Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: 1644 Confession Its implications

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    I also do not agree at all with WB that 'Law' in the Psalms is the same as 'Law' in the apostle Paul or most of the New Testament. 'Law' in Psalms is generally the equivalent of 'Word.' It includes the whole of God's revelation, whether Law, Gospel, history, or prophecy. The law/gospel distinction of Paul and John cannot be disproved by quoting David.
    good point bob. i think this is crucial in our discussion. understanding that Scripture uses the same word differently in different contexts by different writers is vital in our exegesis. we cannot simply do a concordance search and assume that a word only has one meaning or sense everywhere it is used throughout Scripture. language does not work this way (concordant interpretation has been shown to be quite erroneous).

    i think this is the problem with the way some read/understand 2 Tim 3:16. certainly the Law (whether this be the 10 commandments, the entire mosaic law, the first five books of the OT, or the commandment/word of God) was part of the Scriptures referred to here (assuming he wasn't also referring to the available apostolic writings which would have been available since this was written in AD 62-64) but we mustn't conclude from this that this is proof that one must use the Law (in whatever sense you understand it) to properly present the gospel.

    so if we mean by this thread that one should preach the 10 commandments (whether by themselves or along with other OT stuff, perhaps whatever we feel like including) to prepare people for the gospel i don't believe that the NT bears this out. i find no such method of gospel presentation in the book of acts and i recall no such allusion to such method in the other NT writings. i'm still looking for an example of this method of evangelism (i.e., 10 commandment evangelism). perhaps it was used to point out sinfulness to Jews (e.g., Jesus with the rich young ruler) but i do not find this same method applied to Gentiles. i'm willing to consider and discuss any evidence that someone has, but to date i have seen no such compelling evidence.

    i also do not see any evidence for a gospel presentation that requires an entire lesson on all of the OT in order for it to be an acceptable gospel presentation to get someone saved. i wouldn't argue the other extreme which purposes to leave stuff out intentionally, but i don't think we need to be overly rigid here as if someone's salvation were up to our ability to accurately present the message to the nth degree. the whole implication of this thought seems to me to make salvation a work of man whereby it's ultradependent upon man's ability to present and understand the entirety of the message. this is a great danger in my opinion and although we believe we fully understand God's sovereign grace we tend to seemingly contradict this understanding when we press such rigidity on such an issue (e.g., saying that the gospel must include such and such in order to be acceptable, etc.). i also do not think it is a matter of indifference to what you say (i.e., i think the content of the message is important), but i believe that the minimum is unequivocally found in 1 Co 15:1ff. this is the gospel minimum and there is no need to add anything else as if this (1 Co 15:1ff) wasn't the gospel without it.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
    As regards the law, isn't the heart of the matter what the objective is in preaching the law? If the objective is to teach people to obey the commandments then that is not the gospel but if the objective is to point people to Jesus Christ as their only hope how can that be wrong? - as Tomas pointed out
    that is a very good point. motive/intent is what makes the difference. if you're preaching the 10 commandments (which i believe is the way Law is being used here) just for the sake of making people realize that they are sinners that you may speak of the solution in Christ is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. if the purpose is to present Christ, there are a plethora of ways to do it. but if one makes the claim that you cannot present the gospel properly without the 10 commandments (i.e., that this is the only way one can present the message), then i believe that they are simply adding to Scripture a method of their own making and are taking a dangerous position indeed.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Again, disciple, it boils down to whether you see it or not. With regard to John 1:14 the word was made flesh and that was a generation into Son. The first mention of Son was Psalm 2:7 which was fulfilled by his resurrection. We can go round and round, but it is a matter of faith in the end.

    To all of you who are thinking that the law can be taught, it would have no real meaning without Christ as its fulfillment. Further the law cannot humble, as was taught by Luther, nor can it cause repentance as is taught by Menno.

    The bottom line hear is the 1644 confession would have viewed all of you as being the Papacy and her children. That is a warning.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Savage Minnesota
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    "The bottom line hear is the 1644 confession would have viewed all of you as being the Papacy and her children. That is a warning."

    The bottom line is what does Scripture say. Confessions are helpful but not infallable. . Oh well, this is the reason I pretty much quit internet theology discussions. Have fun! :-)

    --Pope Cyberfish

  5. #45
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,823
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    121
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    70
    Thanked in
    45 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Pope Cyberfish, too funny... I believe you are distorting the 1644 confession bgamall as well as Scripture. The 1644 does not say men cannot preach the law at all to unbelivers. It says that the law is not necessary to point men to Christ. The Gospel I preach does not need the law. It does not say that any law preaching is of the papacy!

    Pope Darth
    This is my signature.

  6. #46
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Tunnel Vision of 'Law'

    This whole discussion shows evidence that we can easily be ensnared in 'tunnel vision' with regard to the use of 'law' in scripture. Unless we respect the context in any particular passage using the word 'law', it is easy to promote wrong conclusions and dogmatics.

    A blanket rejection of a mere use of the word 'law' is definitely tunnel vision. Even if we subscribe to New Covenant theology (which I do), it is important in THAT context to teach a clear contrast of law and gospel or law and grace. Even then, we USE the word LAW!

