The Westminster Confession of Faith Blasphemy

[SolaScriptura]

Sola,

I suggest you do some study in historical theology. Calvin did not teach TULIP. It emerged from the teaching of the Synod of Dort (1618-19). "Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants" who were not Calvinists.

Oz

I suggest that you read the posts before you comment. see # 163!

 

[Quantrill]

To @OZ

Whether I am a 'good conversationalist' is immaterial to me.

I did speak to the definition you used and your reply. Had you paid attention you would have seen that.

Quantrill

 

[OzSpen]

Wrong! John Calvin never believed in the L in TULIP. This has nothing to do with John Calvin, but from the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. John Calvin died in 1564.

Sola,

I dealt with this topic in my article, Did John Calvin believe in limited atonement?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

To @OZ

Whether I am a 'good conversationalist' is immaterial to me.

I did speak to the definition you used and your reply. Had you paid attention you would have seen that.

Quantrill

So that I receive a reply in my email, I suggest you don't use To @OZ by To @Oz

 

[jasonc]

Sola,

I dealt with this topic in my article, Did John Calvin believe in limited atonement?

Oz

Even my reformed pastor says that on limited atonement with Calvin

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I understand false teaching, based on departure from the Bible, as synonymous with heresies


In NT Greek, the term from which we get the English, ‘heresy’ is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadducees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5; of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘destructive heresies’ ESV, NIV). This latter verse uses ‘haireseis (plural) of destruction’.

The Oxford dictionary gives these meanings of heresy:



From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, and every wind of doctrine (I Timothy 1:3; 4:1; 6:3; Ephesians 4:14). This is in contrast to sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, and the doctrine of God (I Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

For much of this analysis on Arianism, I’m indebted to systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem (1994:243-245).

I do not regard Calvinism as a heresy but as a different interpretation that needs to be challenged by Scripture.

Oz


Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4th ed). London: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition to Zondervan Publishing House).


Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.



Oz

Works consulted


Grudem, W 1994. Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

I agree about a heretical group being a sect that does not agree with mainline Christianity as it was taught at the beginning of the Christian church - up to 325AD and then it begins to change.

But don't you think a denomination could have an incorrect teaching but still be part of mainline Christianity?
If not, I think EVERY denomination would be a heresy....they all have something or other they don't agree with.

Think of Catholicism. I do believe that the CC is the original and first church because we could trace it back to the Apostles.
And yet, think of all the incorrect teachings....purgatory always comes to mind because I know even priests that don't believe it's biblical...
and yet it is taught.

Does this make the CC a sect?? A heresy??

As to Calvinism (or the reformed faith)...I consider it a heresy because very important and base teachings are not what Christianity teaches...
they are a denomination totally unto themselves and follow the writings of men like Calvin, Zilweg, etc instead of just reading the bible and coming to their own conclusion - which would be totally different from what they're taught. They do not come to scripture with an open mind and when a person is willing to read and follow the truth, they many times leave that denomination.

 

[OzSpen]

I agree about a heretical group being a sect that does not agree with mainline Christianity as it was taught at the beginning of the Christian church - up to 325AD and then it begins to change.

But don't you think a denomination could have an incorrect teaching but still be part of mainline Christianity?
If not, I think EVERY denomination would be a heresy....they all have something or other they don't agree with.

Think of Catholicism. I do believe that the CC is the original and first church because we could trace it back to the Apostles.
And yet, think of all the incorrect teachings....purgatory always comes to mind because I know even priests that don't believe it's biblical...
and yet it is taught.

Does this make the CC a sect?? A heresy??

As to Calvinism (or the reformed faith)...I consider it a heresy because very important and base teachings are not what Christianity teaches...
they are a denomination totally unto themselves and follow the writings of men like Calvin, Zilweg, etc instead of just reading the bible and coming to their own conclusion - which would be totally different from what they're taught. They do not come to scripture with an open mind and when a person is willing to read and follow the truth, they many times leave that denomination.

wondering,

In NT Greek, the term from which we get the English, ‘heresy’ is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadducees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5; of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘destructive heresies’ ESV, NIV). This latter verse uses ‘haireseis (plural) of destruction’.

