Is God the "first cause of everything" (including sin) as the Westminster Confession says?

[Butch5]

Nonsense!

It was not universally accepted in the days of Christ and it was not universally accepted in the days of Paul.

That - if I'm not mistaken - was considerably before the year 1400 A.D.

Your theology has trumped both accurate historical records and the scriptures themselves.

You are doing exactly the kind of thing that you are railing against.

Is this your opinion? Can you supply a single church leader in the Ante-Nicene period that denies the necessity of baptism in salvation? I can give you many affirmative quotes if you'd like.

All you've done is arbitrarily disagreed.

The scriptural evidence stands in favor of baptism being only an evidence of prior salvation after salvation by faith. It does not show that it is a part of salvation in the basic sense.

Can you prove that statement?

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

Why post a passage about faith when you're trying to negate baptism? If this passage had said belief alone you might have an argument. However, it doesn't. Believing on the Lord doesn't negate baptism it's a prerequisite.

"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God rised Him from the dead - you will be saved"

See comment above

"Today you will be with me in Paradise."

This passage says nothing about the subject at all. There's nothing about how one is saved.

"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void."

There's nothing here about whether or not baptism is necessary.

“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. "

This passage says nothing about them being saved. You're begging the question. You're assuming they were saved when the Holy Spirit fell on them. Thus you conclude that they were saved before baptism to prove they were save after baptism.

"And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him."

Same as above, this is begging the question. You assume one is saved by belief without baptism and use this passage to say that one is saved without baptism.

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days."

Again it's begging the question.

I submit that, if you used more the method of inference that you speak so fervently against using, you would not be in error on this doctrine.

But you've just proven that not to be the case. You're inference that one is saved by belief alone has cause you to beg the question on these other passages. That's what I've been saying all along. One wrong inference can lead to further misunderstandings of the text. The belief that belief alone saves has cause a misunderstanding of the passages posted above.

Of course baptism playing a part in salvation plays well with a works based salvation philosophy.

But you see there is nothing wrong with works. It's in your theology that it is a problem, not in the Scriptures.

I believe that you are letting your theology influence your view of this subject just as you have with some other subjects and passages that you have talked about here in this thread.

A little more inference and a little more allowing scripture to interpret scripture and you'd be much better off in so far as your theology goes IMO.

As I said, you've shown that inference isn't the way to go. Scripture doesn't interpret Scripture, that's a fallacy. Scripture must be interpreted, it doesn't talk. Scripture doesn't tells someone when they misunderstand it.

This isn't a baptism thread so I'm not going that route, if you want we can discuss that in anther thread. I will mention this though. There are quite a few passages that do teach us what baptism is and it's purpose, you didn't post any of them.

 

[AndOne]

I too have rejected contemporary theology. I realize people see things differently, however, I would submit that there is only one truth, would you agree? If that's that case then one side or the other is incorrect, would you agree?

Interesting - why do you post here if you reject contemporary (if by contemporary you mean evangelical Christian) theology?

In regards to Arminianinism and Calvinism (both of which are evangelical and Christian) I would suggest that it is possible to disagree and yet still be brothers/sisters. Not all feel this way of course but there are many who do or did - Whitfield and Wesley being examples. I consider myself in this camp. Just like I can disagree with a Pesbyterian who believes in padeobaptism (I'm Baptist) and yet still consider him a brother in Christ. None of us posting in this forum should be in disagreement on the essentials of the Christian Faith.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The 'First Cause' argument has never been rightfully debunked, because you can't debunk something with mere ideology or unproven theories, which is exactly what a lot of atheists have professed at.

If Stephen Hawking can't do it, chances are no atheist with a chip on his shoulder can either. He clearly marks his oppositions as propositions, and atheists should do the same.

 

[Blank Stair]

Huh? I was talking about the discussions that take place.

I was responding to what you said about Ad hominems being part of the doctrine of Calvinism.
If you'd meant the attitudes that arrive in defense of, you may wish to word your remarks differently in future so as to avoid the confusion.

Actually, I don't. I'm not threatened by anyone's theology. If I see error I simply hope to point it out to the individual in order to help them correct it.

Correct it to your way of thinking?
How do you correct those who remain in their faith when you state you elected to leave contemporary theology?
Especially when the reformed doctrine isn't rightly labeled as such. But rather is returning to the full spirit and meaning of the words of Jesus.

You do appear to be threatened by others theology when you recite erroneous scripture interpretations piecemeal as method. And then argue that right interpretation is false to yours.