    Romans 3:31 clearly states that 'the law' is established through through grace and faith, IN SOME FASHION. No one should propose that talking about this or even trying to sort it out is non-Christian. The 'only gospel' theory is often presented in such a fashion that the mere use of the word 'law' in teaching the gospel is assumed to be evil. This is not taught in scripture.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Savage Minnesota
    Posts
    13
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    hhhh Hi hhh Darth hhh uh oh, I think I agree with you hard shelled one! I must resist being pulled to the dark side ahhh! Seriously though, what is the best way to tell people that think they are pretty good that they are really desprately wicked and need salvation without using the law to show how they are sinful?

    Thanks

    Luke Icewalker

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    This whole discussion shows evidence that we can easily be ensnared in 'tunnel vision' with regard to the use of 'law' in scripture. Unless we respect the context in any particular passage using the word 'law', it is easy to promote wrong conclusions and dogmatics.
    I tend to agree with Bill (what else is new) on this one as well!

    Here is the snare that some of us preachers of Grace have a tendency to fall in:

    1. Denying the distinction (as dim as it is) from the Law regarding ceremonies, a.k.a. "ceremonial law" and the Law that servers as a "tutor" (read Paul in Galatians) to tell us what sin is, thereby leading people to return to the "shadows" and "beggarly elements" of the Law which have already been fulfilled but also, in its ceremonial aspect, abolished by Christ's work and Word
    2. Neglecting to urge people as to the "weakness" of the Law in "cleansing us" from sin thereby giving the impression that "when viloate the law, the fulfillment thereof makes ammends for its violation". This is an error similar to the SDA's error that I frequently hear in Grace oriented pulpits. To fail to make a clear statement that "fulfilling the Law" is only "filthy rags" of self righteousness before the eyes of a Holy God is equivalent to preaching a false Gospel. We have to be active in announcing justification by faith alone and Salvation alone by the Work of Christ.
    Now, to say that if I even mention that there is a Law whereby God has established and demonstrated what He "does not like" and reject is error, is a the inbalance Bill speaks about which is caused by the tunnel vision he mentions.

    I know I can't kill or commit adultery because God reveals to me in the Law that that would be a sin. I know that I cannot fulfill the Law and even if I could, that would not be enough to save me. I know that only Christ's work can save, Christ's Word can clean, and there is no hope for me apart from Christ.

    Just my half a cent worth of input...
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    I know I can't kill or commit adultery because God reveals to me in the Law that that would be a sin. I know that I cannot fulfill the Law and even if I could, that would not be enough to save me. I know that only Christ's work can save, Christ's Word can clean, and there is no hope for me apart from Christ.
    When I quote myself (from the post above) is really, really bad!

    Continuing:

    Now in Grace we have the Holy Spirit to convince us and convict us of sin. So, a real outlook on a balance presentation of the Law has to be considered.

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    The bottom line hear is the 1644 confession would have viewed all of you as being the Papacy and her children. That is a warning.
    A warning against what? I don't even see what you are saying in the 1644 confession, but even it was there what has led you to believe that this confession is infallible. It seems that you are held captive by this confession, perhaps some Scripture reading from the law and thre prophets could release you.

    In order for a confession to hold sway in an argument all the participants have to agree that the confession is correct. I could start quoting from the Belgic Confession or the Heidelberg Catechism, but what would be the point?

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberfish
    Seriously though, what is the best way to tell people that think they are pretty good that they are really desprately wicked and need salvation without using the law to show how they are sinful?
    I think that concentrating on the total depravity of the sinner and God's strict requirement for perfect righteousness to be acceptable in His sight is the way to present the Gospel message. In Romans 5 Paul used our being in Adam as the basis for our present problem of death and a sinful standing before God, why can't we do the same? Evangelism is really just articulating life in each of the two Adam's.
    17For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
    18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
    I think we should speak out against specific sins at times, but we should be talking mostly about SIN not SIN'S. Fundamentalism has made it's name by always going after specific sins. This misleads people to think that once the behavior is changed then we will be more acceptable to God. This is the fast-track to moralism. When we tell others that God demands perfect righteousness, nobody could escape their own conscience smiting them with something sinful. What a glorious message the imputed righteousness of Christ then becomes!
    Soli Deo Gloria.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 1644 Confession Its implications

    This needs to be kept simple. You see men in Acts chapter 2 cut to the heart. The law in no way did this. It cannot bring humility, nor repentance nor anything saving. And those who believe that it can do not know Christ.

    In keeping with 1644 confession and the truth of the gospel, that is the warning.

    And don't forget, the Patriarchs were saved by that very same gospel years before the law was even introduced. Believe this. It is the truth.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3

Similar Threads

  1. Hitler went to Heaven
    By Jack Daw in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-08-06, 04:23 PM
  2. col 1:13
    By beloved57 in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 12:53 PM
  3. R C Sproul Jr. Defrocked?
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-17-06, 08:38 AM
  4. Where does it say Jesus went to Hell to get the Keys to Heaven?
    By Faithnhope in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-07-05, 02:24 PM
  5. JEROM ZANCHIUS
    By Mickey in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-01-05, 06:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •