - If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, why then must the scriptures be searched? Are the scriptures searching themselves, or are they being searched by another thing?

    Problem – If the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, what then is the role of biblical exegesis and the methods used? Are such methods also required to be infallible or not?

    Problem – If biblical exegesis is required to understand the text, then such is fallible and open to error. Doesn’t that mean the scriptures are open to error through false exegesis? If so, how does that square with the statement that the scriptures interpret the scriptures?

    Problem – “other places that speak more clearly” is a subjective statement, which infers the scriptures are known subjectively by the reader. Yet the principle that the “interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” excludes subjectivity, for the scriptures as authored by God are always objective.

    Problem - “other places that speak more clearly” infers some ambiguity or lack of clarity in some texts. If there is some lack of clarity in some texts, how does one know such texts were written by God when God always acts perfectly? Doesn’t a lack of clarity infer imperfection and mitigate against the inspiration of the text?

    X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
    Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, how does the scripture judge the extent of its own content before the content is determined? It cannot, hence point 10 is in error.

    Problem – If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what judgement is to be made about controversies concerning matters not contained within the scriptures, such as IVF, cloning, transgender issues, environmental issues, etc?

    Problem - If the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined is the scriptures, what value is the Westminster confession? Is it binding or not? If not then is point 10 binding or not?

    Problem – The Anglican Church teaches the human head of the Anglican Church is the head of state. Where is that office taught in scripture? Nowhere. So we have an example of the Anglican Church run by a person that holds an office within the Church that is not taught in scripture.

    Problem – The scriptures and church history give witness to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Yet low church Anglicanism denies this doctrine.

    Problem - The scriptures and church history give witness to the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Yet low church Anglicanism denies this doctrine, contrary to the teaching of high church Anglicanism.

    Problem - the Wstiminster confession is only one of several confessions found in Christendom. What authority does the confession have over other confessions and why have a confession if scripture is clear.

    Problem - If a man is justififed by faith and the several confessions contradict each other, or differ from each other, how are we to know who is justified, when Christians do not profess the same confession of faith?

    JM

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by thewriteranon View Post
    Nope. I'd just prefer not to be confused with a Presbyterian. I have grad school, work, volunteer commitments, and a whole lot of other things going on in my life. I don't have time for shenanigans.
    As you please my lady.

    JM

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertBerean View Post
    Good grief. All organizations have policy statements etc. To reflect their vision, mission, and procedures. How is that forbidden?
    The Westminster confession is only one of several confessions within the world of Protestant Christianity. Why believe any other them when none of them have any authority other than a denomination founded upon the decisions of a group of men?

    For example a quick search on Wiki shows many confessions of faith -

    Protestant denominations are usually associated with confessions of faith, which are similar to creeds but usually longer.
    The Sixty-seven Articles of the Swiss reformers, drawn up by Zwingli in 1523;
    The Schleitheim Confession of the Anabaptist Swiss Brethren drawn up in 1527 – (being Anabaptist, this confession was not Protestant in the usual sense);
    The Augsburg Confession of 1530, the work of Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, which marked the breach with Rome;
    The Tetrapolitan Confession of the German Reformed Church, 1530;
    The Smalcald Articles of Martin Luther, 1537
    The Guanabara Confession of Faith, 1558, the first Protestant writing in the Americas. By the martyr French Huguenots Jean du Bourdel, Matthieu Verneuil, Pierre Bourdon and André la Fon at the site of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
    The Gallic Confession, 1559;
    The Scots Confession, drawn up by John Knox in 1560;
    The Belgic Confession[7] drawn up by Guido de Bres[8] in 1561;
    The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England in 1562;
    The Formula of Concord and its Epitome in 1577;
    The Irish Articles in 1615;
    The Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647 was the work of the Westminster Assembly of Divines and has commended itself to the Presbyterian Churches of all English-speaking peoples, and also in other languages.
    The Savoy Declaration[9] of 1658 which was a modification of the Westminster Confession to suit Congregationalist polity;
    The Baptist Confession of 1689 which had much in common with the Westminster Confession, but differed from it on a number of distinctions held important by the English Calvinistic Baptists;
    The Confession of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists (Presbyterians) of Wales[10] of 1823.
    Why bother with any of them when none of them make any claims or can historically evidence any claims of authority for there denominations?

    JM
    Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-14-2016 at 02:06 AM.

  4. #14
    Child of the One True King Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Middle Earth, New Zealand
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,992
    Amen (Given)
    2419
    Amen (Received)
    2860
    Quote Originally Posted by DesertBerean View Post
    Good grief. All organizations have policy statements etc. To reflect their vision, mission, and procedures. How is that forbidden?
    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    because they might in some way lead people to have a problem with geocentricism.

    TheologyWeb Needs YOU! - Please Help Us Upgrade Tweb! Click here for more info


    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  5. Amen DesertBerean amen'd this post.
  6. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Problem - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?

    Problem - if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?

    Problem - If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?

    Problem - If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?

    Problem - If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?

    Problem - The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then beleive their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.

    Problem - If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -

    5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

    Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?

    Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.

    Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

    Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

    As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -

    At the heart of the Protestant consensus about the Gospel for the last 500 years is claim that our sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. This is “double imputation”. Others have called it the “Great Exchange”. Christ has died in our place, and in exchange we have been given new life in Christ. Scratch below the surface though and an interesting question emerges. Is there a transfer of righteousness – from one bank account to another in this process? This is to ask, what gets “exchanged” in the Great Exchange?

    The exchange is an exchange of verdicts rather than an exchange of moral character. Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. He is not actually a sinner nor is there any transfer of our sins to him. Whatever else one might want to say about Christ’s moral character, he has remained steadfastly faithful to his Father in heaven and was obedient to the point of death. Christ receives the verdict of death because he stands “in our place” at the cross. This is the meaning of the “imputation of sin”. So by contrast, we are “declared righteous” not because we are actually righteous or faithful, but because we stand in Christ’s place before God. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not to participate in one of God’s essential attributes but rather to be the beneficiaries of Christ’s messianic work.

    There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.
    The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

    1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

    2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

    3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

    4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

    5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

    Problem - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

    There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

    JM
    Last edited by JohnMartin; 11-14-2016 at 04:30 AM.

  7. #16
    41st Mojave Summer DesertBerean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Barstow, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    5,752
    Amen (Given)
    4736
    Amen (Received)
    1813
    Oh, lord.

  8. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote 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

  9. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,054
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    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

  10. #19
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,583
    Amen (Given)
    478
    Amen (Received)
    1260
    Quote 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 at 02:28 PM.
    Mountain Man: A skin cell is a skin cell. It doesn't grow, it doesn't organize, it doesn't adapt, it doesn't self-sustain, it doesn't metabolize, it doesn't respond to stimuli.

  11. #20
    Thanks Old Man... Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,599
    Amen (Given)
    6968
    Amen (Received)
    7217
    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.



    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 ---

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •