Source of Doctrine

[John81]

Earlier today I was reading something a pastor had preached on and it sounded pretty good until he got to this:

He claimed Calvin is the biggest influence in virtually all the churches today (he seemed to be speaking of American churches) and he said the following doctrines came from Calvin and were not found in Scripture.

"Certainly the doctrines of predestination, unconditional eternal security, and penal substitution had to come from sources other than the scriptures. I challenge anyone to teach such things by referring to Scripture alone. It cannot be done without referring to the writings of John Calvin, which are not scripture."

This preacher wasn't limiting his comments to "Calvinist" churches, but to virtually all churches in America which he says holds unscriptural views on these three points whether they agree with Calvin or not.

He then rambled on about this for a bit, talked about some revival in the 20th century, about Catholic Charismatics, and ended on America is being judged by God turning the nation over to sexual sin.

(I don't remember the pastors name. He was from some Calvary church in Texas. I don't remember what or where I clicked to end up finding his sermon.)

[Rosie]

we know better don't we John

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Well now, if God's Holy Word speaks to a subject at all, then there is Biblical doctrine (teaching) concerning that subject.  Let us just consider the first one -- predestination.  The King James translation employs the verb "predestinate" four times (Romans 8:29, 30: Ephesians 1:5, 11).  Therefore, there is a Bible doctrine of predestination.  Whether or not that Biblical doctrine is the same in its details as the Calvinistic doctrine is another matter, but there certainly is a Biblical doctrine thereof.

[John81]

Don't all, or at least most Baptists teach penal substitution and unconditional eternal security (or as most Baptists put it, once saved, always saved)?

I fully agree with Pastor Markle regarding predestination being biblical whether someone has a right interpretation of it or not.

I don't understand how that pastor gets the idea these three doctrines all come from Calvin and how he believes they are not found in Scripture. Nor do I understand how he believes most all churches are being misled in these areas.

[Covenanter]

John:

"Certainly the doctrines of predestination, unconditional eternal security, and penal substitution had to come from sources other than the scriptures. I challenge anyone to teach such things by referring to Scripture alone. It cannot be done without referring to the writings of John Calvin, which are not scripture."

What does he understand by ..... ? 

"Unconditional eternal security" is taught by those who preach salvation by faith without repentance & works of faith, but that's more likely to be Billy Graham & his teachers than Calvin. 

John 6:39 teaches predestination & unconditional eternal security - And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

"Penal substitution" has been redefined as "cosmic child abuse." 

John 3:16 teaches unconditional eternal security and penal substitution. 

I suspect that the reason for the comments is a rejection of the Westminster Confession which I understand is a statement of Calvinistic doctrine. It does provide Scripture proofs, some of which are obscure. 

But I haven't read Calvin. 

---------------------

[Covenanter]

The wider question is "why do we believe what we believe?"

We trust those who teach us, unless/until it becomes apparent that what they teach is untrue, or until we come to repentance & salvation. Then we know that Jesus is true, & the Bible is trustworthy. 

I came to Christ in the Church of England. I was taught to read & trust the Bible, & had been reading with the Scripture Union for several years already. I had no reason to doubt such doctrines as infant baptism, church hierarchy, life after death, the second coming of Jesus for resurrection & judgement, & various other doctrines expressed in the creeds.

A few days before university one of our CofE group who had been in London for a year introduced me to a local Independent Evangelical church, which held to Reformed (Calvinistic) teaching.

When I got to university I heard a range of other doctrines as a listened with the attention of a new convert. Some I responded to readily - I was baptised as a believer at the first possible occasion. I heard & questioned the doctrine of a future millennium which was contrary to the basic statement of the creeds. The Pentecostal teaching was obviously questionable, as it included loss of salvation. Ecumenism became doubtful, as it effectively denied personal salvation by being all-inclusive. 

So, with reading Scripture, sermons, teaching, discussion, reading religious books, etc, & more recently Internet discussion, I came to a basic system of belief - basically independent, reformed, baptist. Some of my beliefs have become less firm or changed as I have discussed them, & some have been strengthened. 

The basic FIEC position is that there are doctrines that cannot be questioned, & others where sincere disagreement is acceptable, provided we adhere to the fundamentals. 

