A Comparison of Sovereign Grace and Federal Vision Teaching

Dear Bob,

Is there a reason why you left out 'Total Depravity' ?

On Total Depravity so far I have not encountered a difference that can be pinned in a simple comparison of two opposing propositions.

Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby

On Total Depravity so far I have not encountered a difference that can be pinned in a simple comparison of two opposing propositions.

Don't mistake Total Depravity for an axiom. It is a basic principles and as such can be compared if we both agree on the axiom. However if you ditch the axiom of Scripture, namely that the 66 books of the Bible are the Word of God, then of course there will be no point in comparing the elementary propositions, or principles of the doctrine of Christ, for the Authority for them will have been unsettled. The axiom or the foundation.

What does concern me though is Paul's severe warning about preaching another Gospel. Galatians 1:8-9, for this contains a heavy sentence for the one who goes beyond what is written.

Selah.

I approved the above post only to show that the tone of "katoikei's" posts have change recently to that of one who is contentious. All of his posts are moderated of course, but one can clearly see in the above post that he has a "bone to pick" with us.

Originally Posted by Darth Gill

I approved the above post only to show that the tone of "katoikei's" posts have change recently to that of one who is contentious. All of his posts are moderated of course, but one can clearly see in the above post that he has a "bone to pick" with us.

Dear Brandan and Robert,

Certainly you are right. The tone of my posts have changed but not out of a desire to peck any bone with either of you. I am addressing your beliefs, which of late have become rather pronounced. The thread "Heretical Church Fathers" alerted me to the idea of the fact that you reject the Epistle of James among other books, and from what I can gather you do not uphold the 66 books of the Bible as attested to in the Westminster Confession. (There is much you do not uphold that is in the Westminster Confession.) However, it is the teaching on the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ that concern me the most. Your own teachings on the matter of the origin of sin, seem to be a high point of contention with many, many sholars, people like Phil Johnson, Don Fortner and Dr. John W. Robbins to mention but a few. (I have not been keeping score.) Lately, I noticed you even reject primary aspects of the theology of John Gill, whose commentary is on your site. None of this troubles me more than the fact that you stated that you judge the Scripture by the Gospel.

On the thread "I don't know?" I thought finally we were getting somewhere, well maybe I was getting somewhere with learning what you believe. Actually, I think that, that is the most positive thread I have been on, not just because I compiled the opening post, but because I really believe that no matter how much you hold to different idea regarding the canon of Scripture and even your views on the origin of sin, there is a profound element to the work of Samuel Richardson, that I certainly treasure.

My journey here at Peanut, (excuse my comical personification of so many of the characters in Charles M. Shulz's outstanding cartoons that seem to be present in most theological discussions. You know Linus, Lucy, Charlie Brown even 'Snoopy', and my dog howls in approval...,) has come to a place where I realize that your axioms or your foundational belief systems are completely different to what I expected and different to my own. I should have spent more time exploring your pages about your beliefs, but it is my fault!

I admit to pecking furiously on the bone of your basic belief, but it is done with the utmost respect. I appreciate that you fellas have made a concerted and are making a concerted effort to challenge the sleepy or nauseous Church system, which is more interested in attendance and programmes than in getting the message of the Gospel right! correct! accurate! TRUE! However, I must respectfully decline from posting anymore due to the some of the reasons I mentioned.

I am glad that we have reached the crossroad but sad that I have to leave. Perhaps the words of Gordon H. Clark will most accurately explain why I have to leave.

'If every system of philosophy derives from its own unique set of axioms, it becomes impossible for those who accept one set of axioms to hold a meaningful discussion with those who hold another set. The two parties to the dispute have nothing in common, and hence, neither has any basis for convincing the other.'

Shalom (which can also mean goodbye, though not in pieces) my special friends at Peanut.

I really am tired of dealing with this guy. I'm tired of moderating all of his posts! He is banned permanently.

