Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[DesertBerean]

Oh, lord.

[JohnMartin]

Oh, lord.

Is this the best you've got, or should we expect something better in the future?

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

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

[Roy]

According to Wiki the Westminster confession is the standard confession of faith for the Anglican Church, ...

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Bill the Cat]

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.

[JohnMartin]

Hello moderator

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

JM

[Bill the Cat]

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.

[JohnMartin]

Further problems with the theory of double imputation.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

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

[DesertBerean]

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.

[JohnMartin]

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

[One Bad Pig]

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.

[JohnMartin]

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

[Roy]

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:



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: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.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.

[JohnMartin]

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.

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.

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

[One Bad Pig]

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.