What kind of Confession does your church embrace?

[Jon_]

we also highly value the Three Forms of Unity.

That a PRC phrase if I have ever heard one. Have you been moonlighting on your OPC consistory?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[HiredGoon]

That a PRC phrase if I have ever heard one. Have you been moonlighting on your OPC consistory?

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Being in MI, we have a lot of former CRC members, like the PRC.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

In the OPC, the Westminster Standards, we also highly value the Three Forms of Unity.

The Creeds (Athanasian, Nicene, Apostles?)

Of course. Anglicans value those too - I thought those went without saying, though.

 

[Jon_]

The Creeds (Athanasian, Nicene, Apostles?)

Of course. Anglicans value those too - I thought those went without saying, though.

The three forms of unity are the Dutch Reformed creeds: The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[PaladinValer]

All humanity is drawn to God. Many simple reject it (their own fault) or never hear of it (blessed ignorance).

I suggest a few years' study of patristics.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

All humanity is drawn to God. Many simple reject it (their own fault) or never hear of it (blessed ignorance).

I suggest a few years' study of patristics.

If this is your position, interact with the words of Jesus and Saint Paul I provided above. If we put all the data together...

"No one can come unless the Father has enabled him..."

"No one can come unless the Father draws him..."

"No one can snatch them out of the Fathers hand"


If all humanity were drawn, then all humanity would be saved.

As for Patristics, I study the Fathers along with my study of Scripture. What I find in the Scripture of the Church Father's teaching, I value. What I do not find, I reject. If the Fathers exegesis of one place of Scripture is such that it is repugnant to another place, as yours is, then I reject that exegesis.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

Bumped for PaladinValer

 

[PaladinValer]

1. Grace isn't limited to simply faith. Grace is bestowed through other means, largely through the Sacraments, sacramentals, and good works. Even if you don't want to believe in the latter, the former two cannot be denied.
2. Grace again. See above
3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did.

 

[Jon_]

3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did.

What? Romans 1 talks about the state of unregenerate man. It says nothing of baptized believers forsaking the faith.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[PaladinValer]

You forgot that, back then, Baptism was the entrance into the Church. And that doctrine is still in play in all the Apostolic churches.

It is a story of apostates, and a clear rejection of Calvinism.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

1. Grace isn't limited to simply faith. Grace is bestowed through other means, largely through the Sacraments, sacramentals, and good works. Even if you don't want to believe in the latter, the former two cannot be denied.

Certainly, grace is bestowed to beleivers through the sacraments, especially Holy Communion whereby those who partake with a lively faith recieve the Body and Blood of Christ by faith (see the AoR, Art XXVIII, and the 1962 Canadian Book of Common Prayer, Order for Holy Communion, see the words whereby the minister gives the Holy Communion to the Communicant '

Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.)

And if by 'sacramentals' you mean 'holy water' and other such Popish inventions, these I reject outright

2. Grace again. See above

Huh?

3. Baptism may seal, but we can still forsake it. And those in Romans 1 did.

Romans 1 has nothing to do with baptism!!!

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

You forgot that, back then, Baptism was the entrance into the Church. And that doctrine is still in play in all the Apostolic churches.

It is a story of apostates, and a clear rejection of Calvinism.

I should also note that the Reformed believe that baptism is entrance into the Church. I quote two Reformed Anglican documents for your perusal.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.[/font]

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith

​

Chapter XXVIII​

Of Baptism​

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]​

​

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]​

​

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]​

​

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]​

​

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]​

​

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]​

​

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]​

​

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​

[/font]

 

[Royalist]

Glad to see you think the 39 Articles are reformed!

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

Glad to see you think the 39 Articles are reformed!

Indeed I do, Royalist. It's hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

Bumped for PaladinValer to respond.

 

[Royalist]

Indeed I do, Royalist. It's hard to believe anyone would think otherwise.

Bumped for PaladinValer to respond.

I agree but I have been reading a commentary on them by E.J.Bricknell who takes a very arminian line.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

I agree but I have been reading a commentary on them by E.J.Bricknell who takes a very arminian line.

Oh please...you've got be kidding me. Can a person really be Arminian with the 39 Articles?

Can this commentary be found online?

 

[rnmomof7]

The fact is, at the time, most Anglicans weren't Calvinist. On the contrary, they were either arminian or (especially those still loyal to Holy Tradition) theosis.

Of course, most Calvinists don't like that.

So then the men that ascribed to the 39 articles but did not believe them were liars?

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

Bumped for PaladinValer.

 

[5solas]

The London Baptist Confession of 1689

You can find it here or here
or here (with slight revisions by C.H. Spurgeon)

It's similar to the Westminster Confession (except concerning baptism of course)

There are some articles other denominations do not like especially #4 in Chapter 26 - but we still consider it to be biblically based and are not going to change it. That's just one of the reasons why we reject ecumenism very strongly (of course there are many other reasons as well (concerning soteriology, Bible etc.)).

Chapter 26, Article 4.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.
( Colossians 1:18; Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:11, 12; 2 Thessalonians 2:2-9 )

 

[edie19]

There are some articles other denominations do not like especially #4 in Chapter 26 - but we still consider it to be biblically based and are not going to change it. That's just one of the reasons why we reject ecumenism very strongly (of course there are many other reasons as well (concerning soteriology, Bible etc.

The Westminster says the same thing. I'm not saying I disagree, but in this day of "ecumenism" and the whole "evangelicals and Catholics together" issue, I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been a push to edit the confessions. Or maybe there has been and I live is such a bubble that I never noticed.