Originally Posted by katoikei

I am glad that we have reached the crossroad but sad that I have to leave. Perhaps the words of Gordon H. Clark will most accurately explain why I have to leave.

'If every system of philosophy derives from its own unique set of axioms, it becomes impossible for those who accept one set of axioms to hold a meaningful discussion with those who hold another set. The two parties to the dispute have nothing in common, and hence, neither has any basis for convincing the other.'

Interesting that you should quote what Clark had to say about those with differing pre-suppositions. If one begins to form his theology (or philosophy) from the creation (sensory input, physical written words on a page), one is merely beginning from the same point as the unbeliever and really puts the cart before the horse. He has no sound and rational argument to support his own ideas and beliefs.

However, if one begins with Divine Revelation (the Gospel), one forms his theology from the true beginning (God) and has an undefeatable position. Cheung articulates this well--even though he accepts James as canonical.

On what basis do you KNOW the Bible contains Divine Revelation? Did you have to grow up, use your senses to read and understand it in order to KNOW what was true? Was it the fact that you 'chose' to study the Bible and then arrived at the fact that what was given you was Divine Revelation? How then do you justify your ability to comprehend it (or anything)?

These questions must be rhetorical since you cannot answer but my point is that one must begin with the Gospel (Divine Revelation) or one has no foundation for ascertaining any truth whatsoever. It is the Holy Spirit that leads one into all truth. He doesn't begin with the Bible (physical writing on a page), He divinely reveals the Gospel to those who are Christ's--all in good time. More often than not, this truth is initially received as the prodigal's older brother recieved it.

I personally believe that we defend the same basic set of axioms with the Trinity Foundation and similar defenders of the truth today--but they would most likely deny that. I can only pray that the Lord will bring us to some form of unity at a future time. No one has demonstrated that the differences we have are fundamental to the faith once delivered to the saints.

1. We condemn all of the same heresies with equal vigor: Federal Vision, reconstructionism, subjective justification (NPP), ECT, liberalism, Fullerism, dispensationalism, tongues Holy-Spirit baptism, Romanism, sacramentalism, skepticism, free-will, God's permissive will, etc.

2. Our standard and measure of truth is the Old and New Testaments of scripture.

3. We stand fully with the 5solas of the Reformation (very few do today).

4. We are high-grace supralapsarians and confess that God purposes, ordains, and causes all events.

Some differences definitely do exist (I may not speak for all on each point):

1. We believe the canon question was not fully and adequately settled and explained by John Calvin, though not all of us agree on the matter of the position and authority of James. In any case, this is an issue of the EXTENT of scripture and not the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY of scripture--which are very different questions.

2. We believe scripture teaches that God purposes and creates evil in each individual soul and that even Gordon Clark did not fully explain the problem of evil (though claiming that he did). We deny that God is evil or loves evil.

3. We are creational and not traducian in our understanding of how God is the Father of spirits.

4. We are not in agreement with all aspects of Covenant Theology, though we confess the reality of a contrasted everlasting Covenant of Grace and covenant of works doctrine in scripture.

5. We do not believe in the cessation of spiritual gifts in the same sense as many in the Reformed tradition, though we certainly abhor most charismatic teachings on continuance.

The issue here is which are the fundamental axioms of the everlasting gospel. Confessional Presbyterians and others in Reformed tradition have always tended to ascribe too much authority to certain axioms of confession that are not necessarily a logical part of adherence to the truth.

Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby

I personally believe that we defend the same basic set of axioms with the Trinity Foundation and similar defenders of the truth today--but they would most likely deny that. I can only pray that the Lord will bring us to some form of unity at a future time. No one has demonstrated that the differences we have are fundamental to the faith once delivered to the saints.

1. We condemn all of the same heresies with equal vigor: Federal Vision, reconstructionism, subjective justification (NPP), ECT, liberalism, Fullerism, dispensationalism, tongues Holy-Spirit baptism, Romanism, sacramentalism, skepticism, free-will, God's permissive will, etc.

