Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Essentials of the Faith.....(for DeeJay)

Expand Messages
  • Deejay
    Well this maybe an odd opinion, I don t know, but, I think we can all pay waaay too much mind to stuff like that. Grace is evident in most folks, if it exists,
    Message 1 of 26 , Jun 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Well this maybe an odd opinion, I don't know, but, I think we can all pay waaay too much mind to stuff like that.  Grace is evident in most folks, if it exists, and even if someone doesn't have ALL the essentials right now, they could still be God's chosen and have it by the time they die.

      I think to have a check list of criteria of what constitutes real faith, is beyond what we should have. I'm not saying we don't notice errors of brothers or sisters who we consider real brothers or sisters even if they have some  grave errors.  But, still think its a bit beyond bounds to have a check list and maybe weighing folks up in our minds next to our check list.

      I also think in stuff like that, we concentrate far too much on others failings and fail to improve ourselves as much as we could do because of it. We are all responsible for ourselves, us as much as anyone else. So, it seems like spending time on something like that, one could use the time wiser to improve our own personal growth.

      I said it was an odd opinion, but I used to having odd opinions, and its how it seems to me.  That's not to say others souls are not important, of course they are!  I just think anyone can go too far in certain ways in areas such as this.

      ~Deejay

      James wrote:

      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com,
      "reformed_wild_ child" <group.only@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > You may want to check THIS ARTICLE
      >
      <http://www.truecove nanter.com/ reformedpresbyte rian/magazine/ orig_cov_ es\
      > sentials.html> out, James.
      >
      > ~Deejay
      >

    • reformed_wild_child
      As a PS to this, the obvious thing to read is the Sum of saving knowledge
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        As a PS to this, the obvious thing to read is the Sum of saving knowledge   which again doesn't speak to direct doctrines or not, but, it still says it pretty well.  (IMO)  The rest of it can be read at the link above.  I know it still not addressing precisely what you asked, but if its good enough for most folks, it good enough for moi!

        Wherein the apostle teacheth us these four things, for laying of the ground of faith solidly:

        1. That every one is a true believer, who, in the sense of his sin, and fear of God's wrath, doth flee for full relief from both unto Jesus Christ alone, as the only Mediator and all-sufficient Redeemer of men; and, being fled to Christ, doth strive against his own flesh, or corrupt inclination of nature, and studieth to follow the rule of God's Spirit, set down in his word: for the man, whom the apostle doth here bless as a true believer, is a man in Christ Jesus, "who doth not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

        2. That all such persons as are fled to Christ, and do strive against sin, howsoever they may be possibly exercised under the sense of wrath, and fear of condemnation, yet they are in no danger; for "there is no condemnation (saith he) to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

        3. That albeit the apostle himself, (brought in here for example's cause,) and all other true believers in Christ, be by nature under the law of sin and death, or under the covenant of works, (called the law of sin and death, because it bindeth sin and death upon us, till Christ set us free;) yet the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, or the covenant of grace, (so called, because it doth enable and quicken a man to a spiritual life through Christ,) doth set the apostle, and all true believers, free from the covenant of works, or the law of sin and death: so that every man may say with him, "The law of the Spirit of life," or the covenant of grace, hath made me free from the law of sin and death," or covenant of works.

        4. That the fountain and first ground, from whence our freedom from the curse of the law doth flow, is the covenant of redemption, passed betwixt God and God the Son as incarnate, wherein Christ takes the curse of the law upon him for sin, that the believer, who could not otherwise be delivered from the covenant of works, may be delivered from it. And this doctrine the apostle holdeth forth in these four branches: (1.) That it was utterly impossible for the law, or the covenant of works, to bring righteousness and life to a sinner, because it was weak. (2.) That this weakness and inability of the law, or covenant of works, is not the fault of the law, but the fault of sinful flesh, which is neither able to pay the penalty of sin, nor to give perfect obedience to the law, (presuppose bygone sins were forgiven:) "The law was weak (saith he) through the flesh." (3.) That the righteousness and salvation of sinners, which was impossible to be brought about by the law, is brought to pass by sending God's own Son, Jesus Christ, in the flesh, in whose flesh sin is condemned and punished, for making satisfaction in the behalf of the elect, that they might be set free. (4.) That by his means the law loseth nothing, because the righteousness of the law is best fulfilled this way; first, by Christ's giving perfect active obedience in our name unto it in all things; next, by his paying in our name the penalty due to our sins in his death: and, lastly, by his working of sanctification in us, who are true believers, who strive to give new obedience unto the law, and "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." [Contents]

