BCF_WCF

[civic]

Nothing empty on my part since I know the doctrines of Calvin inside and out.

 

[PeanutGallery]

The error is that the premise and conclusion are not from either Calvinism or the Baptist Confession.
The very first line of the OP implies that both the premise and conclusions reflect what the BCF and WCF teach (but they do not). That is an error.

The entire topic is a discussion of YOUR beliefs (stated in the OP) and not the beliefs of the BCF/WCF.

Rephrase:
a) The premise reflects BCF/WCF
b) Given that the conclusion does not reflect BCF/WCF; what is the error in the conclusion.

 

[Rockson]

Start by actually READING the Baptist Confession of Faith (BCF) or Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) where the matter is explained in detail. Then if you have specific questions about specific parts that need more clarification … ask them.

Problem with something you're saying here. You surely KNOW already why a great many reject the WCF....the part about God decreeing and ordaining all things, and yet doing this he did not violate the will of men. Why should it be considered that reasonable men can't clearly understand what the words say?

No offence but If Calvinists have created a document which so many, many, many are taking an odd line wrongly then as far as I'm concerned they lacked great insight in putting it all together to begin with. I'd say they need to go back to the drawing board and reconstruct the ordaining thing but let's not hear the charge that people are confused to what the words currently found there mean.

 

[atpollard]

Problem with something you're saying here. You surely KNOW already why a great many reject the WCF....the part about God decreeing and ordaining all things, and yet doing this he did not violate the will of men. Why should it be considered that reasonable men can't clearly understand what the words say?

I am a Particular Baptist, so I trace my theological roots back to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. I only mention this because I disagree with many of the details in the Westminster Confession of Faith (which leads to groups like the Presbyterian Church) and as a result I am MUCH less familiar with the finer details of the WCF.

So you will need to find someone that accepts the WCF if you wish to debate minutiae of the WCF with them … I am simply not that person.

I posted an excerpt from the Baptist Confession with a link to the Baptist Confession translated into Modern English. If you wanted to read the BCF in modern English and discuss whether the keynote verses support the stated conclusions of the BCF, I would be happy to oblige. If you are only interested in the WCF, then I wish you luck in finding a WCF supporter to discuss it with.

 

[atpollard]

Problem with something you're saying here. You surely KNOW already why a great many reject the WCF....the part about God decreeing and ordaining all things, and yet doing this he did not violate the will of men. Why should it be considered that reasonable men can't clearly understand what the words say?

No offence but If Calvinists have created a document which so many, many, many are taking an odd line wrongly then as far as I'm concerned they lacked great insight in putting it all together to begin with. I'd say they need to go back to the drawing board and reconstruct the ordaining thing but let's not hear the charge that people are confused to what the words currently found there mean.

What I find confusing is how people that take your position can possibly reconcile the role of God in the book of Job or the story of Joseph. Would you care to set aside all “theological terms and definitions” and simply discuss what God did and what God did not do and what God is responsible for and what God is not responsible for in either of those two stories? Then we can attempt to apply whatever we learn to people living today (free will or no free will).

 

[civic]

Problem with something you're saying here. You surely KNOW already why a great many reject the WCF....the part about God decreeing and ordaining all things, and yet doing this he did not violate the will of men. Why should it be considered that reasonable men can't clearly understand what the words say?

No offence but If Calvinists have created a document which so many, many, many are taking an odd line wrongly then as far as I'm concerned they lacked great insight in putting it all together to begin with. I'd say they need to go back to the drawing board and reconstruct the ordaining thing but let's not hear the charge that people are confused to what the words currently found there mean.

Ditto

 

[atpollard]

Ditto

I am still Particular Baptist and not a champion of the WCF … for one thing, WE DON’T BAPTIZE BABIES!
We only baptize BELIEVERS!

 

[civic]

I am still Particular Baptist and not a champion of the WCF … for one thing, WE DON’T BAPTIZE BABIES!
We only baptize BELIEVERS!

