Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

American Vision ^ | March 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[Petronski]

You will do as you must, and I will give no quarrel on that, but my preference would have been to let it stand (or at least my reply).

Alas, I am but a guest, so I defer to your decision.

[trisham]

Yes. You have mail.

[Petronski]

You have sent an “Amen” to a false statement about Catholics and the Catholic faith.

How odd.

[Nosterrex]

The problem is that it gives the impression that it doesn't make any difference whether you are a Calvinist or Arminian. I have no doubt that you know the differences, but the typical pew-sitter is not that sophisticated.

[topcat54]

You aren’t fit to tie Quix’s shoes.

You are absolutely right.

[Marysecretary]

tch tch, Petronski.

[MarkBsnr]

Hello Mary;

Petronski is right - the posting in question was challenged by me as well and not replied to. Statements that are false will be challenged; claims that are false will be dealt with.

[Petronski]

The information in that post is false. And you gave it an ‘amen.’

What else need I say?

[Marysecretary]

I can only agree with you. We’ve seen how P.O.’d the gays are because of Prop. 8 and how they are attacking churches, etc. Won’t be long.

[wmfights]

We’ve seen how P.O.’d the gays are because of Prop. 8 and how they are attacking churches, etc. Won’t be long.

My pastor discussed a court ruling against our church today (I'm trying to find the case on line so I can post a thread). What happened was my church revoked the ordination of a Pastor and he then sued. At first the court ruled that my church was within it's rights to do so and dismissed the case, but upon appeal the appellate court overruled and it went to trial. The lawsuit finished last week and my church won on all counts except harming the integrity of the deordained pastor. He was awarded $263,000. My church is now filing an appeal on this last count.

My church has insurance and is pretty large so the award was not the big issue at stake. The big issue is the courts intervening in internal operations of the church. IOW, if the court is setting itself up to be the ruling authority it could demand we reinstate a pastor that had his ordination removed. The step after that is to control what can be said from the pulpit.

[Marysecretary]

I’m afraid it won’t be long...

[af_vet_1981]

Is this the same John Calvin that murdered Michael Servetus? Why would anyone follow a murderer?

Because people like to follow someone they think has the answers; many different religions and sects have sprung forth in the last 20 centuries, most, if not all of them, claiming to be the real deal. It doesn't really matter who they murder; their zealots masses will follow them anyway.

[af_vet_1981]

Why don't you just explain the passage according to your system and not worry what about what I am thinking? I have posted my interpretation according to my understanding of the text and you think the interpretation is wrong but you haven't given yours, only your opinion on mine.
Daniel 12:1-3,”.....and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”
Who are “thy people” Gabriel is referring to? When does this resurrection take place and “thy people” shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever”?

As I understand (but do not believe) it, Preterism generally claims this all happened in 70AD. Allusions in what purports to be Josephus' work is cited as evidence (in the clouds, etc.).

[af_vet_1981]

On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."[27]

The common view of the age, that heretics like Servetus should be subject to punishment, was explained by Calvin as follows:

“ Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.[28]

Calvin stated of Servetus, when writing to his friend William Farel on 13 February 1546: “ Servetus has just sent me a long volume of his ravings. If I consent he will come here, but I will not give my word for if he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive ("Si venerit, modo valeat mea autoritas, vivum exire nunquam patiar").[16]

Basically Calvin hated him because he interpreted the Bible differently than he did (lover of Jews and Moslems, etc.) We all know what even the writers of the NT books said about murderers.

[raynearhood]

Reply to 340 and 341.

Sorry about the delay, I was off the internet most of yesterday.

continuing to miss the point simply in an effort to defend someone whose eschatological view you agree with.

*sigh* I suppose it bears repeating... Topcat54 and I do not agree on eschatology. Topcat54 is a preterist, I am an amillennialist. However, we can disagree amiacably because our eschatology is less important than where we agree on theology... namely on Covenant Theology. We both see God's salvific plan as a constant through Scripture. We don't see separate promises, but one promise of salvation in the old covenant perfected in the new.

Of course, that is neither here nor there in this conversation, is it? Neither covenant theology nor post-mil or amil eschatologies require the confessions or creeds.

There are folks on this thread that tend to point to those confessions and creeds as evidence of whether or not you have spiritual standing....There is ample evidence to suggest that these folks believe the presence of a written creed and adherence to that written creed somehow makes you more spiritual and spiritually atuned than other people.

Absolutely not. As for poking fun at the "No Creed but Christ" crowd. C'mon, it's almost deserved. "No confession but the Bible, no Creed but Christ" is an oxymoron. It's a creed by itself. Maybe it should read, "No Creed but Christ... and this one."

