Grace vs obedience

[GrinningDwarf]

No, the Holy Spirit explains the scriptures hence His importance in your life. The catechisms and confessions are mens attempts to put believers back under the law hence their irrelevance.

Absolutely wrong.

If you hold your confessions and catechisms in higher regard than the Holy Spirit,

We don't hold them in higher regard than the Holy Spirit, but we understand that the Holy Spirit, believe it or not, actually spoke wisdom through them. You see...the Spirit was not silent from the time of the apostles until Charles Finney.

 

[Beoga]

At the urgings of GrinningDwarf, I read Pink's book Chosen by God. I found it less than helpful and contradictory to the Bible. When questions about faith arise that I discuss with a brother, that discussion ALWAYS takes place with open Bibles.

Try reading the Westminster Confession of Faith with a closed Bible, it can't be done!
And well you should. The Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith. The Reformers rediscovered the great doctrine of SolA Scriptura, not SolO Scriptura. It is not a "me and my bible philosophy," meaning that we reject the men of faith that God has worked through that has come before us.

The use of confessions and catechisms to explain scripture is sill at best and dangerous at worst. We find that scripture explains itself.

If you reject any sort of creed and confession, do believe the word should be preached each Sunday? If so, why? Wouldn't this be silly at best and dangerous at worst? I mean the Scriptures explain themselves, there is no need for a Pastor to explain to his congregation what God has revealed.
The reason(s) you reject creeds and confessions could easily be turned around against preaching, bible studies, discussions between brothers, etc.

It has also been my experience (ex catholic) that confessions and catechisms are used to force scripture to fit within the pre-defined bounds of a particular religion (like Catholics) or point of view (like Calvinists).

The remedy to the abuse of a good thing (which creeds are) is not the rejection of that good thing.
Creeds and confessions are always subjected to Scripture, the Scriptures are the highest authority. Creeds and confessions are only binding where the accurately reflect what is taught in Scripture.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

The Reformers rediscovered the great doctrine of SolA Scriptura, not SolO Scriptura. It is not a "me and my bible philosophy," meaning that we reject the men of faith that God has worked through that has come before us.

Bravo!! A vital point. Well said!

 

[DeaconDean]

Grace meets obedience in Christ.

I can't beat Beoga's answer.

I can:

"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." -Psa. 85:10 (KJV)

Where did this happen? In Christ and at the cross.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[da525382]

To me, there is no such thing as the absence of a creed or catechism. Those who claim to reject them live a life of the non-written creed or catechism. It nontheless is the same. Whether a group of believers chooses to write it down or not is inconsequential for in both cases, it still governs the theologic construct by which they run their lives.

 

[Boxmaker]

Try reading the Westminster Confession of Faith with a closed Bible, it can't be done!
And well you should. The Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith. The Reformers rediscovered the great doctrine of SolA Scriptura, not SolO Scriptura. It is not a "me and my bible philosophy," meaning that we reject the men of faith that God has worked through that has come before us.

I tried. The whole thing falls apart in the firs sentence of chapter 3. If you'll allow me to paraphrase, it says something like this, God has ordained everything that happens except for acts of evil. The two clauses contradict each other. If God has ordained everything then He had to ordain evil acts as well. If God did not ordain evil acts then He did not ordain everything. I am an engineer and I cannot accept that contradiction.

If you reject any sort of creed and confession, do believe the word should be preached each Sunday? If so, why? Wouldn't this be silly at best and dangerous at worst? I mean the Scriptures explain themselves, there is no need for a Pastor to explain to his congregation what God has revealed.
The reason(s) you reject creeds and confessions could easily be turned around against preaching, bible studies, discussions between brothers, etc.

Because the Word is preached out of the Bible. When the Word would seem to contradict itself we turn to the rest of the Bible to clarify the contradiction. We have no need for a creed or catechism to help us understand what the Bible says. That is why God gave us the Bible - to teach us His ways.

The remedy to the abuse of a good thing (which creeds are) is not the rejection of that good thing.
Creeds and confessions are always subjected to Scripture, the Scriptures are the highest authority. Creeds and confessions are only binding where the accurately reflect what is taught in Scripture.

