Old Calvinism is Now the New Calvinism

American Vision ^ | March 23, 2009 | Gary DeMar

[Blogger]

I leave you the final response if you would like to take it.
I don't have anything to add to what I have already said for this conversation. Goodnight.

[topcat54]

Let’s see. The original question was:

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

To which you responded:

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

Which I read as “Yep, there is something that isn’t Scriptural.” That is the grammatically sound reading.

So I asked what isn’t Scriptural about it. That, I believe, was the original question. Not wishing to put words in my friend’s mouth, but I believe it had to do with the propositions in the Creed and which ones you believe are contrary to or aren’t found in Scripture.

That’s the answer I’m interested in anyway. If you don’t like creeds on principle, that one thing. If you don’t like one because of content, then what’s wrong with it?

I can't imagine any of the Jewish apostles writing like this.

Why not? They all expressed propositional truth that was expected to be believed by the disciples under their teaching. The expectation was that is one claimed to be a Christian then one’s beliefs would conform to the apostles’ teaching (Acts 2:42) and behavior standards.

[topcat54]

Sorry, I forgot to include you on #422.

[enat]

TC=”Dispensation theology divides the promise of God into two promises, one for salvation and the other for the nation state of Israel.”

raynearhood=”And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.....If the forefathers of the faith lived as aliens in the promised land because they were looking forward a city with foundations made by God (Rev. 21:14-27), that is, a better country, a heavenly city”

What these people never can fully explain is what was the object of the Old Testament saints faith; just what did they believe at the time they lived that was “accounted unto them for righteousness”.

They make Covenant Theology into a colossal “bait and switch”.

[topcat54]

Topcat, you got what you wanted. A debate on dispensationalism.

Other than what was in the OP, I didn't mention dispensationalism in our conversation until you brought it up. That was part of a thread where our friend Quix was denouncing “Some ‘Christians’ seem caught up in similar exercises, futilities, damnable perspectives, attitudes, convictions, . . .” And you mentioned “I believe we are witnessing a clear separation of the wheat from the chaff, and will do so more often as persecution begins to rear its ugly head against the church.” These are the clear claims of futurist dispensationalism regarding the state of affairs just prior to the rapture. Then someone mentioned the “left behind crowd” (not me). In response you made claims about the “wrath of God” and how non-dispensationalists don’t get it. That’s when I got involved.

So, I guess I need to say thanks for the opening.

[Blogger]

Oh please. You segregated that section of the article in your post. You wanted an argument and you got it.

[raynearhood]

That, I believe, was the original question.

It was. Although I appreciated the history lesson, it had nothing to do with the content of the creed.

If you don’t like creeds on principle, that one thing. If you don’t like one because of content, then what’s wrong with it?

Yup, precisely what I was asking.

[raynearhood]

Oh please. You segregated that section of the article in your post. You wanted an argument and you got it.

And I thought he was picking a fight with me :^)

[topcat54]

IOW, you took the bait. :-)

[Blogger]

I voluntarily engaged :)

I have bypassed many a thread where u have done the same. This time I just decided to play along frankly because I am a Calvinist AND a dispensationalist.

[topcat54]

This might interest you: In Defense of Creedalism.

[topcat54]

I am a Calvinist AND a dispensationalist.

Which Calvinist confession have you personally adopted as your own? (I'd ask the same about dispensationalism, but I know there are none.)

[Blogger]

I haven’t adopted a confession, but I agree that the 5 points of Calvinism are scriptural.

[topcat54]

But the so-called 5 Points of Calvinism are not explicitly identified in the Bible. The only place you find them explicitly identified are in places like the Canons of Dordt. If someone says they believe in the 5 Points that is what comes to my mind.

Do you accept all that the Canons of Dordt teach wrt the 5 Points, including the affirmations and rejection of errors?

[Blogger]

Topcat, PETA is aghast! Stop beating a dead horse.

FYI, I can’t recall if I have even read the Canons of Dordt though I certainly know what they are. (This is where the Replacementarians start mocking me in a very predictable way.)

My answers heretofore have answered this question. Insofar as something reflects Scripture, I accept it. If it doesn’t reflect Scripture, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on. The 5 points of Calvinism ARE in Scripture.