2. Our standard and measure of truth is the Old and New Testaments of scripture.

3. We stand fully with the 5solas of the Reformation (very few do today).

4. We are high-grace supralapsarians and confess that God purposes, ordains, and causes all events.

Some differences definitely do exist (I may not speak for all on each point):

1. We believe the canon question was not fully and adequately settled and explained by John Calvin, though not all of us agree on the matter of the position and authority of James. In any case, this is an issue of the EXTENT of scripture and not the AUTHORITY and INFALLIBILITY of scripture--which are very different questions.

2. We believe scripture teaches that God purposes and creates evil in each individual soul and that even Gordon Clark did not fully explain the problem of evil (though claiming that he did). We deny that God is evil or loves evil.

3. We are creational and not traducian in our understanding of how God is the Father of spirits.

4. We are not in agreement with all aspects of Covenant Theology, though we confess the reality of a contrasted everlasting Covenant of Grace and covenant of works doctrine in scripture.

5. We do not believe in the cessation of spiritual gifts in the same sense as many in the Reformed tradition, though we certainly abhor most charismatic teachings on continuance.

The issue here is which are the fundamental axioms of the everlasting gospel. Confessional Presbyterians and others in Reformed tradition have always tended to ascribe too much authority to certain axioms of confession that are not necessarily a logical part of adherence to the truth.

Bob, I would agree with all you said here. Very good post.

The post does not accurately reflect the actual teachings of Reformed orthodoxy or FV theology. If you really want to prove this you need to provide some citations. Anyone can just spout off what such and such a group used to teach and what some group now supposedly teaches but its not helpful. I've been troubled by this happening in churches I attend. Here is a slightly modified version of a letter I wrote to someone:

I first heard of the FV movement attending while attending Herman Hanko’s Bible study. Hanko said that Barach was teaching that every baptized child is elect. I thought this Barach fellow must just be crazy. But then I started reading some of the literature and found out that they were using the term ‘elect’ in a different sense than that used in reformed dogmatics. The session of the AAPC adopted a statement which briefly explains the term “elect” as they are using it.

3. We affirm the teaching on "election" in the Westminster Standards (WCF III.6). In our "Summary Statement" we unanimously adopted this statement:

"From before the foundation of the world, God has sovereignly chosen a multitude no man can number for salvation. The basis of His election was solely His grace and mercy and nothing in the creature. The number of the elect can neither increase nor diminish. All who were chosen by God from the beginning will be surely saved eternally. Not one will be lost."
This continues to be our view. We do believe, however, that the terms "elect," "chosen," etc., are often used in the Scriptures to refer to those who are members of the visible church (e.g., Col 3:12; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pe 1:1-2) and not restricted to those who were chosen to eternal salvation. To affirm this, however, does not require a denial of the teaching of the Confession. It is simply acknowledging the fact that our theological usage of these terms is often more narrow than the biblical usage.[1]

This position is similar to the distinction Calvin makes between general and special election. Calvin does this in several places. In his Institutes he writes:

It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly. The whole people of Israel has been called “the inheritance of God” [Deuteronomy 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51;Psalm 28:9; 33:12; etc.], yet many of them were foreigners. But because God has not pointlessly covenanted that he would become their Father and Redeemer, he sees to his freely given favor rather than to the many who treacherously desert him.[2]

The view expressed by Calvin on the relationship between election and the covenant is the core issue. The relationship between covenant and election is the one thing that all the FV folks are in agreement on. It is the one issue worthy of true Scriptural and confessional debate. But it is not unique to the FV movement. The position of the FV on this issue is essentially the same as that of Calvin (along with other magisterial reformers) and the Canadian Reformed Churches.

