God lost His Truth, His Church? (A civil discussion regarding such issues)

[Jael]

Submitted for discussion, the following statement (and all that can follow from it....

"Finally, by God's grace, the central truths of the Bible were rediscovered by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers."

1.) Did God lose his Truth? Or hide it? Or not allow it to be seen or known? (During the period of time in question.)

2.) Why would something that God has promised would continue, need to be "rediscovered"?

3.) Did He allow a period of time to exist where his church did not?

4.) If one holds to the fact that Rome was not the true church, where was the Body before Rome, and during Rome, but before Luther or Calvin?

5.) How does your belief regarding Rome effect your belief about Scripture? Did God give His Word to Rome? If so, why isn't she orthodox according to Scripture?

In an effort to more fully understand my Calvinist friends, I went searching for information. I found that statement on the website for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). I copied it from there, but I believe it probably fits a number of the Calvinistic belief systems. (Different Calvinistic churches.)

In starting this thread, I request that we check our egos at the door. I'd like to discuss this, but I am not interested in people who brag about what they know but never use any Scripture to validate their claims.

Also, this isn't an anti Catholic thread, but I will warn my catholic friends that they will not care for the beliefs many of us have regarding Rome. That doesn't lessen our respect for them as individuals. I invite them to participate here as well, if so desired.

I have friends in other religions who have said (it's a cop out I think, but bear with me) that they could never be __________ (such and such a denomination) because the people who disagree with each other are so rude.

I am not saying I haven't ever been,
(I REPENT!!)
but let's try not to be, ok.?

You never know who is watching and reading, and your testimony matters.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

[LiteKeeper]

I agree with Jerry about the glory of God, and I think with you too, RnMomof7

[RnMomof7]

You know if you hear the "gospel " preached today what is it usually? God loves you and wants to make YOU happy healthy and wise..come to him and it will all get better..LOL..That is NOT the gospel of Jesus Christ,,that is another gospel..

We are made and saved for HIS glory..people act like they do God a favor by being saved..

Have you heard the following testimony?

I want to thank God for healing my gall bladder and finding my cat and making sure the painter did a good job and thank you Lord for saving me

Pathetic!

[LiteKeeper]

I agree with you. I have committed my ministry to teaching Biblical Worldview studies (and the opposing humanist worldviews) to military academy cadet candidates. This is my 8th year since I retired from the Army chaplaincy in 1995. We get these kids every Monday night for 10 months. Consistently they tell me that noone has ever taught taught them like we do. And the goal: that those who observe their lives, and everything they say and do, might glorify God !

[Cleburne]

Big hair, big money, big house, and not-real-big belly: all can be yours! You just gotta believe!! {and pass me a little of the surplus in the collection bucket}

[Jael]

they sing only the PSalter, without musical instruments. A bit of a difference from the usual repetative "Jesus is my boyfriend" mantras found in most of today's Evangelical Churches, and regretabbly, my own denomination.

Are you a Southern Baptist? Don't feel so bad, many of my so called Fundamental Brethren have gone totally apostate on music.

The following important warning is from Confronting Contemporary Christian Music by Dr. H.Talmadge. Spence:

"In 1973 a Neo-Evangelical movement swept across America called 'Key '73.' Many of the evangelical denominations, including the Pentecostals, joined this movement, believing it would be the strongest evangelistic thrust to date in our country. An extensive invitation was sent out for new music to be written that promoted the message of 'Key '73' with several stipulations: the words righteousness, judgment, holiness, repentance, and several other biblical terms were not allowed to be used, and THE LYRICS WERE TO BE OF A POSITIVE NATURE. There was an intentional effort made to write NON-OFFENSIVE songs. A number of these were produced that year through this evangelical effort, strengthening the move away from biblical, doctrinal standards in the music.

"By 1972, Bill Gaither, a member of the Nazarene Church who started his public music career in Southern gospel, was experimenting with a disco form of music, and because of the reaction from the more moderate element of the evangelical spectrum, he started the Bill Gaither Vocal Band in order to further his music in the strong contemporary vein. It has only been in the last few years that he has returned to his Southern gospel roots and conventional style, especially in his reminiscing Gospel-sing videos. He is the man who promulgated the 'praise' music which was at its height during the mid 1980s and early 1990s. ITS INFLUENCE IS NOW AFFECTING THE BORDERS OF THE FUNDAMENTALISTS' MUSIC WITH THE CHARISMATIC SOUND IN A NUMBER OF CHORUSES SUNG IN THE CHURCHES AND YOUTH CAMPS.

