Free Will in the Westminster Confession of Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter SojournerOnEarth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
SojournerOnEarth:
Sigh. It is a systematic theology, where each part informs the other. Not a series of independent statements, which you are trying to turn it into.

Do you know what a systematic theology is?
Yes. A protestant attempt at a catechism.

I still have my copy of Wayne Grudem’s.
Catholics have systematic theologies as well. Are those also “protestant attempts at a catechism”?

We have catechisms in addition to the WCF. There is the Westminster Shorter Catechsm, and the Longer, so actually you are incorrect. We have separate documents here.
 
40.png
SojournerOnEarth:
I am not sure how to answer your question. Kinda fumbling.
Thanks. You gave the same answer given by every person that makes that claim. You believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit because you believe your interpretations of the Bible tell you this and are correct. And you know that your interpretations are correct because you believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit.

This is a circular argument, and the only reason you can make this claim is because you already know that the people you are talking to believe the Bible is the Word of God. That’s why I said pretend I am an atheist. If I were an atheist my next question to you would be What evidence do you have that you know God?
We are consistent anyway! This is straying off the topic. The short answer would be the incredible number of what would otherwise be ridiculous coincidences, among other things, in answer to prayer, changes towards holiness I have seen in myself and others that they could not do in themselves; His providence, faithfulness and sovereignty. God is trustworthy. I would tell the atheist that. Best I can do right now.
 
It’s just that, in reality, you’re not as certain as you make out. The Catholic position is more sound, balanced, in line with Scripture.
 
We are consistent anyway! This is straying off the topic.
Fair enough. Your thread Your rules.

I’m just a bystander reading the discussion between you and @Vonsalza who said… “Scripture can’t interpret itself.”

You responded “The Holy Spirit is the authority we turn to.”

I just wanted clarification on how the Holy Spirit becomes the authority when you are reading and interpreting the scripture (sometimes getting it right and sometimes getting it wrong) this way I would be able to understand how, what you said countered @Vonsalza argument.

God Bless (Hey look I’m Catholic again 😃 )
 
I think you agree that God is a bigger authority than the Church,. Sometimes it sounds like Catholics believe it’s the other way around.

Protestants don’t see the church as the sole and exclusive mediator between God and man. That is Jesus’s job. The church has a role, but that is not it.
 
Catholics have systematic theologies as well. Are those also “protestant attempts at a catechism”?
In all honesty, I find those are usually written by academically inclined ex-Protestants (usually ex-Reformed) that “swam the Tiber”.
We have catechisms in addition to the WCF. There is the Westminster Shorter Catechsm, and the Longer, so actually you are incorrect. We have separate documents here.
No, the analogy is still a pretty good one. I learned not too awfully long ago that while Catholics may subscribe to the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, it doesn’t contain everything that pertains to the Catholic faith, nor does it necessarily relegate other catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism.

Maybe your understanding of the catechism needs improving like mine did. 😃
 
Last edited:
40.png
SojournerOnEarth:
Catholics have systematic theologies as well. Are those also “protestant attempts at a catechism”?
In all honesty, I find those are usually written by academically inclined ex-Protestants (usually ex-Reformed) that “swam the Tiber”.
Like Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas, I suppose. :roll_eyes:

Have you ever heard of them?
 
I think you agree that God is a bigger authority than the Church,. Sometimes it sounds like Catholics believe it’s the other way around.
No, they just think it’s odd to separate them. Christ established the visible Church and guaranteed it’d never fail.
Protestants don’t see the church as the sole and exclusive mediator between God and man. That is Jesus’s job. The church has a role, but that is not it.
Being careful here, I’m not sure that a Catholic would take issue with that statement.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
SojournerOnEarth:
Catholics have systematic theologies as well. Are those also “protestant attempts at a catechism”?
In all honesty, I find those are usually written by academically inclined ex-Protestants (usually ex-Reformed) that “swam the Tiber”.
Like Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas, I suppose. :roll_eyes:

Have you ever heard of them?
Emphasis placed on word “usually”. Like Kreeft and Akin’s attempts under different titles.
 
Last edited:
No, they just think it’s odd to separate them. Christ established the visible Church and guaranteed it’d never fail.
Which statement is a demonstration of a lot of what is wrong with Catholic ecclesiology.
 
Last edited:
No, they just think it’s odd to separate them. Christ established the visible Church and guaranteed it’d never fail.
Catholics just assume that when Christ said
““Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
that he wasn’t kidding.
 
I think you agree that God is a bigger authority than the Church,. Sometimes it sounds like Catholics believe it’s the other way around.
Nope not in the least. But I’m sure all Catholics agree that the Church’s interpretation of the scriptures is more authoritative than ours. Maybe that is what they are trying to say and instead of hearing the words “our own personal interpretation” of the Word of God, you are just hearing them say God.

