the 5 solas

[Jon_]

well, take for example a practice such as praying to saints. people have attempted, using Scripture alone, to justify the practice, and say certain verses show support for it. however, looking at the writings and other things from the 2nd century church, we can see that they didn't practice it, and therefore the church immediately after the Apostles didn't interpret these verses to mean that. so we see that prayers to saints are a post-Apostolic addition to Church tradition. the same goes for prayers for the dead.

This line of argumentation is invalid. The practice of saints prayers and prayers for the dead are not established or condemned on the basis of early church practice. They are not practiced because the Scriptures do not support them. The interpretation of those that say the Scriptures teach them is faulty. Biblical interpetation is never validated by anything outside of the Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[lmnop9876]

This line of argumentation is invalid. The practice of saints prayers and prayers for the dead are not established or condemned on the basis of early church practice. They are not practiced because the Scriptures do not support them. The interpretation of those that say the Scriptures teach them is faulty. Biblical interpetation is never validated by anything outside of the Bible.

i don't see where you're coming from. just a question. being a 'calvinist', when you read, "God so loved the world" do you read, "God so loved people from all over the world?" and someone else might read, "God so loved each and every person in the world." everyone interprets the Bible from one perspective or another. i prefer to look at issues that the Bible isn't clear on from the perspective of those who were closest to the Apostles.

 

[Jon_]

i don't see where you're coming from. just a question. being a 'calvinist', when you read, "God so loved the world" do you read, "God so loved people from all over the world?" and someone else might read, "God so loved each and every person in the world." everyone interprets the Bible from one perspective or another. i prefer to look at issues that the Bible isn't clear on from the perspective of those who were closest to the Apostles.

The former interpretation is correct. We know it is correct because it is the only rationally acceptable interpetation, not because the early church thought so.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Erinwilcox]

You know, don't you Phil, that we Reformed people think (I'd say know, but I won't raise that issue ) that the Apostles were Calvinists? The Apostles taught election, limited atonement, etc. So did Jesus.

And yes, when I read "For God so loved the world. . ." I read it as follows. The Jews were used to being God's chosen people. To them, they were all that mattered in God's plan of salvation. Jesus was trying to explain to them that His salvation would go beyond the Jewish nations and into the nations of the world. Keep reading in John 3 to verse 18. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Those who do not believe are CONDEMNED ALREADY. This could only be the case if God had already chosen who would believe savingly on His name.

 

[moretap]

But with the canon now complete, the gift of prophecy is no longer applicable.

I believe this because I have never seen or experienced any prophecy and the church I go to doesn't seem to practice it, but the only scripture references I can think of to justify this is the end of Revelations and passages about warnings of false prophets. At a spiritual gifts seminar I went to the teacher said there is some debate in reformed theology about some of the gifts and if they are still given by God and seen in people.

What part of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with this?

 

[CCWoody]

I believe this because I have never seen or experienced any prophecy and the church I go to doesn't seem to practice it, but the only scripture references I can think of to justify this is the end of Revelations and passages about warnings of false prophets. At a spiritual gifts seminar I went to the teacher said there is some debate in reformed theology about some of the gifts and if they are still given by God and seen in people.

What part of the Westminster Confession of Faith deals with this?

CHAPTER I.

Of the holy Scripture.

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

 

[lmnop9876]

You know, don't you Phil, that we Reformed people think (I'd say know, but I won't raise that issue ) that the Apostles were Calvinists? The Apostles taught election, limited atonement, etc. So did Jesus.

And yes, when I read "For God so loved the world. . ." I read it as follows. The Jews were used to being God's chosen people. To them, they were all that mattered in God's plan of salvation. Jesus was trying to explain to them that His salvation would go beyond the Jewish nations and into the nations of the world. Keep reading in John 3 to verse 18. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. " Those who do not believe are CONDEMNED ALREADY. This could only be the case if God had already chosen who would believe savingly on His name.

i don't really have a problem with Calvinism, i've been in a reformed family and church for the last 9 years, i've been brought up on the westminster shorter catechism, although no one's ever explained the proof texts supporting the five points, as i said i don't really have a problem with them.
however, i don't like it when reformed people are afraid to tell others that God loves them. if God didn't love them, they wouldn't be here, being given a chance to repent and turn to Him. I think God has a general love for all of His creation, but especially for humans, but even more especially for His elect.

 

[Erinwilcox]

i don't really have a problem with Calvinism, i've been in a reformed family and church for the last 9 years, i've been brought up on the westminster shorter catechism, although no one's ever explained the proof texts supporting the five points, as i said i don't really have a problem with them.
however, i don't like it when reformed people are afraid to tell others that God loves them. if God didn't love them, they wouldn't be here, being given a chance to repent and turn to Him. I think God has a general love for all of His creation, but especially for humans, but even more especially for His elect.

Well, at least in the US, there is are many who, when presenting the Gospel, will say something like the following," God loves you and has a WONDERFUL plan for your life." Now, does God love everybody equally? No. Does God have a WONDERFUL plan for the reprobate's life? Uh, hell doesn't sound very appealing to me. Now listen. If somebody is witnessing on a street corner and says the above phrase to an unconverted person, then that unconverted person spits on them, curses God, and walks away only to be hit by a car the next instant, they go to Hell-right? So does God still love them and have a wonderful plan for their life? No-it was never true to begin with.

Now, as Reformed people, we shouldn't be afraid to say that God loves them, but we do need to be careful how we phrase it (so as to not give false assurance, opinions of God, etc). The other thing is when people witness and they say (and this happens with practically all Arminians almost everytime they witness), "God died to save everyone-this means you!" Again, is this true? Not with an understanding of Limited Atonement. Isn't that lying to people? The more accurate thing to say would be," God died to save sinners. Repent ye therefore of your sin and be saved!"

 

[lmnop9876]

Well, at least in the US, there is are many who, when presenting the Gospel, will say something like the following," God loves you and has a WONDERFUL plan for your life." Now, does God love everybody equally? No. Does God have a WONDERFUL plan for the reprobate's life? Uh, hell doesn't sound very appealing to me. Now listen. If somebody is witnessing on a street corner and says the above phrase to an unconverted person, then that unconverted person spits on them, curses God, and walks away only to be hit by a car the next instant, they go to Hell-right? So does God still love them and have a wonderful plan for their life? No-it was never true to begin with.

Now, as Reformed people, we shouldn't be afraid to say that God loves them, but we do need to be careful how we phrase it (so as to not give false assurance, opinions of God, etc). The other thing is when people witness and they say (and this happens with practically all Arminians almost everytime they witness), "God died to save everyone-this means you!" Again, is this true? Not with an understanding of Limited Atonement. Isn't that lying to people? The more accurate thing to say would be," God died to save sinners. Repent ye therefore of your sin and be saved!"

I think you're right here. we need to be careful of turning the Bible's "Christ loved us and gave Himself for us" to "Christ loved you and gave Himself for you." how do we know Christ gave Himself for them?! however, i do have a problem with people who are afraid to use even Biblical language for fear of sounding like they're not offering a limited atonement. I think if we just stick to Biblical language, we're going on the right track.