I would never accept a creed or catechism or confession as binding in any way. Martin Luther looked at he creeds, catechisms and confesions of the Catholic church and started the Protestant movement. His main idea was to return the church he loved back to the teachings of Bible. Man made interpretations of the Bible may have good aspects. As soon as those interpretations take on the weight of dogma then Satan has won another church away from God.

 

[xapis]

That's not what it says, box. You must have difficulty distinguishing between first and second causes. Read it again for yourself and don't stop with #1: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html

 

[Boxmaker]

Absolutely wrong.

We will disagree strongly over this point. Jesus came to redeem us from the law and He did.

We don't hold them in higher regard than the Holy Spirit, but we understand that the Holy Spirit, believe it or not, actually spoke wisdom through them. You see...the Spirit was not silent from the time of the apostles until Charles Finney.

You don't hold them in higher regard than scripture. Others may. My point was to examine what you believe and why you believe it. If what you believe does not fall in line with scripture, as interpreted by the Holy Spirit in your life, then it is time to examine your walk with Christ.

As accusatory as this sounds, it is not offered as an accusation. It is offered as a cautionary tale to believers, including myself. Faith is about obedience to Jesus, not a church creed or catechism. I have seen people lead astray when they put the rules of their church ahead of Jesus.

 

[Boxmaker]

That's not what it says, box. You must have difficulty distinguishing between first and second causes. Read it again for yourself and don't stop with #1: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_III.html

I'm sorry, but trying to explain a difference between first and second causes is meaningless in light of what the confession says. Note carefully what the paragraph says:

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

What does whatsoever mean?

Are you asserting that second causes are not unchangeably ordained by God?

If second causes are outside God's ordination, what does that say about the meaning of whatsoever?

 

[mlqurgw]

This is still a stickler for me. I am told by those more in the Arminian camp is that God is pleased only with those who work righteousness, that the entire New Testament is the Law of Christ, that we are to obey it, that is our purpose, I guess.

I clealy see how unscriptural this is, yet even in discussing grace with these people, they bring up the numerous scriptures warning us to watch out, that if God's wrath was poured out on such and such for sinning, how much more it will be poured out on us, how we are to watch out concerning falling away, etc.

Where do grace and obedience meet? Where is the righful place of obedience in our theologic thinking?

There is a world of difference in obedience out of love and slavish obedience out of fear. Those who would make obedience a requirement, as do those you speak of, are yet under bondage. It is legalism in its essence. They fear that love isn't enough motivation to walk worthy of your calling. The fact is that love is a much better motivation than law. The commonly held view of obedience is that God blesses us when we obey Him and punishes us when we don't. Hence the often used comments that if someone seems to be blessed by God they must be living right. Or when they experience trouble in the providence of God that they must not be living right. It denies the Scriptural teaching that all the blessings of God belong to every believer because of Christ and are in Him alone. Eph. 1:3 Also it more often than not leads to self-righteousness, something we are all prone to by nature. Those who look to themselves in any way for any thing from God: blessings, assurance, peace, acceptance, a favorable look, or rewards have not yet learned what it means to trust Christ. Looking to yourself for anything, in obedience or faith, is to miss the message that Christ is all in all to the believer. It is a works based faith that robs any who believe it of peace and comfort in Christ. It is what the Lord called the leaven of the Pharisees. All true believers obey Him. Not out of slavish fear or in order to gain from it but out of a sincere love for Him and deep desire to please and honor Him. We fail and fall but He always lifts us up and pours His wondrous grace into our hearts and points us once again to Himself and His work on our behalf. He makes us to daily look to Him alone and not to ourselves. We are complete in Him, lacking nothing. Col. 2:10. He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. 2Pet.1:3-10. Faith in Christ is resting in Him alone finding all that is needed for God to be pleased with us in Him and by Him. Matt. 11:27-30 In Him is peace that passes understanding and a full and complete salvation that we add nothing to. Whatever we do to add to what Christ has already done is to miss Christ. Gal. 2:16-21, 6:3.
All those passages which are used to drive people to obedience as unwilling slaves are simply explained by Peters words in 2Pet. 1:10. God working in us and through us are loving tokens of our calling and election. We do not look to them for assurance but as simply the fruit of Christ in us the hope of glory. It is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. Every elect sinner who trusts Christ alone manifests the fruit of the Spirit. Gal. 5:21-23. These things aren't proofs of our obedience but the manifest presence of the Spirit. By them we are always pointed to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. The warnings aren't given us as a whip to drive us but as a loving and gracious lesson to point us to our Redeemer.