But you believe tulip, sovereignty as described by both Calvin and the WCF along with double predestination as described by Calvin and the WCF correct ?

 

[TedT]

Is God guilty for the death of Job’s sons?
Do you accuse God of murder?

The death of a convicted criminal by a properly appointed Judge is RIGHTEOUS JUSTICE. Murder is causing the unrighteous death of another for one's personal gain.

Jacob's sons were sinners under the penalty of death whether elect of non-elect. They died for their own sinfulness, not by an unrighteous decree of GOD...sheesh.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The death of a convicted criminal by a properly appointed Judge is RIGHTEOUS JUSTICE. Murder is causing the unrighteous death of another for one's personal gain.

Jacob's sons were sinners under the penalty of death whether elect of non-elect. They died for their own sinfulness, not by an unrighteous decree of GOD...sheesh.

JUSTICE: When you're punished for stealing money.
SOCIAL JUSTICE: When you're punished for earning money.

Off topic, but I couldn't resist.

 

[atpollard]

But you believe tulip, sovereignty as described by both Calvin and the WCF along with double predestination as described by Calvin and the WCF correct ?

I don’t know … I have never read “The Institutes”, so I don’t know the details of what John Calvin believed. I skimmed through the WCF once, long ago, and found it too dry … I remember there were things that I disagreed with how the WCF worded them.

I agree with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (neutral on Calvinism vs Arminianism) and I agree with almost all of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. I really prefer the Heidelberg Catechism. I do embrace the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) as defined in scripture (and I learned most of what I believe FROM SCRIPTURE). I like most of Spurgeon, but find him too verbose.

I have posted the core of my beliefs on TULIP from John 6:44 and I believe Ephesians 2:1-10 covers a LOT of soteriological ground.

I believe what Sproul calls Positive-negative double predestination. God actively saves some and God allows the rest the freedom to pursue the damnation they naturally desire.

 

[atpollard]

The death of a convicted criminal by a properly appointed Judge is RIGHTEOUS JUSTICE. Murder is causing the unrighteous death of another for one's personal gain.

Jacob's sons were sinners under the penalty of death whether elect of non-elect. They died for their own sinfulness, not by an unrighteous decree of GOD...sheesh.

You might want to reread my post and scripture and answer again. JOB’s sons (not Jacob) … you remember, God baits Satan, Satan kills Job’s children but is forbidden to touch Job.

What is God’s culpability in the death of those children?
Who killed them? (God or Satan)?

 

[TedT]

The WCF is double speak like I pointed out.

Doublespeak is caused by the cognitive dissonance of their having to believe opposites are both true at the same time: their doctrine that GOD is loving yet has passed some over for salvation for no dismerit found in them. Logic suggests that A cannot be not-A at the same time in the same way which often results in doublespeak or a change in which doctrines to accept.

 

[TedT]

JOB’s sons (not Jacob) … you remember, God baits Satan, Satan kills Job’s children but is forbidden to touch Job.

You are right - I misread Job for Jacob...sigh. But...

Job's sons are just as guilty of being sinful as Jacob's sons!! As sinners all death is righteous!!

There is no difference between sinners in their death - all die a righteous death when their tIme to die comes; Job 14:5 A man’s days are numbered. You know the number of his months. He cannot live longer than the time You have set.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

That GOD chose their righteous time of death for their sin to coincide with Satan's choosing victims for his demonic terrorism, who or why causes their death is moot. You seem to be thinking that they were not sinners or not under HIS timing for their death...??

If GOD wants their deaths to expose the horror of the depth of Satan's evil by his absolute evil over-reaction to YHWH mentioning that HE likes Job, what is that to anyone else? It proves HIS point that Satan cannot ever repent and therefore his banishment to hell with his demonic cohorts is an absolute necessity!

 

[atpollard]

You are right - I misread Job for Jacob...sigh. But...