No, we are not against praise, but such an emphasis with certain types of music can be a ploy to make us leave off taking a stand against the apostasy of our time. Gaither's song 'Get All Excited' was written to pull the people away from speaking against anything that would cause division among 'God's people,' specifically doctrine and biblical concepts of separation. It truly intimidates the child of God in taking a stand in his church that is drifting away from the Word of God. The Charismatic leaders are regularly reminding us that the Book of Psalms is truly a hymnbook dedicated to praise.

But we must carefully read this precious book: praise is often in the context of battle themes, imprecatory prayers, overcoming those who are against God, and instruction of godly living in opposition to carnal living. THE BATTLE THEME IN PRESENT DAY FUNDAMENTALIST MUSIC COMPOSITIONS IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. The term apostasy is never mentioned. The melodies and arrangements are progressively lacking strength and literally CREATING THE 'SOFT SOUND' IN CHURCH MUSIC.

"One of the characteristics that should be upon the hearts of Fundamentalist music leaders is the hope for balance in the repertoire. When the 'easy listening' and the 'soft sound' flow steadily from the pens of the music composers, the music will definitely produce soft and weak Christians. We were told back in 1969 that the 'music is the message,' not just the lyrics. MUCH OF THIS SOFT AND PRETTY SOUND IS COMING FROM FEMALE ARRANGERS TEACHING IN OUR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.

God made the feminine gender soft and pretty. And her tendency in history has been to write from that perspective. A few women in the past have written lyrics with strength and fewer have written melodies with strength. In this age when love and softness on apostasy have practically become the perfume of the modern Church, our dear Fundamentalist ladies who are part of the music ministry must be careful that they do not contribute to this 'falling away' with their published, weak arrangements of once strong hymns. SUCH MUSIC ENCOURAGES PASSIVITY ON THE BATTLEFIELD. WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF STRONG MELODIES BEARING ALONG STRONG LYRICS, FEEDING STRENGTH TO THE WARRIORS FOR CHRIST"
(Dr. H.T. Spence, Confronting Contemporary Christian Music, 1997, pp. 142-143; Foundations Press, P.O. Box 1166, Dunn, NC 28335. 910-892-8761).

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Although i am not certain that i can be of any assistance to you, a thought did go through my head. Where is the passage in Ezekiel that goes something like...Son of man, there is a proverb in Israel 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? Perhaps need to read that in more detail, but can't find it.

[the_doc]

Ezekiel 18:2.

I recommend that you use http://bible.gospelcom.net. It's has a great concordance-type search engine.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

My most thorough discussion of this possibility of a "combination perspective" is in post #223 here.

Oh, gads, you're absolutely right; I remember the discussion now.

I humbly plead memory loss due to the passage of 18 months. Thanks for the refresher!!

(The problem is, I can't convincingly argue--i.e., prove [satisfyingly]--that federal theology is involved in the first place. It's not the argument contained in the Book of Romans.)

Hmm. You know, you're absolutely right about that. Looking at the Westminster Larger Catechism, none of the cited Scripture references in Question 22 directly support Federal Headship:

Q22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?

Answer: The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.

References: Acts 17:26; Gen. 2:16-17; Romans 5:12-20; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

It's just sorta "assumed into" the argument. None of those verses explicitly support the Federal-Covenantal view of Adam, per se. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Federal Headship view is Biblically incorrect, but it does not appear to be Biblically explicit in the claimed sources.

And for that matter, even the wording of the Westminster Catechism tends to incorporate at least some elements of the Traducian view -- almost as though the authors felt that they needed some Traducian elements to "strengthen" their Federal-Covenantal argument a bit (Hm. Perhaps they did).

Really, the closest thing I can find to an "explicit" argument for the Federal-Covenantal view isn't even cited in the Catechism (probably because you have to mentally invert the logical order of the covenantal passage in order to mirror it "back" on Adam), but rather in Romans 11:

ROMANS 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

But, like I said, even here you have to mentally invert the logical covenantal order of the passage (particularly verse 32 and verse 27) in order to take the "all in unbelief" indirect reference to Adam in verse 32 (and its corollary, "mercy upon all") for the purpose of establishing an inverse-covenantal relation of Man in Adam which is oppositional to the Elect's federal covenant in Christ of verse 27. None of which argues against Traducianism, anyway.

Which is, admittedly, a pretty darn roundabout way of getting to a Federal-Covenantal view of Adamic Sin, but it's the best I could think of off the top of my head. (grin)

best....

