Does faith and the Holy Spirit have a place in helping a believer fulfill that list? What happens to one who does all those yet never has what they could define as a filling with the Holy Ghost even though they confessed Jesus as Lord and Savior?
Spiritual, it appears from my reading of Reformed churches also though that some Reformed teachers fought against a carefree and sinful lifestyle. They opposed the antinomians who thought they were saved even if they still lived an unchanged life. Some Reformed teachers evidently had good insight to how a truly saved person would live, but any church giving members free reign to live as they want simply for doctrinal agreement isn't right.
Sounds like a challenge to Irresistible Grace, if I'm reading you correctly Abigail. Personally I'd like to hear more about this doctrine as well.
Spiritual, although not Reformed in doctrine(as far as I know), it seems to me the Albigenses and Paulicians, probably the Waldenses also, were Reformed in practice--emphasizing preaching and the scriptures over rituals the ordained priesthood and decorated sanctuaries which distracted the congregation from hearing the word of God(more like opposed to God's word with kneeling to graven images and the like). To me this aspect is scriptural, this purging and worshipping according to what God's word alone sanctions. Interesting to note also the Albigenses were called Cathari(pure ones) long before the Puritans.
That's true Spiritual. I think the Waldenses(to whom I also like to owe credit for being around long before the Protestant Reformation) felt they may have needed to join for a united force against the Catholics. My guess. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get. Even the Catholic encyclopedia acknowledges their very simple and biblical lifestyle. Nothing wrong with that. It's needed more now than ever. A change of heart is needed because head knowledge only fuels pride and sin.
Abigail, thanks for your response on the other thread. You make a good point with which I agree.
True, Abigail. I agree with you here: "No, but it shows what kind of men were promoting the doctrine." Such people have no business in a ministry or discussing Christian doctrine. A lot of them just want to press their own agenda for temporal success or dominion, but that's not how the Lord taught. Unless they let the Lord change their heart they'll still fall. Head knowledge alone won't do no matter how perfect or true one's doctrine is. A lot of people have head knowledge today yet are on a road to hell. That was me until God totally woke me and saved me by His word.
Amen to your post about the place of God as shield, defender and buckler. I think we all agree on that. Sorry if I got off topic, but let's continue a good dialogue if possible.
Abigail wrote: "But a few years after [Arminius] death, some zealous men with the Prince of Orange at their head, furiously assaulted all that held what were called his opinions; and having procured them to be solemnly condemned, in the famous Synod of Dort, (not so numerous or learned, but full as impartial, as the Council or Synod of Trent,) some were put to death, some banished, some imprisoned for life, all turned out of their employments, and made incapable of holding any office, either in Church or State." John Wesley
The Huguenots suffered the same, especially on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572. The Huguenots were Calvinists. Picking out this kind of bad human behavior to defend or condemn a doctrinal position proves nothing.
Sounds to me like Seaton believes those who are freed by the Gospel are freed to serve the Lord, not satan, to walk in the spirit and not after the flesh. If he acknowledges this, he's in accord with traditional Calvinist thought. If not.......hmmm.....antinomian? Surely not, Seaton, but I'll let you explain your words.
Galatians 4 would be helpful also Peter. In chapter 4:10, the Apostle is grieved that they are falling into the bondage of observances. The papacy declares sin on those who don't observe its holy days of obligation. This is another gospel. The Apostle Paul rejected such in no uncertain terms, also to the Galatians: "Though we or an angel preach any other gospel that what you received, let him be accursed."
I think the issue is this: Do the unsaved unbelieving have a free will? I don't think so. Christ was sent to liberate the captives and preach deliverance. He told his congregation to do the same, "As the Father hath sent me even so I send you...." If we were all free, would could just build our own style of ladder into heaven. Those with true faith will follow and serve the Lord, for as the Lord says "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me." The false professors will fall even if for a while they appear to follow the Lord, yet the Master to whom the true believers give worship are able not to fall as Jude says "Unto him who is able to keep you from falling." This can also be applied to Joshua's passage.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The following is a quotation from that article, Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that '"[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind." (Note 10) Pope Pius IX said: "Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her."'
Solely? If solely why isn't she recorded as healing anybody? We hear lots about Jesus as Redeemer and healing, but why not Mary. The Bible doesn't say she redeemed us or how she redeems.
They uphold the law by faith. The Apostles said the same. "Do we nullify the law by faith?" "Rather we uphold it."(Rom. 3:31) And that by faith. The Calvinists would agree. Antinomians would say it doesn't matter, but the Apostles ask then "Do we sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" The Calvinist would agree here also.
The one truly saved will serve the Lord out of the faith in the heart. The saved have had the will set free. The will of the unsaved is yet in bondage and the commands in Joshua will be foreign language to such, because the things of God are spiritually discerned. Those dead in sins cannot choose nor serve. Thus Christ says "You have not chosen me, I have chosen you." Those chosen serve the Lord. Good night all
It says in the Bible of Jesus "He shall save his people from their sins." You seem to be accusing people on here who boast of faith as promoting sinful living, but the very Lord we believe in saves us from that.
Also God says "I will write my law on their hearts." People can try to follow rules and laws of God and man, but until faith is in the heart it's a struggle to be met only with condemnation on the last day. And we all know nobody can keep the law in of and their own power. If they could, Christ's sacrifice was for nothing. We could just all work our way to heaven by faith in ourselves and our favorite list of do's and don'ts. God writes his do's and don'ts on the hearts of true believers and it's evidenced in their lives: They are changed, freed from a former lifestyle, empowered to live for God and walk accordingly, and in studying the Scriptures, building their faith to walk accordingly(Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.)
Seaton appears to have a good grasp on this and I'll let him defend himself.
What's so offensive about point 19? Just answer yes or no. Evidently their conscience is bothered by it. And yes, faith does give us some guidelines and peace as well, helping us in our daily trials. That's good for success. No wonder the question is on that assessment.
Seaton knows what righteousness by faith is. We are changed and freed from bondage to that which we were before conversion. As the Apostle Paul said "Such were some of you." They were vile sinners enslaved to sin but changed and freed. Saved from sin, not in sin. "He shall save his people from(not in) their sins." Again, a refutation both of the antimonians and those controlling their church members by rules of do's and don'ts.
Seaton, I'll leave you to explain yourself to Abigail, but just thought I'd interject my opinions about what you wrote. Carry on...