I don't see your point.

I know.

What I find to be a problem though is that many will abandon that logic when it goes against their doctrines. That in in itself is illogical and irrational.

Someone that abandons what they call contemporary theology so as to argue contemporary theology could be said to be guilty of the same thing.

 

[Butch5]

Interesting - why do you post here if you reject contemporary (if by contemporary you mean evangelical Christian) theology?

In regards to Arminianinism and Calvinism (both of which are evangelical and Christian) I would suggest that it is possible to disagree and yet still be brothers/sisters. Not all feel this way of course but there are many who do or did - Whitfield and Wesley being examples. I consider myself in this camp. Just like I can disagree with a Pesbyterian who believes in padeobaptism (I'm Baptist) and yet still consider him a brother in Christ. None of us posting in this forum should be in disagreement on the essentials of the Christian Faith.

I post here because I hold to Nicene Trinity theology which is what this forum is for.

I agree that both can still be brothers.

 

[AndOne]

I post here because I hold to Nicene Trinity theology which is what this forum is for.

I agree that both can still be brothers.

So you reject evangelical Christian theology then? You really didn't deny that.

What about you? Can you call an Arminianin or Calvinist a Christian brother/sister?

 

[Butch5]

I was responding to what you said about Ad hominems being part of the doctrine of Calvinism.
If you'd meant the attitudes that arrive in defense of, you may wish to word your remarks differently in future so as to avoid the confusion.

Was it my words?

Correct it to your way of thinking?
How do you correct those who remain in their faith when you state you elected to leave contemporary theology?
Especially when the reformed doctrine isn't rightly labeled as such. But rather is returning to the full spirit and meaning of the words of Jesus.

You do appear to be threatened by others theology when you recite erroneous scripture interpretations piecemeal as method. And then argue that right interpretation is false to yours.

Correct it to be logical. If you're talking about returning to Jesus' words then you'll have to leave Reformed theology. However, so far all I've seen from you are these kind of snide remarks. If you want to delve into the Scriptures I'd b more than happy to. I've already offered once. As I said, we could start with Eph. 1 which you posted.

My previous remarks about attitude are being seen right here. Rather than looking at the Scriptures as I suggested you simply avoid it and give these snide remarks. This is exactly what I talking about earlier. I get this from Calvinists almost all the time. This is one reason I say the doctrines can't be defended. If they could it seems you'd be defending them rather than playing off of other statements I've made.

know.

And yet you don't elabotate.

Someone that abandons what they call contemporary theology so as to argue contemporary theology could be said to be guilty of the same thing.

I've debated a lot of Calvinists so I know the games. I'll refrain from playing at this time. If at any time you decide that you are able to defend your doctrines feel free to pipe up.

 

[Butch5]

So you reject evangelical Christian theology then? You really didn't deny that.

What about you? Can you call an Arminianin or Calvinist a Christian brother/sister?

Much of what is taught in the church today is not what Jesus and the apostles taught. There's been a lot of error brought into the church over 2000 years. It seems too many aren't willing to challenge their status quo to see if what they believe is really true. Paul praised the Bereans for checking what he said to see if it was true. Paul told the Ephesian elders that there would people among them that would rise up and lead people astray, he was right. Jesus spoke of the wide road and how many would be on it. It behooves every Christian to challenge his beliefs and those from whom he gets them. I see Christians reading commentaries and posting them as though they were Scripture. Too many believe what they read not knowing the first thing about the authors of these commentators. Too many don't question the things they read or are taught. I used to be that way until I realized I was being lead astray, now I challenge everything.

And yes, you can call me a brother. I am a Christian, no denomination.

 

[AndOne]

Okay Butch and I thank you for your respectful reply. But I have to be honest - I have been reading your posts and at times been interacting with you for a few years now and I still have no idea what it is exactly that you believe. I personally think it's because you have to be cryptic or risk getting booted from the forums. But that is just an opinion, I admit it could be wrong - but my point remains - I have no idea where you are coming from.

I will say this - when a Catholic posts his beliefs I understand where he is coming from. Same goes for Arminians, Calvinists, Methodists, or Atheists for that matter.

I guess what I am getting at is that I wish you would simply state what you believe. It's one reason I tend to shy away with interacting with you here - nothing you say makes much sense. At least not to me. I'm not trying to be rude - just giving you some honest feedback.

I'm glad you want me to call you brother - that's a start...

 

[Blank Stair]

Was it my words?