 

[John81]

"The wider question is "why do we believe what we believe?""

This is very important, and something our pastor brings up often, especially in adult Sunday school. First we ask what is that we believe and then we have to ask why. Many Christians can't answer why they believe many of the things they believe. That's part of the reason so many Christians find themselves frustrated, confused, fearful or outright out witted when they mention their faith in public.

What do we believe about those three points that pastor addressed? Then, why do we hold those beliefs? At which point we should be able to look to Scripture to see if our belief and the reasoning for holding those beliefs agree with the Word of God.

[Ukulelemike]

Hard to get people to open their Bibles and study.

 

[John81]

Hard to get people to open their Bibles and study.

 

That's a fact! It's hard to get people to even read a five minute devotional, let alone actually read the Word and study the Word.

While it probably shouldn't, I'm still amazed when I talk with those who have been Christians for decades, spent all that time in a Bible preaching church, and yet they know so little of the Bible because they've never even read their Bible.

Our associate pastor started an adult basic Bible Sunday school class for this very reason. He had about two dozen show up for his class saying they knew almost nothing of the Bible (all had been Christians for over a year, some for many years). Our pastor literally started the class by holding up his Bible and saying, "this is the Bible". From there he introduced the Bible to the class as if they had never opened one before and proceeded from there. Nearly half of them have stopped attending already, but praise God for those still attending and for our associate pastor seeing the need for such a class and taking it upon himself to start and teach it.

[Invicta]

PENAL SUBSTITUTION

I have never heard a preacher say those words.  But if Christ took our sins and imputed His Righteousness, then I guess it is the same thing.

1 Peter 2:24  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Invicta
spelling

[Genevanpreacher]

Most people tend to not question the Pastor and his wisdom. It's as if the common Christian thinks God really isn't available to all of us or something.

Or as my Dad stated once, (paraphrased) "There were much godlier men before me, and they knew things. So who am I to question their teachings on what the scriptures mean?"

My Dad has been a Pastor 3 times in the last 27 years, and still preaches at 72 years old. We have had quite the conversations over the years about what the scriptures really teach. He is the common, 'fall in line with the traditions of the church', kinda guy. I love him though.

I think most men of God are like that. We are quite nostalgic when it comes to 'doctrine'.

[Invicta]

Most people tend to not question the Pastor and his wisdom. It's as if the common Christian thinks God really isn't available to all of us or something.

Or as my Dad stated once, (paraphrased) "There were much godlier men before me, and they knew things. So who am I to question their teachings on what the scriptures mean?"

My Dad has been a Pastor 3 times in the last 27 years, and still preaches at 72 years old. We have had quite the conversations over the years about what the scriptures really teach. He is the common, 'fall in line with the traditions of the church', kinda guy. I love him though.

I think most men of God are like that. We are quite nostalgic when it comes to 'doctrine'.

We were in a church once where the attitude seemed to be "We leave spiritual matters to the pastor."  We tried to change things but without much result.  A friend said, "They have had a whole string of Godly pastors, but the system beaten them all"  If you suggested something was not right, the answer was always, "We've always done it that way."  My wife said it should be written in a banner over the town "WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY."  She called it  "The Law Of The Medes And Persians, Which Changeth Not."  We didn't want to leave as it was the local church.  However we eventually we decided to leave and went to a church in Canterbury where there was a good minister, but when he left we went to a church in Ashford.  After the pastor there was forced out, we came to our present church  where we have been for over 20 years, and 8 years ago moved to the town.

 

[Covenanter]

... like a mighty tortoise moves the church of god; brothers (& sisters) we are treading where we've always trod .....

[Invicta]

... like a mighty tortoise moves the church of god; brothers (& sisters) we are treading where we've always trod .....

How very true.

[John81]

Over the years since our pastor came to this church one of his rules has been, if talking about something done in the church and the only reason anyone can give for it is "because we've always done it that way", it's time to actually look at the matter and give proper consideration as to whether it's really something they should continue with (after finding a solid reason for doing so!) or if it's something that can be changed or dropped (whether because it's simply unhelpful, not beneficial, or is outright contrary to some aspect of Scripture).