The fact is that the Three Forms of Unity were not intended to settle this debate. They set up boundaries but they are purposefully vague in some articles. The Canadian Reformed claim their view is the only view expressed by the confessions. The PRC say that they hold to the only truly reformed view. They’re both wrong. I believe that article 17 of the first head in the canons is purposefully ambiguous. It is written in such a way so that those who held to a view similar to that of either party at the time of the writing of the canons could subscribe to the document in good conscience. From the wording it seems to lean in the Canadian Reformed direction, but it’s not as clear as it could be. Homer Hoeksema takes an agnostic position on children who die in infancy and tries to claim support for his view in the Canons but gets squeamish about the language used. In actual pastoral practice I’ve never seen any PRC minister actually uphold the agnostic position.

Another heresy that the FV are often said to support is a Romish view of the sacraments. The reason for this charge is the Zwinglian direction that the reformed churches have swung, particularly among the revivalistic Southern Presbyterians. This was also the reason for the attack upon Nevin and Schaff. Nevin clearly showed that his position was the historical one but Hodge’s influence worked its way into the Reformed churches. Hodge, Berkhof, and Hoeksema all seem puzzled by various things that Calvin says about the sacraments. Few today speak of the Holy Spirit lifting us up to heaven to partake of the true body and blood of Christ during communion as Calvin did. Calvin drew a parallel from the definition of Chalcedon in which it was said that Christ’s divine and human natures were distinct but should not be separated and applied it to the sign and the thing signified. Calvin was sympathetic to the Lutheran position but had no toleration for Zwinglianism. The Reformed churches today have swung in the opposite direction. Horton has taken a similar view to that of the FV on the sacrament but for some reason has not come under the same criticism. There was a debate between Michael Horton and Doug Wilson on St. Anne’s Public House. Horton critiqued what he believed to be the FV teaching on the sacraments. When Wilson responded it was pretty clear that Horton was mistaken and that they were both in agreement (in fact they were in agreement for about ¾ of the debate).

The FV movement is often accused of heresy for its supposed belief in baptismal regeneration. Here is another statement from the same paper put out by the AAPC mentioned earlier:

2. We deny the popular view of "baptismal regeneration"
— i.e., that one is transformed by the water of baptism, granted regeneration and effectual calling (in the Westminster Confession sense of the term) and infallibly saved solely upon the basis of baptism. Our pastors have consistently taught that baptism apart from faith is not saving but damning. Indeed, we believe that baptism obligates the one baptized to repent of his sins, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ solely for salvation, and persevere in faith all his days.

The Reformed churches in general have come to see baptism as nothing more than an empty sign that perhaps obligates the parents to raise their children properly. They have no understanding of the strong sacramental language in their confessions. The RCUS has even altered article 15 of the Belgic Confession to remove the linking of baptism to regeneration. The Belgic Confession did not even originally have this high sacramental language in this article. It was inserted by the Synod of the Dordt (See P.Y. De Jong’s commentary). So why aren’t we angry about the RCUS and its Zwinglian leanings? Why aren’t we angry that they altered the confession and then accused others of being heretics without following the method of proper Presbyterian church discipline? The FV is often scorned for calling people back to their baptism but did Calvin do any less? In Calvin’s first catechism he wrote:

Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Teacher: How did you come into this communion of the church?
Child: Through baptism.
Teacher: What is this baptism?
Child: It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin.

In his Institutes Calvin wrote:

As often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our minds with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins.[3]

The FV teaches a non-Romish view of baptismal regeneration as did Turretin when he defined baptism as:

the first sacrament of the Christian church, by which upon the covenanted, having been received into the family of God by the external sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity, remission of sins and regeneration by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit are bestowed and sealed. (Institutes 19.11.9)


As for what the FV teaches in regards to justification I would direct you once again to the AAPC position statement which says:

1. We affirm that justification is received by faith alone and is not grounded in any sense upon man’s works.
We further affirm the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. We have never viewed human works as the ground (either partial or total) of justification before God. We have never taken any exception to the statement of this truth found in the Westminster Confession of Faith and catechisms. We unanimously adopted our summary statement on "Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation" which included this affirmation in the first point:
"Salvation is by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and not of works. It is founded upon the obedience, death, and resurrection of the faithful Second Adam, Jesus Christ. Justification is an act of God’s free grace wherein sinners are accepted as righteous in God’s sight by virtue of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by faith alone (WSC Q. 33). This justifying faith is always accompanied by all other saving graces and virtues (WCF 11.2). Justifying faith, therefore, is never vain but one that works by love (Gal. 5:6)."
This is the position we have always held, never denied, and, God willing, a position from which we will never depart.