Yes, hence my remarks.

Correct it to be logical. If you're talking about returning to Jesus' words then you'll have to leave Reformed theology. However, so far all I've seen from you are these kind of snide remarks. If you want to delve into the Scriptures I'd b more than happy to. I've already offered once. As I said, we could start with Eph. 1 which you posted.

The only one delivering snide remarks are you and the minority of others who assume your same position. Turning it around as me to blame does not offset what is in print as your responsibility for snideness.

My previous remarks about attitude are being seen right here. Rather than looking at the Scriptures as I suggested you simply avoid it and give these snide remarks. This is exactly what I talking about earlier. I get this from Calvinists almost all the time. This is one reason I say the doctrines can't be defended. If they could it seems you'd be defending them rather than playing off of other statements I've made.

Now see, this is the example of transferring your behavior to your opponent(s).

And yet you don't elaborate.

Incorrect. I did. You claimed you didn't understand.

I've debated a lot of Calvinists so I know the games. I'll refrain from playing at this time. If at any time you decide that you are able to defend your doctrines feel free to pipe up.

More transferring your behavior to others. Everyone here has tried to speak with you in a reasonable manner, giving scriptures, giving the interpretations of those scriptures, being the topic is what it is and the WCF is what it is, it is the topic to be discussed.

That you have no respect for it shows.

That you are now attempting to paint everyone here as demonstrating everything you've done from page one of your participation unto now shows you are not here to have a mature dialog about theology, doctrine, and differences. And with respect.
Whatever it is that turned you on to acting this way right now, God help you.

We're certainly done here.

 

[nobdysfool]

I too have rejected contemporary theology. I realize people see things differently, however, I would submit that there is only one truth, would you agree? If that's that case then one side or the other is incorrect, would you agree?

My question is, what is this need to prove someone else wrong? Why does one have to "crush" the opposition? And that exact word has been used as justification for actions certain people have taken here. Is this a football game? No, it's a discussion of theology regarding Salvation. Given the way these conversations go, it appears that most do not trust the Holy Spirit to convict people of the Truth. That's sad, because the Holy spirit is perfectly capable of revealing the Truth to an individual at exactly the right time. None of us has that level of finesse, knowledge, or skill, and therefore have no business trying to do His job. He doesn't need your help. The fact that anyone posts their thoughts and views on this forum does not require anyone to respond. If you do respond, do so with respect, humility, and love. Anything other than that is of the evil one, even if the other person IS wrong. Of what value is it to immediately put them on the defensive, just so you can assert your "rightness"?.

Please understand that I am not directing this at any one individual, so if I say "you", it has no name attached to it.

Put your view out there, and let others put theirs out there. Let's discuss things like rational, mature, reasonable BRETHREN, and if agreement is reached on something, great! If not, accept and respect that others see things differently, and move on. Pray for them, and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us all, and be willing to accept that you could be wrong, and it's not the end of the world if you are. Let's let the juvenile bullying and trying to dominate things stop. No matter how convinced you are that you're right, remember that you aren't perfect, and you don't have all the answers.

It's not a matter of one side or the other being correct. That's what starts the bullying, the condescension, the attempt to overwhelm and dominate, and the juvenile snarkiness, baiting and goading. It's a matter of, first and foremost, anyone who has trusted in Christ for Salvation, and confesses that they have repented and believed on Him, is our brother or sister in Christ, and we should not be warring against them.

 

[Blank Stair]

It's a matter of discussing first cause, sin, and the WCF.
I think most serious members looking to exchange ideas on the topic and how God is or is not the creator of sin being he's first cause, do so.
I think too that there are those not at all interested in the topic itself. I believe there is a distinct unmistakable anti-Calvinist community here and though having a few members, it is still very intent on their mission.
And then there are those who are anti-Calvinist dedicated to deconverting Calvinists. That is what causes the, must smash, behaviors. They must destroy what the Calvinist believes so as to get them to realize the truth that opponent of Calvinism espouses. And this then is the end goal, the victory, that that anti-Calvinist seeks to achieve.

Really, I find it fascinating. Because when the scriptures speak as Jesus would have taught us and we see and read that and feel the truth of it, it is easy to realize for whom they do not resonate when meeting such committed persons as that.

I do think that once they're discovered, at least for me, one has to gauge how much they'll tolerate of the mission committed.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Is this your opinion? Can you supply a single church leader in the Ante-Nicene period that denies the necessity of baptism in salvation? I can give you many affirmative quotes if you'd like.

All you've done is arbitrarily disagreed.

Not so - not arbitrarily.

I provide scripture over against your precious leaders in the Ante-Nicene period. That’ll get you off your hobby horse it you’ll give the holy Spirit half a chance.

This isn't a baptism thread so I'm not going that route, if you want we can discuss that in anther thread. I will mention this though. There are quite a few passages that do teach us what baptism is and it's purpose, you didn't post any of them.

Of course not. They don’t teach that baptism is necessary. They may infer it if you infer wrong. But then you say you don’t do that.

I’m going back to my position of not trading posts with you – so that I won’t inadvertently give you a chance to teach a false gospel much like EmSw; Extraordinary and many others here do.

 

[Blank Stair]

Amen Marvin! Amen!

 

[Butch5]

Yes, hence my remarks.







The only one delivering snide remarks are you and the minority of others who assume your same position. Turning it around as me to blame does not offset what is in print as your responsibility for snideness.

Now see, this is the example of transferring your behavior to your opponent(s).


Incorrect. I did. You claimed you didn't understand.




More transferring your behavior to others. Everyone here has tried to speak with you in a reasonable manner, giving scriptures, giving the interpretations of those scriptures, being the topic is what it is and the WCF is what it is, it is the topic to be discussed.

That you have no respect for it shows.

That you are now attempting to paint everyone here as demonstrating everything you've done from page one of your participation unto now shows you are not here to have a mature dialog about theology, doctrine, and differences. And with respect.
Whatever it is that turned you on to acting this way right now, God help you.

We're certainly done here.

This is nothing but more rhetoric. I presented a contradiction in the statement you posted. 'No it's not' is mot a logical defense of the you position. Now, If you'd like to address the contradiction that would be great.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

This is nothing but more rhetoric. I presented a contradiction in the statement you posted. 'No it's not' is mot a logical defense of the you position. Now, If you'd like to address the contradiction that would be great.

Thank you God!

Now everyone in these type threads that have encountered the anti-platformists, who use that self same argument, "no it's not", can recall your declaration about it and take that forward when you do that, when others like the amusing FG2 does that, the Texas one does that same thing, the whole small tiny lot of you, and move on.
"Is not a logical defense of your position."

That's what I'm writing in lieu of your bad writing there. Seems like there's an under the influence issue that makes your post almost unintelligible.
As for Blank Stair's remarks that you're attempting to deride there, everyone here can read that she's defended the positions she's made. While the, that's not in the bible, crew keep at it with their same tactics of dismissal amounting to; nuh uh no it's not. huh huh!

I'd also tell you you may want to stop wasting your breath. That last line in their post tells us that she's done with your anti-Calvinist, anti-Reformation, de-conversion agenda rhetoric.
Because while the anti's will twist peoples words and scripture, it's impossible to twist the forthright statement: We're certainly done here!
Not that anti's won't give it a shot. It's in their nature.

 

[^j^RaspberryAngel]

By the way. Calvinists and those in the Reformation movement?

Have you ever considered absconding to the Semper Reformada forum for your discussions? This way the Troll kind, the atheists, the anti's, can't bait, flame, goad, and harass you there?

 

[Butch5]

My question is, what is this need to prove someone else wrong? Why does one have to "crush" the opposition? And that exact word has been used as justification for actions certain people have taken here. Is this a football game? No, it's a discussion of theology regarding Salvation. Given the way these conversations go, it appears that most do not trust the Holy Spirit to convict people of the Truth. That's sad, because the Holy spirit is perfectly capable of revealing the Truth to an individual at exactly the right time. None of us has that level of finesse, knowledge, or skill, and therefore have no business trying to do His job. He doesn't need your help. The fact that anyone posts their thoughts and views on this forum does not require anyone to respond. If you do respond, do so with respect, humility, and love. Anything other than that is of the evil one, even if the other person IS wrong. Of what value is it to immediately put them on the defensive, just so you can assert your "rightness"?.

Please understand that I am not directing this at any one individual, so if I say "you", it has no name attached to it.

Put your view out there, and let others put theirs out there. Let's discuss things like rational, mature, reasonable BRETHREN, and if agreement is reached on something, great! If not, accept and respect that others see things differently, and move on. Pray for them, and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us all, and be willing to accept that you could be wrong, and it's not the end of the world if you are. Let's let the juvenile bullying and trying to dominate things stop. No matter how convinced you are that you're right, remember that you aren't perfect, and you don't have all the answers.