The Oxford dictionary gives these meanings of heresy:

(a) ‘Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine’;
(b) ‘Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted’ (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v heresy).[3]

From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, and every wind of doctrine (I Timothy 1:3; 4:1; 6:3; Ephesians 4:14). This is in contrast to sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, and the doctrine of God (I Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

So, the RCC or any Protestant denomination is a heresy, i.e. a sect. What would your response be to the teaching that "female preachers are heretical"?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I agree about a heretical group being a sect that does not agree with mainline Christianity as it was taught at the beginning of the Christian church - up to 325AD and then it begins to change.

But don't you think a denomination could have an incorrect teaching but still be part of mainline Christianity?
If not, I think EVERY denomination would be a heresy....they all have something or other they don't agree with.

Think of Catholicism. I do believe that the CC is the original and first church because we could trace it back to the Apostles.
And yet, think of all the incorrect teachings....purgatory always comes to mind because I know even priests that don't believe it's biblical...
and yet it is taught.

Does this make the CC a sect?? A heresy??

As to Calvinism (or the reformed faith)...I consider it a heresy because very important and base teachings are not what Christianity teaches...
they are a denomination totally unto themselves and follow the writings of men like Calvin, Zilweg, etc instead of just reading the bible and coming to their own conclusion - which would be totally different from what they're taught. They do not come to scripture with an open mind and when a person is willing to read and follow the truth, they many times leave that denomination.

wondering,

I know who Zwingli is, but don't have a clue about Zilweg. Perhaps you misspelled his name.

As used in NT times, heresy was a sect for different interpretations. Today, "heresy" has developed into a term that means teaching that is very different from biblical Christianity. Thus, you have the JWs, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.

I'm afraid some of the Pentecostals have split into teaching things not agreeing with biblical Christianity, e.g. Kingdom Culture, Prosperity Doctrine, Toronto Blessing, etc.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I know who Zwingli is, but don't have a clue about Zilweg. Perhaps you misspelled his name.

LOL
I meant ZILWEG!!
Thanks.

As used in NT times, heresy was a sect for different interpretations. Today, "heresy" has developed into a term that means teaching that is very different from biblical Christianity. Thus, you have the JWs, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.

I'm afraid some of the Pentecostals have split into teaching things not agreeing with biblical Christianity, e.g. Kingdom Culture, Prosperity Doctrine, Toronto Blessing, etc.

Oz

I can agree with the above.
I know about Prosperity doctrine but not Kingdom Culture and Toronto Blessing.

Too much to keep up with!
I always thought Christianity was so simple!

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

In NT Greek, the term from which we get the English, ‘heresy’ is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadducees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5; of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1 (‘destructive heresies’ ESV, NIV). This latter verse uses ‘haireseis (plural) of destruction’.

The Oxford dictionary gives these meanings of heresy:


From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, and every wind of doctrine (I Timothy 1:3; 4:1; 6:3; Ephesians 4:14). This is in contrast to sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, and the doctrine of God (I Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

So, the RCC or any Protestant denomination is a heresy, i.e. a sect. What would your response be to the teaching that "female preachers are heretical"?

Oz

I believe female preachers are heretical.
It's a teaching that is very clear from scripture and the teaching is very removed from mainline Christianity.

I mean....could a Catholic even imagine confessing to a female!

 

[PeterJens]

The Westminster Confession of Faith Says That God was PLEASED With The Fall of The Human Race.

“Our first parents were led astray by the cunning temptation of Satan and sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. It pleased God to allow them to sin, because in his wisdom and holiness he planned to order their sin to his own glory” (On the Fall of Man, https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf)

Not only does the WCF say that God was PLEASED to ALLOW Adam and Eve to sin, and therefore the entire human race. But, it goes on to say, that God so PLANNED to ORDER THEIR SIN TO HIS OWN GLORY.

This is the highest form of BLASPHEMY, as it clearly makes God the AUTHOR of our sins, and that He takes PLEASURE in our SINNING!!!

The Oxford English Dictionary defines PLEASED:

“Affected by feelings of satisfaction or pleasure; contented, gratified, in good humour”

And ORDER:

“Of the Deity, etc.: To regulate or determine (occurrences, events, etc.); to ordain”

This is 100% AGAINST the Teachings of the Holy Bible, and must be REJECTED, as from hell!

This is an interesting conclusion to come to. It all rides on one concept.
If God intend to create humans as His people and redeem them before the beginning of time, He knew man would fall
through the corrupting knowledge of good and evil, separate from fellowship with Him.

This is the old age issue of did God create evil. Or another way of putting this did God create darkness as well as light.
And the answer is yes, in a sense. Because the opposite of something good, is something evil, or where there is no light there is darkness. But these things only exist as the rejection of that which is perfect and whole.