So why is everyone angry with the FV? There are several reasons. Steve Schlissel has been downright obnoxious and divisive in the way that he makes his case. He may in fact hold to some heretical view on justification but he’s so ambiguous that I’m not sure anyone could know for sure. You couldn’t pay me enough money to listen to him lecture. Others within the FV movement have not always been as clear as they could be. However, the ADHD which our modern culture produces has worked its way into our churches. It is no surprise when people look at Bible verses and read each as an individual unit, that they would take sentences or even sentence fragments from the FV and start yelling “Heresy!” There are also people who take sick delight in discovering heresies in the church.

Doug Wilson’s attack upon immorality in the church has also earned him more than a few enemies. His Biblical teaching on male headship is unpopular enough but for some reason people really fly off the handle when you start talking about courtship. I’ve seen people in the PRC and the URC who just go nuts when you start talking about it. I have a friend in the PRC who has been a pretty outspoken advocate of courtship and you wouldn’t believe the slanders brought against him. You would think fathers especially would want to protect their daughters but apparently they hate the idea of it. But it all boils down to the fact that he addresses real issues that people are dealing and struggling with. Anyone can yell about some other group and we can all lift our eyes up to heaven and say “God thank you that we are not like those other churches.” But if you start talking about actual sins within the congregation then you tend to get people mad at you. Paul probably wouldn’t have gotten so many people mad at him if when writing to the Galatians he spent the bulk of his time talking about those crazy people in Corinth.

Another huge problem is that we don’t know our confessions as we should. People tend to view the confessions through the lens of a particular theologian that has influenced their denomination and take the interpretation of the theologian as the teaching of the confession. There is also a lack of understanding of the confessions as consensus documents. Some also believe that the confession is somehow an exhaustive statement of all that can be said about a particular subject. I read a review awhile back in “Southern Presbyterian Review” of Reformed is Not Enough by Doug Wilson. The reviewer said that Wilson’s most egregious error was his belief in a justification at the final judgment and he went on to try to link Wilson to N. T. Wright and of course the NPP movement. But there are a whole mess of Reformed theologians who taught a justification at the final judgment well before anyone ever heard of N.T. Wright. In fact, Wilson says that the only time N.T. Wright is right is when he is in agreement with what reformed theology has already said. If Wilson is such a fan of the NPP I don’t know why he would have spent a whole issue of “Credenda Agenda” critiquing it. I don’t know why he would be continually critiquing the NPP on his blog and I don’t know why he would be recommending Westerholm’s book on the NPP.

There are a great number of accusations that could be dealt with. I look forward to the day when people will be honest and sit down and discuss the real issues. Doug Wilson challenged Guy Waters to a debate but Waters was discouraged by his presbytery from doing so. Many of the reports that have come out on the FV have been done without any consultation from those who are actually part of the FV. Some accuse the FV of heresy without any citations at all (as a particular report by the RCUS did). Some take snippets out of context. I don’t think yelling “The FV teaches heresy!” from behind the pulpit helps matters any. Those who have leanings toward the FV movement and have read the literature will recognize the accusations made are false and will be more willing to believe anything the FV teaches. Others are driven away from addressing the problems in their own church and their own lives and instead are lead to prideful contempt. I see no good that ranting and raving accomplishes.

We are called by Christ to seek the unity of the church. In John 17 Jesus prays that His church will be one so that the world will know that God has sent Him. We sin greatly whenever we hinder the unity of Christ’s church. One of the reasons that the church cannot address the FV movement in any kind of coherent manner is due to its fragmentation. Jesus is truth. If we misrepresent others we are not acting as ambassadors of Jesus. I would be more than willing to discuss these matters further for you. I would have approached you personally to discuss this first but I believe the issue is complex and wanted to be able to provide citations.