 

[xapis]

I'm sorry, but trying to explain a difference between first and second causes is meaningless in light of what the confession says.

How so?

What does whatsoever mean?

All things (Eph. 1:11).

Are you asserting that second causes are not unchangeably ordained by God?

No (Prov. 16:33).

If second causes are outside God's ordination, what does that say about the meaning of whatsoever?

Moot.

 

[da525382]

There is a world of difference in obedience out of love and slavish obedience out of fear. Those who would make obedience a requirement, as do those you speak of, are yet under bondage. It is legalism in its essence. They fear that love isn't enough motivation to walk worthy of your calling. The fact is that love is a much better motivation than law. The commonly held view of obedience is that God blesses us when we obey Him and punishes us when we don't. Hence the often used comments that if someone seems to be blessed by God they must be living right. Or when they experience trouble in the providence of God that they must not be living right. It denies the Scriptural teaching that all the blessings of God belong to every believer because of Christ and are in Him alone. Eph. 1:3 Also it more often than not leads to self-righteousness, something we are all prone to by nature. Those who look to themselves in any way for any thing from God: blessings, assurance, peace, acceptance, a favorable look, or rewards have not yet learned what it means to trust Christ. Looking to yourself for anything, in obedience or faith, is to miss the message that Christ is all in all to the believer. It is a works based faith that robs any who believe it of peace and comfort in Christ. It is what the Lord called the leaven of the Pharisees. All true believers obey Him. Not out of slavish fear or in order to gain from it but out of a sincere love for Him and deep desire to please and honor Him. We fail and fall but He always lifts us up and pours His wondrous grace into our hearts and points us once again to Himself and His work on our behalf. He makes us to daily look to Him alone and not to ourselves. We are complete in Him, lacking nothing. Col. 2:10. He has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. 2Pet.1:3-10. Faith in Christ is resting in Him alone finding all that is needed for God to be pleased with us in Him and by Him. Matt. 11:27-30 In Him is peace that passes understanding and a full and complete salvation that we add nothing to. Whatever we do to add to what Christ has already done is to miss Christ. Gal. 2:16-21, 6:3.
All those passages which are used to drive people to obedience as unwilling slaves are simply explained by Peters words in 2Pet. 1:10. God working in us and through us are loving tokens of our calling and election. We do not look to them for assurance but as simply the fruit of Christ in us the hope of glory. It is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. Every elect sinner who trusts Christ alone manifests the fruit of the Spirit. Gal. 5:21-23. These things aren't proofs of our obedience but the manifest presence of the Spirit. By them we are always pointed to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. The warnings aren't given us as a whip to drive us but as a loving and gracious lesson to point us to our Redeemer.

Thank you mlqurgw for this great, great post.

Don

 

[Boxmaker]

How so?



All things (Eph. 1:11).



No (Prov. 16:33).



Moot.

Moot! Wonderful answer as it proves my point exactly. There is no difference between first causes and second causes. They were all unchangeably ordained by God. Now what does that mean for acts of evil?

 

[xapis]

Moot! Wonderful answer as it proves my point exactly.

Um. no.

Your question is moot because of the way "whatsoever" is defined!

 

[Boxmaker]

Um. no.

Your question is moot because of the way "whatsoever" is defined!

You said whatsoever means all things. All things means all, as in each and every, things. Therefore, there can be no meaningful difference between first and second causes because whether is is a first cause or second cause, both causes fall under the heading of all things.

 

[xapis]

Ordain does not equal cause.

 

[xapis]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_03.html

 

[Boxmaker]

Ordain does not equal cause.

Can anything happen that has not been ordained?

 

[xapis]

All things are foreordained whether performed directly by God or simply permitted by Him.

 

[Boxmaker]

http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/shaw_03.html

From your link

That God must have decreed all future things, is a conclusion which necessarily flows from his foreknowledge, independence, and immutability. "The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree, for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be; and that because things would not be future, unless he had decreed they should be." If God be an independent being, all creatures must have an entire dependence upon him; but this dependence proves undeniably that all their acts must be regulated by his sovereign will. If God be of one mind, which none can change, he must have unalterably fixed everything in his purpose which he effects in his providence.

Still there is no difference between first and second causes.