1)Total Depravity-
Romans 3:9-12

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one

2)Unconditional Election-
Ephesians 1
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Limited Atonement
John 17:9
I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep

Irrestible Grace
John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;”

Acts 13:48, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

Perseverance of the Saints

John 6:44- No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”

1 John 2:19, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”

[af_vet_1981]

Yup, precisely what I was asking.

No, it was not what you asked. It was what you now wanted to ask. Implied in your question was an inkling that you knew there was something wrong or controversial with that creed though.

[af_vet_1981]

Which I read as “Yep, there is something that isn’t Scriptural.” That is the grammatically sound reading. So I asked what isn’t Scriptural about it. That, I believe, was the original question.

No, it was not the original question. It may very well have been what he now wished he had asked, or what he intended to ask, but it was not what he asked.

So I asked what isn’t Scriptural about it. ... That’s the answer I’m interested in anyway. ... If you don’t like one because of content, then what’s wrong with it?

I find it polemical and extra biblical, something more in line for the age of church wars where myriads of self-identifying Christians were slain for what they did, or did not, believe by other self-identifying Christians.

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; [for purposes of discussion let's just capitalize the Catholic right now and you tell me why you don't accept the authority of the Pope in Rome as passed down through the centuries as the heir of the Apostle Peter].
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. [I suppose if you believe that you die with a sin unconfessed to a priest and do not receive last rights' you may even agree with this]
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; [sounds out of scope with anything in the NT; sounds like the writer is arguing with some other Christian sect about whether they worship one or three.] . . .
4. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [essentially the writer is saying you must believe as he has written or you cannot be saved, whereas the NT gospels have that you must believe in Jesus as the Messiah.

Now I still don't understand why those among the Gentiles who have become Christians and are into creeds don't include one binding decree given to them specifically by the Jewish Apostles in Jerusalem:

• Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
• But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

and reiterated again in Acts 21:

• And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
• And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
• And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
• And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
• What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
• Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
• Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
• As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
• Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Or is it possible that all the Jewish Apostles who lived and learned with Jesus had it wrong and subsequent generations can toss aside their decision ? Paul obeyed them in Acts 21, submitting to their leadership and authority.

It is not like they asked much of the Gentiles who had turned to God.

[topcat54]

No, it was not the original question.

Actually it was, contra your protestation.

I find it polemical and extra biblical, ...

Yes, you said that before. We're still waiting for the details to go along with the objection. What exactly is extra-biblical, i.e., cannot be sustained from the Scriptures?

Now I still don't understand why those among the Gentiles who have become Christians and are into creeds don't include one binding decree given to them specifically by the Jewish Apostles in Jerusalem:

Obviously you do not understand the different between a creed and the apostolic directive in Acts 15. While faith and practice go together, they are not identical. Creeds deal with the matter of faith; credo, I believe.

More curious, why attempt to play Jew against gentile in this rather ham-handed way?

[raynearhood]

My words: 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.

Then you gave the history lesson, to which topcat54 answered: That wasn’t the question. What’s in there that is not Scriptural?

to which you answered: It was the question. It appears you misread either the question or the answer. He asked "Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?” I answered, "Yep ..." Yep is slang for Yes. Yet still failed to actually point out what is not Scriptural.

Topcat54 continued to elucidate: Not wishing to put words in my friend’s mouth, but I believe it had to do with the propositions in the Creed and which ones you (it was actually specifically directed at another poster, but generally directed at all posters, so "you" is technically correct) believe are contrary to or aren’t found in Scripture

to which I agreed: Yup, precisely what I was asking

which has led to your: No, it was not what you asked. It was what you now wanted to ask. Implied in your question was an inkling that you knew there was something wrong or controversial with that creed though.

C'mon, now. Before that post and after I was defending the Creeds. My simple question "Do you read anything in either of those that isn't Scriptural?" only implies what you read into it precisely because you read that into it.

Now, all of the speculating about what I meant (despite what I said I meant) aside... Is there any proposition in the text of the Athanasian Creed that is not Scripturally sound? (clear enough?)

[MarkBsnr]

***C’mon, now. Before that post and after I was defending the Creeds. My simple question “Do you read anything in either of those that isn’t Scriptural?” only implies what you read into it precisely because you read that into it.***

Actually, the Creeds were used as yardsticks to help determine which books were included in the NT.