[1]http://www.auburnavenue.org/Official%20Positions%20and%20Statements/AAPC_Heterodoxy_Response.htm

[2]III. XXI. 7

[3] IV. XV. 3

Does anyone see where anything in what WB has posted here demonstrates that a single point of my comparison is wrong? That is all that I will say.

Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby

Does anyone see where anything in what WB has posted here demonstrates that a single point of my comparison is wrong? That is all that I will say.

No I don't. I beleive he is simply being contentious. He continues to answer your posts disrespectively, for instance does anybody else here refer to you as "Higby"? Does he call Brandan, Kraft?

Originally Posted by Robert Higby

Does anyone see where anything in what WB has posted here demonstrates that a single point of my comparison is wrong? That is all that I will say.

Did you miss the part on the sacraments and election?

Originally Posted by Highly Favored

No I don't. I beleive he is simply being contentious. He continues to answer your posts disrespectively, for instance does anybody else here refer to you as "Higby"? Does he call Brandan, Kraft?

Did you even read what I posted? Did you compare what Robert Higby said about the sacraments and election and see what my post said about the sacraments and election? The whole classically reformed view of the sacraments was strongly Augustinian and there was a very close relationship between the sign and the thing signified. For a detailed study of this as it relates to baptism I would highly recommend Cornelius Burges book "Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants." He was one of the divines at the Westminster assembly who worked on the article on baptism and he clearly shows that the view of the 16th century reformers (Calvin, Bucer, etc.) and the reformed confessions all teach that ordinarily elect infants are regenerated at baptism. The book has been out of print for a long time but you can probably find it at a good theological library. I got someone to photocopy it for me.

I can't believe how touchy people here are about their names. I spent a good deal of time in chat forums having people calling me wildbore and now I just call someone by their last name and I am being disrespectful. Is RH okay? If I started calling Brandon Kraft would that make you feel better? It would take less time to type. Is BK okay?

We are straying from the point here. I KNOW that this alternate sacramental tradition exists in Reformed theology and that Calvin is one of the main people used to support it. Again, those who doubt this please go read the FV websites.

In addition, I never claimed that the FV view EQUALS the Roman Catholic view on baptismal regeneration. There are important similarities as well as differences.

I was contrasting in propositions what to many of us is a return to the immature and erroneous Reformed tradition--one that retains much of the trappings of Roman Catholic theology--and the mature Reformed tradition that discards such ideas. Many names can be quoted to support the sacramental position including Calvin--if that is the tradition that one wants to defend.

Steve Wilkins (on baptism): It's like a wedding. There is a transformation that takes place because of the ritual. A single man becomes a married man. He is transformed into a new man, with new blessings and privileges and responsibilities he didn't have before. A similar thing happens at baptism. The one who is baptized is transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, from Adam into Christ, and given new privileges, blessings, and responsibilities he didn't have before. The Monroe Four Speak Out, Chrisitian Renewal, 04/28/2003

On soteriology, the Missouri Presbytery PCA report on Federal Vision equally tries to align itself with orthodox Reformation views. However, one cannot look only at the defenses of 'sola fide' and other terminology--the entire position must be examined. That position in its entirety is clearly not in favor of sola fide in the classic sense--faith is defined overall as 'trusting and ongoing obedience', something that includes baptism and continued participation in the sacraments, etc.

Robert Higby:

The sacramental view you are taking is not that of classical protestantism though. The WCF is clearly opposed to Zwinglianism and sees some tie between the sign and the thing signified. The WCF sees baptism as beneficial at the time of its administration and as a benefit that continues throughout the rest of the baptized person's life. What you call maturity I call the poisoning of rationalism, evangelicalism, and revivalism.