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Another thought:
The headship through Christ, mediating the new covenant was Federal, and had to be federal only. Christ had human ancestors, but no human descendents. Adam was a realistic because of the obvious physical connection to all humanity.
It is when Adam or a Patriarch is acting in the role as head of houshold, that matters become primarily federal, prefiguring Christ's Righteousness imputed to us... but does that not negate the Heb 7:9 arguement? Hmmm... let me work on this, i agree, it's pretty tough.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And, come to think of it, even in Romans 11 a mental inversion of the Covenantal logic might not convincingly establish a Federal-Covenant theology of Adam, given that you first have to extend the passage's "conclusion" of Israel in "unbelief" back to the "conclusion" of Adam in "unbelief" (prior to his regeneration, anyway).

Which, I think that you can legitimately do, but it does mean that you not only have to mentally-invert the federal-covenantal logic of Romans 11: 27-32 ("this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins"; "all in unbelief", "mercy upon all"), but you have to mentally-extend the "conclusion in unbelief" of apostate Israel, back upon apostate Adam, in order to make the logic "stick".

Gads. Did I mention that this was a pretty roundabout way of establishing a Federal-Covenantal view of Adamic Sin??

[the_doc]

Actually, redemption itself is covenantal--since there is an everlasting covenant sealed with blood (Hebrews 13). And this is what Romans 11 is apparently alluding to.

But Romans 11 does not refer to condemnation by covenant. The covenant theologians have inferred it to make the Fall similar to the Atonement.

The problem is, Paul says in Romans 5 that "The free gift is NOT like the transgression." So, we need to be careful about these things. (Edwards used this verse a lot in his arguments with the anti-realistic theologians!)

The best argument for a covenant in Eden is actually the famous reference to a covenant with "man" in Hosea. It's the "proof-text" for the "covenant of works" theory. But there are a lot of problems with this theology.

Anyway, food for thought. I don't claim to have it all worked out. But I know that a lot of covenant theologians are screwing up pretty badly. Hodge's vehemence against realistic theology is a good example of this. He scoffed at traducianism as "mysticism."

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

A few adjustments to that article. The Gaithers are actually Chruch of God Anderson, IN (as is Sandi Patti), although they might have an affiliation with the church of the Nazarine. i am left wondering how the author would feel (hate that word) about BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC, by Unitarian Julia Ward Howe. i still contend that the softening of our music coincided with the softening of our doctrinal content in the churches (all in the name of building relationships and mutual self esteem), and the resulting softening of our heads! :-)

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Hold on Doc, let's keep our covenants straight. The covenant of redemption was private, between God the Father and God the Son. The covenant of Grace was sealed with Blood. See Hodge, Vol II Anthropology

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

BTW,
i agree that Hodge is entirely to rigid in his systematic theology: EXAMPLE i can accept a modified trichotomy with the gnostic garbage removed. i am wondering if he wrote in such a manner because it was a systematic theology for general consumption /speculation>.

i have had no opportunity to compare his commentaries tothe systematic theology to make an assessment.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Actually, redemption itself is covenantal--since there is an everlasting covenant sealed with blood (Hebrews 13). And this is what Romans 11 is apparently alluding to. But Romans 11 does not refer to condemnation by covenant. The covenant theologians have inferred it to make the Fall similar to the Atonement. The problem is, Paul says in Romans 5 that "The free gift is NOT like the transgression." So, we need to be careful about these things. (Edwards used this verse a lot in his arguments with the anti-realistic theologians!)

Simplistically, I could say in response that the free gift is not like the transgression, simply by virtue of the Transgression being communicated along the lines of natural begetting, while the Free Gift is communicated along the lines of spiritual begetting. Ergo, both the Transgression and the Free Gift could be similarly Federal; but with one being established upon Natural begetting, and the other being established upon Spiritual begetting, "the free gift is not like the transgression".

Of course, I'd have to be a traducian covenantalist in order to make that argument (fortunately, I am!!). I don't immediately see how a Soul-Creationist, for whom everything is "imputational", could make the same argument.

The best argument for a covenant in Eden is actually the famous reference to a covenant with "man" in Hosea. It's the "proof-text" for the "covenant of works" theory. But there are a lot of problems with this theology.

Really?

I'm kinda surprised. Maybe I am not seeing something in Hosea that the other Covenantalists see. I'm not totally up to speed on the "Covenant of Works" debate; I probably need to see what Kline says about Hosea 6:7. Off the top of my head, my difficulty would be that...

But they like men have transgressed the covenant:

...Even a pelagian could affirm this Scripture, according to his own understanding; a Pelagian would simply say that each and every man has transgressed the "Covenant with Men" individually. I'm not sure how my fellow Federales can use this passage, on account of the fact that I don't see any federal Headship being delineated here.

Maybe I am missing something in Hosea (happens to me all the time). For now, I am going to stick with the "concluded all in unbelief"; "mercy upon all" corollary in Romans 11:32, invert the logic, and mentally extend the federal-covenantal language of Romans 11:27 back onto Adam. It's convoluted as heck, but it seems more federal to me than Hosea 6:7 (as far as I can see).

