Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
“”If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous”
John is writing in 1 John 2 to “ My little children” believers, who have an advocate, not the world.
LOL. More unattributed excerpts of unsourced snippets.
Proof is 2 Peter
2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.....2:17 These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them.
This passage says Jesus both bought them and that they are doomed.
Let's look at the verse again. I think you're misreading the pronouns...
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them "
Who's them? "Them" are those who believe the truth of Christ risen, who are being lied to by the false teachers.
"Them" are not the false teachers because if their sins had been paid for, their sins would be blotted out and God would remember them no more.
It is not at all logical nor Scriptural when Christ Himself tells us He doesn't pray for all the world but only for those whom the Father has given Him. He makes this point over and over.
If Christ has paid for a man's sins, that man stands acquitted before God and nothing needs to occur to effectuate this. It is a fait accompli, according to the will and purpose of God.
Is it your contention, then, that God does things that He is NOT pleased with? Does God do things He doesn't want to do? Does He do things against His will?
Naturally, you'll say "no". If so, then how do you explain why God reprobates men to hell before their demerits are evident - AND SIMULTANEOUSLY say that God desires all men to be saved?
Double-talk...
You cannot escape the logic of your own making. Either God does things against His will, sending undeserving creations to eternal punishment, OR your God really is sadistic and is pleased, or willingly, or whatever verb you desire, to create men specifically to populate hell, making Scripture a false book, since it specifically says God desires all men to be saved - how can this be if He WILLINGLY creates men to NOT be saved, without any consideration of demerits?
The WCF correctly recognizes that it was God's providence to choose the destinies of those He created.
Huh? And that makes God the author is sin. More double-talk. In one place, God is not the author of sin. Now, the WCF says God makes men whose destinies HE creates - to sin. Thus, God becomes the perfect creator of a being who can do nothing BUT sin...
This is repungant to common sense and Sacred Scriptures.
Regards
Yes, now read my post again. Again, your logic leads one to think that because Jesus prayed ONLY for Peter's faith, that He didn't care about the other apostles' faith. Jesus prayer is for Christian unity, not for the predestined vs. the reprobate.
Regards Regards
The point in both Calvin's and Luther's case is that by their actions they did not object to man having authority over scripture, so long as it was them.
The WCF is merely restating Scripture.
Who are you?
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" -- Romans 9:18-21"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Jesus death is sufficient to have saved all because the penalty of all sin was paid for. "If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, and he is the expiation for our sins, and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
All, however, don't accept.
Exactly. I am not sure where this elitist attitude comes from, since Christ seems to be open to ALL members of society, even the outcast, even the foreigner, even the sick and humble. But a Calvinist gets his hands on the Sacred Scripture and suddenly, God only cares about Calvinsts...
So much for the walls that Christ came to tear down. Calvin would have them re-built...
Regards
Not so. Since I believe infant baptism is Scriptural (although certainly not according to the RCC's idolatrous error of baptismal regeneration) I think both men's comments on baptism are Scriptural and correct.
The Anabaptists were part of the counter-Reformation and in very few ways resemble Reformed Baptists today.
It reads literally:
“the having bought them Master” denying.
Therefore, the “them” must refer to the false ones.
You responded: The WCF is merely restating Scripture. Romans 9:18-21
Romans 9-11 is clearly talking about nations, contrasting the Jews and the Gentiles. God calls which nation that He wills, in whichever order that He wills, granting that the Jews were HIS choice, BEFORE Israel could even merit it. NO ONE can question His choices for calling first the Jews, and then the Gentiles.
In Romans 11, the Scriptures tell us the reason why the Jews fell was THEIR disbelief (NOT God "making" them do it) - AND the Word states that IF they believe AGAIN, they can be reinstated as part of the olive tree. The choice is upon men, not God's intent on creating evil men. God is not the author of sin.
God desires all men to be saved. That all men are not is because men CHOOSE not to believe. See Romans 11. This is all over the place in Scriptures!
You are again misappropriating Scriptures down to the individual level. This says nothing about God reprobating individuals before their demerits.
Regards
Some are going to be lost. God knows that. There is nothing that will change that. Those things are set in stone.
However, the price paid would be sufficient for all sin. Therefore, none can say that they did not have an opportunity. Their free will resisted, and they rejected their only salvation.
As one old freeper used to suggest, if someone buys your family a ticket to Hawaii, and all use it except you, then that doesn’t mean the price was not paid.
The point was Luther rejected other’s interpretation of scripture.
Sola Scriptura is more rightly Mea Scriptura. Reformers merely replace one authority over scripture with their own.
I have one:
Institutes of the Christian Religion
by John Calvin
Book 1, Chapter 7: The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of scripture depends on the judgement of the church.
Section 1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. Refutation, I. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man. II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit. III. It establishes a tyranny in the Church. IV. It forms a mass of errors. V. It subverts conscience. VI. It exposes our faith to the scoffs of the profane.
Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt.
When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to what the extent of this topic requires.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz., that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the good will of men?
John Calvin
Your source please.
Gee Reggie. Good to see you back.
Smiley means joke. I actually added “- other than me!” on my own.
However, the reference for the point is Calvin’s history of persecution of those who disagreed with his ‘truth of God’.
Calvin became the new authority. Hence the “other than me!” It’s a joke or satire, relying on some truth for it’s humor.
See?
;)
I’m curious: Wouldn’t a Universalist be the ultimate anti-Calvinist?
On the other hand many of the arguments of Augustine, among other "Church Fathers" for instance would lead one to believe he would be accused of being a "Sola Scripture" proponent by a reasonable definition of Sola Scriptura rather than one concocted by those who wish to attack the idea.
I have read much, far from all, of the works of Augustine and cannot find a single instance where he says "Tradition", The Church", or anything else trumps Scripture. Can you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.