Originally Posted by wildboar

Robert Higby:

The sacramental view you are taking is not that of classical protestantism though. The WCF is clearly opposed to Zwinglianism and sees some tie between the sign and the thing signified. The WCF sees baptism as beneficial at the time of its administration and as a benefit that continues throughout the rest of the baptized person's life. What you call maturity I call the poisoning of rationalism, evangelicalism, and revivalism.

Charles, you can have the "classical protestant view" of 2 Sacraments.And the Roman Catholics could have thier 7 Sacraments. I don't care. The Sacraments did not save me. Christ saved me by Grace Alone, through Christ Alone, and born again from on high by the Holy Spirit Alone. PERIOD!

The problem that is still prevalent in most reformed and even evangelical circles, is that many still embrace heretical views left over from Roman Catholicism. Some not to the extent of Roman teachings, but a milder or more subtle form. On the issue of water baptism, some hold to the sacramental view in that there is in "THE SIGN" a work of Grace, or a means of Grace that also becomes a "SEAL" to the one who is water baptized. The mode wether sprinkling or immersed for the sake of this post is irrelevant. Some go as far to say that "regeneration" takes place at this moment. Now to make perfectly clear to where I stand on this issue, I CATEGORICALLY DENY SACRAMENTALISM. wether Papists, Reformed , or whoever else teaches it’s mystical notions. The Word of God says in 1Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and mediator between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus" Only ONE person mediates Grace to the elect, and that is Christ Alone. Now how does this take place? 1Corinthians 12:13 " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, wether we be Jews or Gentiles, wether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." It’s the Holy Spirit Alone that does the baptizing, not men or literal water. Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done,( sprinkling or immersion) but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost". Again it’s the Holy Spirit Alone that does the washing. There is only one way for the Elect to be Born Again. John 1:13 " Which were born, not of blood, ( biological pedigree ) nor of the will of the flesh, ( some power of self determination ) nor of the will of man, (All forms of proxy baptism, the will of the parents, the will of the church, the will any individual ) but of God". It is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who determines who and when one of the Elect are Baptized = Regenerated.
All of the water on earth and in the skies cannot wash away sin or effect regeneration. Neither is there an ounce Grace mystically conferred. It is sad that the creature would want to play the role of the creator and errantly think he or they can bring one to spiritual life by some liturgical superstitious ceremonial act. Tragic indeed.
Here is what The Kings of Kings will say to these "churchy folk" Matthew 7:22,23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils ? And in thy name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

Nicholas

Originally Posted by Saint Nicholas

Charles, you can have the "classical protestant view" of 2 Sacraments.And the Roman Catholics could have thier 7 Sacraments. I don't care. The Sacraments did not save me. Christ saved me by Grace Alone, through Christ Alone, and born again from on high by the Holy Spirit Alone. PERIOD!

The problem that is still prevalent in most reformed and even evangelical circles, is that many still embrace heretical views left over from Roman Catholicism. Some not to the extent of Roman teachings, but a milder or more subtle form. On the issue of water baptism, some hold to the sacramental view in that there is in "THE SIGN" a work of Grace, or a means of Grace that also becomes a "SEAL" to the one who is water baptized. The mode wether sprinkling or immersed for the sake of this post is irrelevant. Some go as far to say that "regeneration" takes place at this moment. Now to make perfectly clear to where I stand on this issue, I CATEGORICALLY DENY SACRAMENTALISM. wether Papists, Reformed , or whoever else teaches it’s mystical notions. The Word of God says in 1Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and mediator between God and Men, the man Christ Jesus" Only ONE person mediates Grace to the elect, and that is Christ Alone. Now how does this take place? 1Corinthians 12:13 " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, wether we be Jews or Gentiles, wether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." It’s the Holy Spirit Alone that does the baptizing, not men or literal water. Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done,( sprinkling or immersion) but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost". Again it’s the Holy Spirit Alone that does the washing. There is only one way for the Elect to be Born Again. John 1:13 " Which were born, not of blood, ( biological pedigree ) nor of the will of the flesh, ( some power of self determination ) nor of the will of man, (All forms of proxy baptism, the will of the parents, the will of the church, the will any individual ) but of God". It is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit who determines who and when one of the Elect are Baptized = Regenerated.
All of the water on earth and in the skies cannot wash away sin or effect regeneration. Neither is there an ounce Grace mystically conferred. It is sad that the creature would want to play the role of the creator and errantly think he or they can bring one to spiritual life by some liturgical superstitious ceremonial act. Tragic indeed.
Here is what The Kings of Kings will say to these "churchy folk" Matthew 7:22,23 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils ? And in thy name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity".