Anyhow, the creeds and confessions play a twofold important role in the churches that use them:

1. They provide unity in the church body (not just the local church) by affirming what church holds as truths in the past, present, and future.

2. They provide reference to the learning and wisdom of the church as a whole.

As a confessional Christian, I can refer to a set of confessions and creeds to affirm what I believe. There is no disagreement between me and topcat on this. This is not an issue of defending someone on this forum. From experience I can tell you this: My church, and I, use the confessions in the same way that the PCA uses confessions, and we use the creeds in a similar way. I can't speak for topcat, but I would guess that the same is true for his church.

This has nothing to do with "spiritualism," but knowledge of church teachings, unity amongst believers, and references to the understanding, wisdom, and learning of the church past and present.

It also recognizes the liberty of conscience, which is an issue in creedalism.

There is no issue with "liberty of the conscience" and creedalism. An example:

The Apostles' Creed
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
2. And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, our Lord;
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary;
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell;
5. The third day He rose again from the dead;
6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
7. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit.
9. I believe a holy catholic Church, the communion of saints;
10. The forgiveness of sins;
11. The resurrection of the body;
12. And the life everlasting. AMEN.

The Athanasian Creed
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. (8) The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. (11) And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. (12) As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (13) So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. (15) So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; (18) And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. (19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; (20) so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords. (21) The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. (22) The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. (25) And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another. (26) But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

(29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (30) For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world. (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (34) Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. (35) One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. (36) One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person. (37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; (39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; (40) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; (42) And shall give account of their own works. (43) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural? Everything in both of those creeds is completely Scriptural and describes Scriptural truth. There is nothing in there that the Christian conscience shouldn't be bound to. They both describes true aspects of a true Christian faith. By having these historic creeds on hand, one can refer to a Christian understanding of Scripture and guard against heresy and fallacy.

Back to the "No Creed but Christ" statement. By subscibing to this creed the believer makes two mistakes.

First, it allows for any interpretation of the Bible, by default. Modalists, for example, deny the Trinity. But according to the creed "No Creed but Christ," they're fine because the confess Christ. But they don't confess the same Christ you or I confess. We can argue Scripture all day long, but according to the "No creed but Christ," creed, there is no historical, universal church understanding to turn to and and say, "No, that is incorrect, and Christians - real Christians - don't believe that." Instead, all personal interpretations are as good as the next.

Secondly, the creed "No creed but Christ," seperates Christians from the knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of Christians through history, and condemns them to a "creed other than Christ."

Besides, the "no creed but Christ," is a misnomer in this sense anyhow. It basically says that each Christian is able to come to a full understanding of Scripture on their own. Not true, at all. Dispensationalists do not make a plain reading of Scripture and come up with 3, 5, or 7 dispensations of Scripture. No, they read or are taught Larkin, Scofield, etc... and accept what they're taught as a proper understanding. Thus they fall back onto a "creed other than Christ."

I will not however say that someone whose church doesn't have said confession is lacking in standing and I don't think you would either.

No, I wouldn't. However, I would say that they have a greater likeliness of slipping into heresy or into serious problems in understanding, kind of like a lot of the "seeker sensitive churches" have. I would also say that it is more likely that there will not be a common understanding of Biblical truths in the local church body. I can give an old church I was a youth minister at as a prime example. It was a Nazarene church. In it, you could find elders that were Arminian, 3 point "Calvinists," dispensationalists, amillennialists, and even one that believed the Documentary Hypothesis of OT authorship. Elders without a cohesive understanding of doctrine.

Now to the point of the argument as I read it:

You and topcat54 were arguing dispensationalism. He quoted historic dispensationalists, you countered, etc...

Do you know how hard it is to agree or disagree when the person on the other side of the conversation has their own personal system that doesn't agree with the "pillars" of the system they claim? Thus topcat's "Bloggerism" label and my "you should write a book" joke.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?

Yep, The Athanasian Creed is foreign and sounds like something written out of a monastery, or maybe Gaul ...

