What kind of Confession does your church embrace?

[Erinwilcox]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

 

[edie19]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

We ascribe to the LBC - currently going through it in our adult study.

It's solely an adjunct though - obviously, if the confession is in disagreement w Scripture - we hold w Scripture.

 

[StAnselm]

Is the confession in disagreement with Scripture?

 

[edie19]

Is the confession in disagreement with Scripture?

Not that I've noticed (and I've read it through at least a couple of times). I was actually quoting my pastor - if an extraBiblical source is in conflict w Scripture, we hold w Scripture.

 

[Erinwilcox]

One place where I do not fully agree is where it says that the Pope is THE Antichrist. It said that hundreds of years ago. Therefore, I believe that those popes were antichrists, but not The Antichrist. The new Pope could be, however, but it is too soon to tell.

 

[StAnselm]

My denomination holds to the Westminister Confession of Faith, read in the light of a declaratory statement that "clarifies" certain issues, and allows liberty of opinion on matters not essential to the WCF's system of doctrine.

I believe that "subordinate standards" are indeed confessions - that is, they are an expression of what we understand Scripture to be teaching.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church and the 1962 Canadian Revision of the Book of Common Prayer are the subordinate standards of my denomination.

I am also one of those crazy Puritan Anglicans who believes that the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith is part of our Anglican heritage as well.

 

[PaladinValer]

To which you'd be historically incorrect.

For a longer period of time, Anglicans have historically never even had the 39 Articles, which are progressively being thrown out of door, at least in terms of a Calvinist interpretation of them or blatantly Calvinist ones.

In reality, the Anglican Church adheres to:

1. The Bible [Scripture]
2. The Seven Ecumenical Councils [Tradition]
3. The Three Great Creeds (plus the Formula of Chalcedon, of course) [Tradition]
4. The Early Fathers (and those Early Mothers too, of course) [Tradition]
5. The Holy Spirit's influence on our own genius [Reason]

 

[StAnselm]

I don't see how it is even possible to interpret the 39 Articles in a non-Calvinist way...

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

I don't see how it is even possible to interpret the 39 Articles in a non-Calvinist way...

Me neither...

 

[PaladinValer]

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.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

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.

Most Calvinists, rightly, think that is blasphemy. We are not accepted as righteous on the basis of our good works done in grace, as theosis would have us believe, but on the basis of Christ's perfect righteousness.

 

[StAnselm]

I don't even know what theosis is. Would you be able to explain it to me?

 

[PaladinValer]

FPC, then tell me why the Church has always taught theosis?

Or does the Holy Spirit lie?

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination.

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination.

Gnostics and Manicheans were not Christian groups....and they were dualists.

Double predestination is a logical outworking of single predestination. I would be quite happy to affirm single predestination (to Life), but I don't see how it would functionally make a difference, since the unelect are passed over by God's good pleasure, they automatically form the massa damnata. They are a group unto themselves. Therefore, by virtue of the fact of God's passing them over, they are a category unto their own "the reprobate"

As for the "the Church has always taught it" argument - if the Church had 'always taught' that Peter was a gay hippy with one eye, would you believe it? NO! I would believe what the Bible says!

 

[PaladinValer]

The Gnostics and Manicheans taught a soteriology that is Calvinistic.

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity.

At least theosis is open to all.

 

[Jon_]

The Gnostics and Manicheans taught a soteriology that is Calvinistic.

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity.

At least theosis is open to all.

FPC, then tell me why the Church has always taught theosis?

Or does the Holy Spirit lie?

The Gnostics and the Manicheans taught otherwise, of course. They taught double predestination.

Wow. You, my friend, get the Darwin Award for the most fallacious argument of the century.

If I were you, I would be outright ashamed of the inference you are trying to draw here.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[FivePointCalvinist]

Gnosticism teaches that God chooses only a few to learn of the gnosis necessary for salvation, for example. Once you had it, you could never loose it. All others were doomed for eternity.

And Jesus taught that....

"....no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65b)

and

"....No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[a] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me..." (John 6:44-45)

and

27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

(John 10:27-29)

Jesus taught that those who come are taught and drawn by the Father. Obviously, not all come, so not all are drawn by the Father's sovereign grace. Jesus also taught eternal security (viz. the John 10 verses).

I guess that makes Jesus Christ a gnostic.

At least theosis is open to all.

And Biblical salvation is offered to all men. But not all men are drawn by the Father. This isn't even counting Paul's theology of Election - all I'm going on here is the words of Our Lord.

 

[StAnselm]

Again I ask, what is theosis?

 

[HiredGoon]

I was just wondering how many Calvinists hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. If you do not, what confession does your church hold to?

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