Nicholas

Awesome post Nick.

We also believe in the Trinity. Is that wrong too since the RC does?

God has ordained the sacraments for a reason. Just as God does not ordinarly bring people to repentance apart from the means of a lawfully called minister who preaches the Gospel, he also ordinarily works through the means of the sacraments. It is God who does it all but through means. The purpose of the sacrament is to visibly portray what is happening internally, they are not empty signs.

But the issue that this thread was dealing with was not an exegetical exercise but a comparison of two systems. I just don't believe that these two systems were represented accurately.

Originally Posted by wildboar

We also believe in the Trinity. Is that wrong too since the RC does?

You error my friend, because you do not understand how Rome thinks and promulgates her deception. Rome states that she believes in the Trinity on one hand, however she denies the Trinity on the other hand. Her whole teaching and dogmas of Mariology is an affront to the Trinity that you claim she believes in. Did the Virgin Mary Assend to Heaven like Christ ? NO. Was the Virgin Mary conceived without sin like Christ? NO. Can Mary forgive sins like Christ ? NO. Is Mary a Co-mediatrix along with Christ ? NO. Can Mary hear all the prayers at one time of all those who pray to her like God can? No. So you see Charles don't be so easily deceived because some Chuch system uses similar language. Even Jehovah Witnesses say they believe in Christ. We must look under the veneer of words to find out what one truly believes. Rome has elevated Mary to a status of diety. Of course they did. They believe "Mary is the Mother of God" Rome's understanding of the Virgin Mary is a revival of "Semiramis" from the Ancient Chaldean Mysteries. Rome will say and do whatever is neccessary in her stuggle for world dominion and supremecy. She is likened to a chamelion. She will adapt and embrace anything that will insure her survival. Please don't be misled by her ecumenicity. She is a harlot !

Nicholas

Originally Posted by Saint Nicholas

You error my friend, because you do not understand how Rome thinks and promulgates her deception. Rome states that she believes in the Trinity on one hand, however she denies the Trinity on the other hand. Her whole teaching and dogmas of Mariology is an affront to the Trinity that you claim she believes in. Did the Virgin Mary Assend to Heaven like Christ ? NO. Was the Virgin Mary conceived without sin like Christ? NO. Can Mary forgive sins like Christ ? NO. Is Mary a Co-mediatrix along with Christ ? NO. Can Mary hear all the prayers at one time of all those who pray to her like God can? No. So you see Charles don't be so easily deceived because some Chuch system uses similar language. Even Jehovah Witnesses say they believe in Christ. We must look under the veneer of words to find out what one truly believes. Rome has elevated Mary to a status of diety. Of course they did. They believe "Mary is the Mother of God" Rome's understanding of the Virgin Mary is a revival of "Semiramis" from the Ancient Chaldean Mysteries. Rome will say and do whatever is neccessary in her stuggle for world dominion and supremecy. She is likened to a chamelion. She will adapt and embrace anything that will insure her survival. Please don't be misled by her ecumenicity. She is a harlot !

Nicholas

Amen, the RCC does not belive in the trinity. They believe in an emasculated god who is not sovereign over everything. They do not believe in a trinity that covenanted together to redeem the elect. They do not believe in a trinity that determined all things. They do not believe in a trinity that brings salvation to the elect entirely by grace. No, they do NOT believe in the trinity. The RCC is evil to the core and there is nothing good to write about the organization.