There are several other works ascribed to him, although not necessarily generally accepted as being his own work. These include the Athanasian creed, which is today generally seen as being of 5th century Galician origin.[2]

Beginning in the 9th century, the Athanasian Creed was ascribed to St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century. This view was contested in the 17th century and is rejected today.[1] Reasons for rejecting Athanasius as the author are: 1) The creed originally was written in Latin. 2) It is not mentioned by Athanasius or his contemporaries. 3) It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils. 4) It appears to address Christological controversies that developed after Athanasius died.[2] Although Constantine ended imperial persecution of the Church in 313 with the Edict of Milan, the preceding centuries of oppression had prevented large-scale theological debate and uniformity. The Nicean Council institutionalized widely held beliefs and formally opposed theologically divergent doctrines. The creed was attributed to Athanasius as a sign of its intense orthodoxy of Trinitarian belief. Most of today's historians agree that it originated in Gaul around 500. Its theology is closely akin to that found in the writings of Western theologians, especially Ss. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, and Vincent of Lérins. J.N.D. Kelly, a contemporary patristics scholar, believes that St. Vincent of Lérin was not its author, but suggests that it may have come from the same milieu, namely the area of Lérins in southern Gaul.[3] The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Athanasian creed date from the late 8th century.[4]

[Blogger]

*sigh* I suppose it bears repeating... Topcat54 and I do not agree on eschatology. Topcat54 is a preterist, I am an amillennialist. However, we can disagree amiacably because our eschatology is less important than where we agree on theology... namely on Covenant Theology. We both see God's salvific plan as a constant through Scripture. We don't see separate promises, but one promise of salvation in the old covenant perfected in the new.
Most dispensationalists don't see two promises of salvation either. It has always been salvation by grace through faith alone. So, it would appear that you are mistaken in what you think we believe. God separated out for himself a peculiar people - Israel. We were grafted into the tree as unnatural branches but they are the natural branches. They have specific promises exclusive to them - namely the land. Salvifically, they are saved no different than we are.

Absolutely not. As for poking fun at the "No Creed but Christ" crowd. C'mon, it's almost deserved. "No confession but the Bible, no Creed but Christ" is an oxymoron. It's a creed by itself. Maybe it should read, "No Creed but Christ... and this one."
It is an arrogant statement and not really funny. It is mean spirited and should be avoided.

Anyhow, the creeds and confessions play a twofold important role in the churches that use them:

1. They provide unity in the church body (not just the local church) by affirming what church holds as truths in the past, present, and future.
I have a problem with this. They don't provide unity. The Holy Spirit provides unity. Creeds are nothing more than organizational devices. When they become more than that, there is a problem. What the church holds as truth is irrelevant. What Scripture states as truth is what matters. The 'church' has changed its truth through the years. They have put out many creeds, some of which brings into question the Christianity of those publishing the creed. Scripture is the arbitor of truth, not human beings. Humans use Scripture, in Berean like fashion, but left to their devices humans can use a document to be united around something that they are wrong about.

2. They provide reference to the learning and wisdom of the church as a whole.
I am finding this conversation interesting as you seem to elevate the church above Scripture. I would have worded this statement differently. Does your church teach inerrancy?

As a confessional Christian, I can refer to a set of confessions and creeds to affirm what I believe. There is no disagreement between me and topcat on this. This is not an issue of defending someone on this forum. From experience I can tell you this: My church, and I, use the confessions in the same way that the PCA uses confessions, and we use the creeds in a similar way. I can't speak for topcat, but I would guess that the same is true for his church.

This has nothing to do with "spiritualism," but knowledge of church teachings, unity amongst believers, and references to the understanding, wisdom, and learning of the church past and present.

Again, an almost Catholic-like devotion to the teaching of the church as opposed to Scripture. The cry of the reformers was Sola Scriptura, not Sola Ecclesia.

There is no issue with "liberty of the conscience" and creedalism. An example...Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural? Everything in both of those creeds is completely Scriptural and describes Scriptural truth. There is nothing in there that the Christian conscience shouldn't be bound to.

That isn't what I meant by liberty of conscience. When the "creed" becomes the test of faith, that becomes dangerous. To say "you must believe as this creed says" puts authority in a man made document. That is what I mean when I say Creedalism. Using a creed or a statement of faith to point to Scripture as an organization for key doctrine is NOT what I mean when I refer to Creedalism.

They both describes true aspects of a true Christian faith. By having these historic creeds on hand, one can refer to a Christian understanding of Scripture and guard against heresy and fallacy.
Again, as long as the Creed is Scriptural, I have no issue in using it to organize key doctrines of the Christian faith. It is when that creed or confession or statement of faith is elevated as some authoritative document that there is an issue.

Back to the "No Creed but Christ" statement. By subscibing to this creed the believer makes two mistakes.

First, it allows for any interpretation of the Bible, by default. Modalists, for example, deny the Trinity. But according to the creed "No Creed but Christ," they're fine because the confess Christ. But they don't confess the same Christ you or I confess. We can argue Scripture all day long, but according to the "No creed but Christ," creed, there is no historical, universal church understanding to turn to and and say, "No, that is incorrect, and Christians - real Christians - don't believe that." Instead, all personal interpretations are as good as the next.
Scripture is the check on that. It does not allow for an anything goes interpretive framework. Again, what happens to Sola Scriptura?