Just as we cannot exist without time, because to be able to move in our world you need to be in one place and later in
another, or else you are everywhere or nowhere, so we cannot have the choice of actions that are good without the option of actions that are evil. It is not evil or wrong to create the choice, but rather this is the price of giving life and love to another creature.

The mistake is the linking of pleasure with failure and the opposite of the intended outcome. But God also has declared that which is wrong or destructive will be destroyed and no more. This means the failure is only temporary and will be forgotten and is not ultimately relevant.

This is why I disagree with the idea God intends to torture sinners of eternity, but this is true if they are knowingly aligned with the enemy against God in the open. If one wants to be spiritually real, most have no clue about the nature of love and life, and are a total mess. Elijah was one prophet, with 7 thousand others, against Judah, who did not care about God that much.

Jesus was also less interested in the crazy theology people had, but rather with those who wish to walk the straight path and live a life of love. Often the church sees theology before people, and takes things as one group against another rather than one sinner at a time. I am more impressed with ideas of how we are built and what motivates us and how we like and encourage others than the ins and outs of confessions.

 

[PeterJens]

LOL
I meant ZILWEG!!
Thanks.


I can agree with the above.
I know about Prosperity doctrine but not Kingdom Culture and Toronto Blessing.

Too much to keep up with!
I always thought Christianity was so simple!

I begin to see following Jesus is simple if we straighten our hearts out in Him as little children learning to walk.
The anointing by the Holy Spirit turning people into new creations can be made like magic.

It is obvious Peter and Paul fell out, two of the most blessed brothers there are.
So many hide behind their group, their traditions, their security in their situation, rather than letting love and openness minister and let Jesus and resting in Him be their focus. It is little wonder anxiousness is becoming the biggest problem in our society, because the big issues have often been resolved, but the rules of the heart and its worries have just been locked away. So a group can claim because of some emotional elation and praise culture, they have the true revelation when they are just feeding youthful enthusiasm with no depth.

Living a quiet life and learning to listen to the Lord and our hearts takes time. We want answers now, and everything laid out as if it is safe and predictable. Jesus will teach us, if we are prepared to open the door and listen.

God bless you

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is an interesting conclusion to come to. It all rides on one concept.
If God intend to create humans as His people and redeem them before the beginning of time, He knew man would fall
through the corrupting knowledge of good and evil, separate from fellowship with Him.

This is the old age issue of did God create evil. Or another way of putting this did God create darkness as well as light.
And the answer is yes, in a sense. Because the opposite of something good, is something evil, or where there is no light there is darkness. But these things only exist as the rejection of that which is perfect and whole.

Just as we cannot exist without time, because to be able to move in our world you need to be in one place and later in
another, or else you are everywhere or nowhere, so we cannot have the choice of actions that are good without the option of actions that are evil. It is not evil or wrong to create the choice, but rather this is the price of giving life and love to another creature.

The mistake is the linking of pleasure with failure and the opposite of the intended outcome. But God also has declared that which is wrong or destructive will be destroyed and no more. This means the failure is only temporary and will be forgotten and is not ultimately relevant.

This is why I disagree with the idea God intends to torture sinners of eternity, but this is true if they are knowingly aligned with the enemy against God in the open. If one wants to be spiritually real, most have no clue about the nature of love and life, and are a total mess. Elijah was one prophet, with 7 thousand others, against Judah, who did not care about God that much.

Jesus was also less interested in the crazy theology people had, but rather with those who wish to walk the straight path and live a life of love. Often the church sees theology before people, and takes things as one group against another rather than one sinner at a time. I am more impressed with ideas of how we are built and what motivates us and how we like and encourage others than the ins and outs of confessions.

Firstly, it is impossible for God, Who is HOLY, to create evil.

Secondly, your reasoning does not show how God could have been PLEASED with, and PLANNED and ORDERED the sin of Adam and Eve, who REBELLED against Him! Your arguments are MOOT!

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe female preachers are heretical

where in the Bible is this?

 

[OzSpen]

I believe female preachers are heretical.
It's a teaching that is very clear from scripture and the teaching is very removed from mainline Christianity.

I mean....could a Catholic even imagine confessing to a female!

wondering,

How then do you interpret 1 Cor 14:26 (NIV)? "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Fastfredy0]

Firstly, it is impossible for God, Who is HOLY, to create evil.