Anyway, food for thought. I don't claim to have it all worked out. But I know that a lot of covenant theologians are screwing up pretty badly. Hodge's vehemence against realistic theology is a good example of this. He scoffed at traducianism as "mysticism."

Well, now that Hodge had, in Federalism, a handy "crutch" with which to prop up his doctrine of Original Sin, I guess that he figured that the sensible thing to do was to go ahead and break his other leg. ;-)

best, op

[the_doc]

Personally, I think Hodge went a little too far into the ether over some of these things. But I promise to pull out my copy of Hodge when I can find it in my boxes of stored books!

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

If someone would only publish an edition that translated the latin and german, instead of making me painfully pick through it. i only read greek fluently, latin is gleened from my greek studies, and is painful to attempt. My german has slipped badly since i haven't used it much in the last 25 years.

[the_doc]

Simplistically, I could say in response that the free gift is not like the transgression, simply by virtue of the Transgression being communicated along the lines of natural begetting, while the Free Gift is communicated along the lines of spiritual begetting. Ergo, both the Transgression and the Free Gift could be similarly Federal; but with one being established upon Natural begetting, and the other being established upon Spiritual begetting, "the free gift is not like the transgression".

Of course, I'd have to be a traducian covenantalist in order to make that argument (fortunately, I am!!). I don't immediately see how a Soul-Creationist, for whom everything is "imputational", could make the same argument.

This is exactly my understanding, except I would say, for style reasons, that Adam and Christ are natural and supernatural heads, respectively.

***

Hosea 6:7 is significant because it actually mentions a covenant which could conceivably be understood as a covenant made with Adam.

The Bible contains no real mention of a "covenant of works" in Eden--unless the covenant mentioned Hosea 6:7 is read all the way back into Eden. (What we had in Eden was merely a command, as far as I can tell.)

Anyway, there are still potentially serious disagreements about this seemingly rather suppositional approach based on Hosea 6:7.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hosea 6:7 is significant because it actually mentions a covenant which could conceivably be understood as a covenant made with Adam.

Yeah, I recognize that... and I recognize why my Federal brethren would use Hosea 6:7 for that purpose... but I confess it still seems like eisegetical proof-texting to me. Hosea 6:7 is certainly *covenantal* (leaving aside the "covenant of works" debate for the moment), but I just don't see anything in Hosea 6:7 which would establish a federal Headship in Adam. As I said, even a pelagian could affirm Hosea 6:7, according to his strictly individual (non-Federal) understanding of "covenant-transgression".

Maybe the other Covenantals are seeing something in Hosea which I am missing. I see a "covenant", sure, but I don't see any "federal participation" or "Adam as a Public Legal Representative" here. Honestly, I really don't.

Like I said, if I have to establish a Federal Legal Headship in Adam (one which is commensurate with Natural Organic Generation, which I happily affirm to be the stronger "case"), I still have to go with my roundabout inversion of Romans 11. It's pretty convoluted, that's plain enough; but at least I can invert the plain federal-covenantal logic of Romans 11: 27-32 ("this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins"; "all in unbelief", "mercy upon all"), and extend it back onto Adam (that is, if it is legitimate for me to extend the inverted logic through apostate Israel, back onto apostate Adam -- which I think it is, though I am not 100% sure).

At least that way, I can "get" a (somewhat indirect) federal-covenantal connection with Adam.

Even if I am speaking as the "Federales advocate" here, Hosea 6:7 (or Romans 5, if truth be told) does not honestly "get" me that federal connection to Adam -- in any way, shape, or form which I can tell.

The Bible contains no real mention of a "covenant of works" in Eden -- unless the covenant mentioned Hosea 6:7 is read all the way back into Eden. (What we had in Eden was merely a command, as far as I can tell.) Anyway, there are still potentially serious disagreements about this seemingly rather suppositional approach based on Hosea 6:7.

I really am not up to speed on the "Covenant of Works" debate. I really do need to read Kline's take on it. Schlissel, too, since he is apparently embroiled smack-dab in the middle of the controversy, at the moment.

BTW -- For that matter, Schlissel is also, has been for some time, embroiled in controversy with the CRC regarding what some would call his "liberal" treatment of the RPW -- just noticing your debate with Jean Chauvin

Best, op

[the_doc]

His liberal treatment of RPW? Interesting. I knew he was getting raked over the coals, but I haven't had a chance to read the discussion of the particulars.

I thought it might involve the old "Justification by Faithfulness" controversy which got Shepherd bounced out of WTS.