Besides, the "no creed but Christ," is a misnomer in this sense anyhow. It basically says that each Christian is able to come to a full understanding of Scripture on their own.
And so they are - at least with the teaching of the Holy Spirit! For those who abide in Christ, a full understanding of Scripture absolutely is available to them apart from human intervention...

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

That God uses the church to teach does not negate that the actually understanding comes from the spirit-filled life. Those that walk according to the Spirit are taught by the Spirit. He can use Scripture. He can use the church. But it is His work, not the church's.

Dispensationalists do not make a plain reading of Scripture and come up with 3, 5, or 7 dispensations of Scripture.

I see. Guess the Reformers are in the same boat then. They weren't using a plain reading of Scripture when they dealt with things such as Lord's supper either. They had several views of it. That was regarding a specific piece of doctrine. The 3,5, or 7 dispensations are a way of seeing history. Nobody claims that such understanding is infallible. It is a way to understand the text written - and it spins off of Paul's use of dispensation.

No, they read or are taught Larkin, Scofield, etc... and accept what they're taught as a proper understanding. Thus they fall back onto a "creed other than Christ."

You show no respect for our ability to do our own research. I am a dispensationalist because I see it is scripture, not because Clarence Larkin taught it.

No, I wouldn't. However, I would say that they have a greater likeliness of slipping into heresy or into serious problems in understanding, kind of like a lot of the "seeker sensitive churches" have.
Rick Warren is one of the biggest Seekers there is an makes his people sign a statement of agreement. Having a creed does not guaranteed non-slippage.

I would also say that it is more likely that there will not be a common understanding of Biblical truths in the local church body.
Again, I'm not sure you can back that up. It kinda depends on what is taught. My pastor, for example, is very bold in his preaching. There is no doubt what our church believes and teaches. It is Calvinistic but evangelistic. It is premillenial and pretrib. It believes in baptism by immersion and the local church. Stay 1 year in our church and you will not walk away not knowing what we believe. Other churches are more lax in their preaching and therefore I think that is where you get more wishy-washyness in the beliefs of the people. Drop doctrinal teaching period, and you'll have issues - with or without a document. Our church has a confession of faith. We also can point back to the 17th century Baptist document. But, we don't bring them up as authoritative documents. If someone wants to know what the church believes and teaches, they can have a copy. It is a convenient way of organizing belief and nothing more.

I can give an old church I was a youth minister at as a prime example. It was a Nazarene church. In it, you could find elders that were Arminian, 3 point "Calvinists," dispensationalists, amillennialists, and even one that believed the Documentary Hypothesis of OT authorship. Elders without a cohesive understanding of doctrine.
And what was the preaching like? I would say the fault lies more in the pulpit than it is in the lack of a document. At least that has been my experience in other churches.

Do you know how hard it is to agree or disagree when the person on the other side of the conversation has their own personal system that doesn't agree with the "pillars" of the system they claim? Thus topcat's "Bloggerism" label and my "you should write a book" joke.
Try this - argue the Scripture with me. I don't look to those folks as authorities for my belief. So why would you point to them?

[topcat54]

“Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?”

Yep, The Athanasian Creed is foreign and sounds like something written out of a monastery, or maybe Gaul ...

That wasn’t the question. What’s in there that is not Scriptural?

Besides, were there no Christians in Gaul or monasteries 1500 years ago? Did they have not have access to the same Word of God. Granted, they could probably read it in the original language far better than you or me. Maybe that’s what makes it sound foreign.

[topcat54]

The cry of the reformers was Sola Scriptura, not Sola Ecclesia.

The cry of the Reformation was sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura -- which seem to be your position.

Remember, these sola Scriptura Reformation guys were the same guys who wrote all those creeds, catechisms, and confessions you don’t care for and denigrate at every opportunity. So there must be some significant disconnect between what you believe by the term (your personal creed) and what they taught.

See Keith Mathison’s A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura.

Don’t use the Reformers as an crutch for your position. They are not the same.

[topcat54]

Mathison’s conclusion is significant:

Proponents of solo scriptura have deceived themselves into thinking that they honor the unique authority of Scripture. But unfortunately, by divorcing the Spirit-inspired Word of God from the Spirit-indwelt people of God, they have made it into a plaything and the source of endless speculation. If a proponent of solo scriptura is honest, he recognizes that it is not the infallible Scripture to which he ultimately appeals. His appeal is always to his own fallible interpretation of that Scripture. With solo scriptura it cannot be any other way, and this necessary relativistic autonomy is the fatal flaw of solo scriptura that proves it to be an unChristian tradition of men.