Secondly, your reasoning does not show how God could have been PLEASED with, and PLANNED and ORDERED the sin of Adam and Eve, who REBELLED against Him! Your arguments are MOOT!

You have given no alternate explanation as to why a Holy God allowed evil to enter the world. This could imply that the WCF answer is the best answer you know of.

Why did a Holy God allow evil to enter the world? Still waiting ...

 

[OzSpen]

I believe female preachers are heretical.
It's a teaching that is very clear from scripture and the teaching is very removed from mainline Christianity.

I mean....could a Catholic even imagine confessing to a female!

wondering,

I'm concerned with what the Bible states: "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective" (James 5:16 NIV).

This verse refutes the RCC position.

Oz

 

[PeterJens]

Firstly, it is impossible for God, Who is HOLY, to create evil.

Secondly, your reasoning does not show how God could have been PLEASED with, and PLANNED and ORDERED the sin of Adam and Eve, who REBELLED against Him! Your arguments are MOOT!

You are using words as summaries of concepts without defining them.
God is Holy. Evil is rebellious action against Gods order.
Evil is an action by a person, a created human. It is only humans who can be evil after the age of consent, potentially 20 years old.

Evil is also a word linked to earthquakes and disasters for whatever reason. One idea is a disaster sent on a community unjustly is evil. But as soon as you say "unjustly" you introduce the concept of action and judgement of the validity or otherwise of that action.

The issues are so interlinked and complex, you end up with saying ones emotional response is its cruel or its just life.
A child dying in great pain of cancer for some is evil and something they would never do.

One answer is the choice man had to walk alone, which God declared would lead to death for man.
Once man chose this walk, then everything is on his head.

God planned and knew the resolution of rebellion and sin in Christ.
To me you cannot have life in Christ and love without pain and suffering. I think this is the message of the cross. The prize must be worthy of the cost. I would say it is.

The Lord is pleased with His outcome, in eternity.
Genesis is the introduction to the problem there was no other way.
But as a believer does that make God evil, or able to demonstrate love overcomes the impossible.

So if you want to discuss evil, which definition are you using?

 

[SolaScriptura]

You are using words as summaries of concepts without defining them.
God is Holy. Evil is rebellious action against Gods order.
Evil is an action by a person, a created human. It is only humans who can be evil after the age of consent, potentially 20 years old.

Evil is also a word linked to earthquakes and disasters for whatever reason. One idea is a disaster sent on a community unjustly is evil. But as soon as you say "unjustly" you introduce the concept of action and judgement of the validity or otherwise of that action.

The issues are so interlinked and complex, you end up with saying ones emotional response is its cruel or its just life.
A child dying in great pain of cancer for some is evil and something they would never do.

One answer is the choice man had to walk alone, which God declared would lead to death for man.
Once man chose this walk, then everything is on his head.

God planned and knew the resolution of rebellion and sin in Christ.
To me you cannot have life in Christ and love without pain and suffering. I think this is the message of the cross. The prize must be worthy of the cost. I would say it is.

The Lord is pleased with His outcome, in eternity.
Genesis is the introduction to the problem there was no other way.
But as a believer does make that make God evil, or able to demonstrate love overcomes the impossible.

So if you want to discuss evil, which definition are you using?

does God PLAN and ORDAIN our sins? simple answer.

 

[PeterJens]

does God PLAN and ORDAIN our sins? simple answer.

Interesting question. Never thought of this idea from this perspective.
The world we see in creation is not defined and exact, it is an explosion of interactions of all sorts, some work and some fail. We use reductionist language like plan or ordain, as closed words, like they summarise control or order.

Yes there are rules, boundaries, limitations, but within this infinite creativity.
Victorian england and the world of absolutes believed you could define everything.
Relativity and quantum physics showed this is only part of a bigger picture that is way more fluid.

God planned Jesus and His response. He ordained judgement and a final reconning.
I cannot say more than this about God, because I am a mere mortal, and these are things beyond my pay grade.
After many years of following the 4 spiritual laws in evangelism etc. you begin to realise things are so much bigger and involved than this.

We are content in Christ, in the now, and in His hands our future.
The world wants security in wealth, in knowing blessing or the right thing to do at the right time, through horoscopes, or mediums or signs in the heavens. So my friend, there are no simple answers, there is ultimately knowing Jesus and following or darkness.

God bless you