Don’t know.
Protestants don’t see the church as the sole and exclusive mediator between God and man.
That’s good, neither do Catholics.
That is Jesus’s job.
Personally, I could have sworn Jesus gave us the job that we were all mediators through Christ.
The church has a role, but that is not it.
That’s to bad, it must be tough going through life without a visible shepherd. Sheep don’t have a very good sense of direction, without a shepherd to lead them they pretty much follow their gut. Whenever it’s time to butcher the easiest way to round them all up is to grab a bucket of grain and lead them right down the kill shoot.

That’s why when I see someone say they are following the Holy Spirits interpretation I always ask them how they know? They run in circles on their answer but in the end the answer is always the same…They are following their gut.

God Bless
 
For some historical perspective, great Protestant preachers like George Whitefield, Johnathan Edwards, and other Calvinist ministers (whose theology agreed with the Westminster Confession) during the First Great Awakening of the 18th century had a very developed theology of salvation involving stages of discernment. There were essentially 3 stages: conviction of sin, conversion, and consolation.

Conviction of sin was most commonly the result of the preaching of the Law, which revealed God’s holiness and human sinfulness and helplessness. Through the preaching of the Law, the Holy Spirit convicted people of their sin as preparation for conversion and this stage was characterized by sorrow and anguish over one’s sin. 18th-century Calvinist pastors would encourage people under conviction to make use of the means of grace (prayer, Bible study, attending church and striving to make better moral decisions). While these actions could not produce saving faith, Calvinists believed saving faith would not be received without this preparation. Conviction often lasted weeks or months.

The next stage was conversion, which was the experience of regeneration or being born again. It was accompanied by saving faith, repentance and love for God. Regeneration was an instantaneous work of the Holy Spirit, but it had to be discerned through self-examination and was realized only gradually. The signs people looked for were things such as a new awareness of Christ’s beauty, a desire to love God and follow his law. A person came to love God and hate sin for God’s own sake–this characterized true conversion. False conversion was motivated by fear of punishment. Conversion took place over several days or weeks under the pastoral guidance of a trained minister.

Even someone who had experienced conversion might still have doubts about whether he was or was not among the elect. Consolation or assurance of salvation grew out of Christian maturity and sanctification. Pastors continued to encourage converts to examine themselves for marks of true religious affections or desires (this was essentially what Jonathan Edwards’ famous treatise on Religious Affections was meant to help people do). Besides self examination, converts had to actually practice the Christian religion, actively growing in grace and holiness through moritification of sin and using the means of grace provided by God. The quest for assurance was not something achieved quickly. It usually took months or even years for converts to gain the assurance of faith.

I got all of this from Robert Caldwell’s Theologies of the American Revivalists: From Whitefield to Finney, which is a really interesting study.
 
Last edited:
Of course, I happen to agree with the Church or I wouldn’t bother being a member. But the reason is that from the standpoint of ancient Traditional teachings in the eastern and western churches as well as from Scripture, as well as our own experience in this life where we learn that we must strive, we must do our part in order to realize benefit, that our integrity or state of justice is related to our own willingness to possess and act on it, the Catholic and Arminian position is far and away the most realistic doctrine.
 
That’s to bad, it must be tough going through life without a visible shepherd. Sheep don’t have a very good sense of direction, without a shepherd to lead them they pretty much follow their gut. Whenever it’s time to butcher the easiest way to round them all up is to grab a bucket of grain and lead them right down the kill shoot.

That’s why when I see someone say they are following the Holy Spirits interpretation I always ask them how they know? They run in circles on their answer but in the end the answer is always the same…They are following their gut.

God Bless
I don’t have the quote system down on the new forum yet. Sorry!

We have a visible church. Nothing I said and nothing in the WCF is contrary to that.

Catholics also are following their gut: that the Catholic Church is correct.
 
from the standpoint of ancient Traditional teachings in the eastern and western churches as well as from Scripture, as well as our own experience in this life where we learn that we must strive, we must do our part in order to realize benefit, that our integrity or state of justice is related to our own willingness to possess and act on it, …
What in there is in conflict with the WCF?
 
That is good. You have said that your are not a Calvinist, but I think you understand it and approach it with sympathy in an irenic manner.
 
That is good. You have said that your are not a Calvinist, but I think you understand it and approach it with sympathy in an irenic manner.
I have an interest in historical theology, specifically as it relates to evangelicalism and Pentecostalism, so you kind of need to understand what Calvinists have said about conversion if you want to gain a good understanding of evangelicalism, even if you are coming from an Arminian perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top