        Deejay


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jim043@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
        > "reformed_wild_child" group.only@ wrote:
        > >
        > > You may want to check THIS ARTICLE
        > >
        > <http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/magazine/orig_cov_es\
        > > sentials.html> out, James.
        > >
        > > ~Deejay
        > >
        > >
        > James replies:
        >
        > Thank you. That was a good article. I think where maybe I am not
        > communicating well, is that when I say "essentials", I am not saying
        > that parts of God word is non-essential.
        >
        > I was just asking what are the bare minimums that another would have
        > to believe, in order for you to consider them a brother or sister in
        > the faith.
        >
        >
        > In Christ,
        >
        > James
        >
        >
        >
        > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jim043@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > I just asked this question on my church forum.
        > > >
        > > > http://doctrinesofgrace.net/modules/newbb/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > And that is..."What are the essentials of the faith?"
        > > >
        > > > IN other words, what exactly MUST a person believe so that you would
        > > > consider them a brother or sister in Christ?
        > > >
        > > > When I say "essentials" I mean the BARE essentials.
        > > >
        > > > DeeJay, you have just said that a person MUST believe in the doctrine
        > > > of the Trinity.
        > > >
        > > > That is one of the things on your list.
        > > >
        > > > Here is my list:
        > > >
        > > > If you have repented and are trusting in Christ ALONE for salvation,
        > > > I consider you my brother or sister in Christ.
        > > >
        > > > I am trying to be as INCLUSIVE as Scripture will allow me to be.
        > > >
        > > > (I know that faith in Christ alone presupposes some things like, the
        > > > Bible being true, etc.)
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > But my interest is in UNITY.
        > > >
        > > > Now, this is not my list for being an elder in my church.
        > > > That is a LONG list and concerns the Westminister Confession of Faith.
        > > >
        > > > So, what is on YOUR list, and what, and why do you think I should ADD
        > > > to mine???
        > > >
        > > > In Christ,
        > > >
        > > > James
        > > >
        > >
        >

      • Fred blahous
        I understood James to have been going by a mistaken understanding of Jerry s beliefs. As regards compulsory attendence, the entire history of Israel shows the
        Message 3 of 26 , Jul 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I understood James to have been going by a mistaken understanding of
          Jerry's beliefs.

          As regards compulsory attendence, the entire history of Israel shows
          the necessity of it. This is what is meant by a Christian Kingdom,
          is it not?

          All the best,
          Fred.

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
          <lbump@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Fred blahous" <fritzbau@...>
          >
          >
          > ___snip a lot of typing___
          >
          > > Of the first two groups of believers, who do you think was
          correct?
          > > Incidentally, Jerry doesn't call for the execution of non-
          believers.
          >
          > Then I wasn't referring to Jerry, was I? The initial proposition
          was a
          > person that calls for the execution or deportation of people for
          the crime
          > of private unbelief. That person would be "beyond the fringe",
          nicht wahr?
          > That's all I was saying; hat this theoretical person would not be
          holding
          > the position of theonomists in general, nor the position of the
          Reformers.
          > I also don't think that the person refered to in the initial post
          was Jerry,
          > but I might have misunderstood.
          >
          >
          > > Only individuals who obstinantly maintain worship rites and
          publish
          > > pamphlets contrary to God's own religiion who cannot be
          reclaimed in
          > > any other way.
          >
          > That is also the position I stated earlier, so again, no arguments
          form me.
          >
          > > I am assuming he would also support compulsory
          > > attendence laws to go with national establishment of
          > > Presbyterry. "How will they hear unless they have a preacher?",
          > > after all.
          >
          > I can see the seeming logic of this, but no Scriptural warrant or
          example.
          >
          > Larry
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.