It's not a matter of one side or the other being correct. That's what starts the bullying, the condescension, the attempt to overwhelm and dominate, and the juvenile snarkiness, baiting and goading. It's a matter of, first and foremost, anyone who has trusted in Christ for Salvation, and confesses that they have repented and believed on Him, is our brother or sister in Christ, and we should not be warring against them.

I agree! The problem is it doesn't go that way. For Instance, Marvin doesn't consider me a brother because I differ on doctrine. That doesn't bother me and he has to make the call he believes is correct. I on other hand I consider anyone a Christian who confesses, "thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

You said, "Put your view out there, and let others put theirs out there. Let's discuss things like rational, mature, reasonable BRETHREN, and if agreement is reached on something, great! If not, accept and respect that others see things differently, and move on. " I agree! However, many people don't discuss things rationally and reasonably. When you point out that they are not being rational instead of hearing what one says, they get defensive and often the attacks begin. If I'm reasoning fallaciously I want someone to point it out to me. Errors in reasoning don't lead to the truth, they lead to error. An example is when the statement was posted from the WCF saying that God was the first cause of all things yet not the cause of sin. I pointed out that the statement is a contradiction. Did anyone try to rationally discuss the contradiction? No, people posted Scriptures, said, no it's not, etc. No one said, hey, let's look at this and see if there is some way to understand it that wouldn't be a contradiction. It didn't happen and it rarely does happen on these forums. Instead people got defensive and said I was simply wrong. No evidence, no nothing, I was just wrong. That's not rationally reasoning though the issue. So, my question is, how do we have a rational discussion if people aren't even willing to address their irrationality?

 

[Butch5]

Not so - not arbitrarily.

I provide scripture over against your precious leaders in the Ante-Nicene period. That’ll get you off your hobby horse it you’ll give the holy Spirit half a chance.

Marvin, what you give me is your understanding of Scripture. Do you propose to know better what Jesus and the apostles taught than those who were taught by them?

I said the necessity of baptism was universally accepted in the Ante-Nicene period. You claimed that was not so. The only evidence you presented was "YOUR" understanding of the Scriptures. The thing is, they to had those same Scriptures and they didn't understand the subject the was you do. So, it would seem that either they or you are wrong. Since they were there and participants in the event, I'll have to believe that it is they who are correct. Your reading a translation of a copy of the texts. The read the language in which the texts were written. You live in land far away and in a culture 2000 years removed from the events. You live in a completely different world system than they did.

When a crime is committed the investigators find eyewitnesses to the events to find out what happened, they don't go to a reporter who wrote an article on the subject 2 weeks later.

That is what I am doing. I am going to the eyewitness. However, you want me to go to the reporter (you) who wrote the article 2 weeks (2000 years) later.

Of course not. They don’t teach that baptism is necessary. They may infer it if you infer wrong. But then you say you don’t do that.

I’m going back to my position of not trading posts with you – so that I won’t inadvertently give you a chance to teach a false gospel much like EmSw; Extraordinary and many others here do.

You still haven't addressed the rest of those passages. Here I'll give another passage that deals with baptism, one you didn't post.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mk. 16:16 KJV)

If we're going to discuss the role of baptism shouldn't we address every passage on the subject?

 

[Butch5]

Thank you God!

Now everyone in these type threads that have encountered the anti-platformists, who use that self same argument, "no it's not", can recall your declaration about it and take that forward when you do that, when others like the amusing FG2 does that, the Texas one does that same thing, the whole small tiny lot of you, and move on.
"Is not a logical defense of your position."

Do you have an argument or just more question begging epithets?

That's what I'm writing in lieu of your bad writing there. Seems like there's an under the influence issue that makes your post almost unintelligible.
As for Blank Stair's remarks that you're attempting to deride there, everyone here can read that she's defended the positions she's made. While the, that's not in the bible, crew keep at it with their same tactics of dismissal amounting to; nuh uh no it's not. huh huh!

They won't read a logical defense of the contradiction in the WCF.

I'd also tell you you may want to stop wasting your breath. That last line in their post tells us that she's done with your anti-Calvinist, anti-Reformation, de-conversion agenda rhetoric.
Because while the anti's will twist peoples words and scripture, it's impossible to twist the forthright statement: We're certainly done here!
Not that anti's won't give it a shot. It's in their nature.

More question begging epithets.

However, I would like to thank you for validating the statements I made to nobodysfool in post 421.