Job's sons are just as guilty of being sinful as Jacob's sons!! As sinners all death is righteous!!

There is no difference between sinners in their death - all die a righteous death when their tIme to die comes; Job 14:5 A man’s days are numbered. You know the number of his months. He cannot live longer than the time You have set.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

That GOD chose their righteous time of death for their sin to coincide with Satan's choosing victims for his demonic terrorism, who or why causes their death is moot. You seem to be thinking that they were not sinners or not under HIS timing for their death...??

If GOD wants their deaths to expose the horror of the depth of Satan's evil by his absolute evil over-reaction to YHWH mentioning that HE likes Job, what is that to anyone else? It proves HIS point that Satan cannot ever repent and therefore his banishment to hell with his demonic cohorts is an absolute necessity!

The disconnect for me is this: If God is not responsible for the death of Job’s sons (because of God’s actions in permitting and restraining Satan) then why is God responsible for the damnation of reprobates? God did not MAKE Satan kill Job’s children and God did not MAKE the reprobate sin and reject Christ … God ALLOWED both actions, but God did not force them.

God FORED Job to live by forbidding Satan from killing him. God FORCED the Saints to live by “removing their heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh”.

Yet so many shake their fist at God (at least the “God of Calvinism”) for forcing sinners to sin.

 

[atpollard]

Nothing empty on my part since I know the doctrines of Calvin inside and out.

Then you know that the Reformation predates John Calvin. It was the Lutheran State Church that began calling Reformed Theology “Calvinism” as a rhetorical insult to imply that these new “Sola Scriptura” reformers were following the teaching of men instead of the approved teachings of the Official State Church [oh, the irony].

 

[civic]

Then you know that the Reformation predates John Calvin. It was the Lutheran State Church that began calling Reformed Theology “Calvinism” as a rhetorical insult to imply that these new “Sola Scriptura” reformers were following the teaching of men instead of the approved teachings of the Official State Church [oh, the irony].

Revisionism. I’m talking about Calvin and Calvinism.

 

[TedT]

God did not MAKE Satan kill Job’s children and God did not MAKE the reprobate sin and reject Christ … God ALLOWED both actions, but God did not force them.

If HE did MAKE Satan kill them it was righteous because they were under the death penalty for their being sinful no matter how HE chooses to execute that sentence.

It is not the same as accusing HIM for making the reprobate sin and rejecting Christ...because does not Calvinism say HE elected some for salvation UNCONDITIONALLY ie, for no merit found in them...
which implies that those passed over for being elected to salvation were passed over for no condition of dismerit found in them! How can that be loving?

Unconditional election means unconditional reprobation because if there was a reason (unstated or not) for their reprobation then those elected must not have fit that reason and therefore there was a condition for their election.

It is obvious that the Satanic fall occurred BEFORE election or reprobation which was based upon the merit or dismerit of the various responses people made to HIS claims to be our GOD and Saviour before the proof of HIS divinity and eternal power were given by the creation of the physical universe.

 

[atpollard]

Revisionism. I’m talking about Calvin and Calvinism.

Deliberate historical ignorance.

• John Wycliffe (b.1328)
• Jan Huss (b.1370)
• Huldrych Zwingli (b.1484)
• William Tyndale (b.1494)
• John Calvin (b.1509)

Men were writing treatises on Reformed Theology when John Calvin was still wearing little boy pants (and 100 years before that). John Calvin was just a convenient target for the OFFICIAL State Church in Germany (The Lutheran Church).

 

[civic]

Deliberate historical ignorance.

• John Wycliffe (b.1328)
• Jan Huss (b.1370)
• Huldrych Zwingli (b.1484)
• William Tyndale (b.1494)
• John Calvin (b.1509)

Men were writing treatises on Reformed Theology when John Calvin was still wearing little boy pants.
John Calvin was just a convenient target for the OFFICIAL State Church in Germany (The Lutheran Church).

Tulip didn’t exists until Calvin. Nice diversion.