The Cambridge Declaration

[calibob]

I don't think you can claim each individual sin is equal, except in the sense that each earns eternal death.

I didn't and never did.

 

[presidente]

I'm not sure if I understand.

Scripture convicts one of all sin, and the believer should not be practicing it.

I was talking about porneia being translated as 'immorality' in Matthew 19 in the NASB.

 

[presidente]

Perhaps a tax dodger or whoremonger is as bad as a homosexual, but certainly not as bad as an attempted serial killer, rapist or pedophile.

A pedophile is attracted to children. A pederast actually does the deed (if it's with a male.) It's kind of like homosexual has to do with attraction, not the deeds, technically. That's one of the weaknesses of the 'homosexual' translation in I Corinthians 6.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I was talking about porneia being translated as 'immorality' in Matthew 19 in the NASB.

I guess folks could look at porneia in three different ways.

One, they could look at it in a very restrictive sense, and just consider it to be fornication, if the translation uses this word.

Two, they could look at it in a less restrictive sense, encompassing all sexual sin outside of marriage.

Three, they could look at it in a less restrictive sense, and define for themselves what is immoral, justifying whatever their pet sin is.

If the Holy Spirit is convicting them, though, I think that their sin will be made evident by Him

 

[calibob]

All kinds of stories by folks about John Calvin.

They are not as credible as the ones about King James and Erasmus, though.

This sounds like the nonsense that Dave Hunt specialized in

By the way "Calvinism" doesn't depend on John Calvin anyways..I would call it "biblicism".

I don't give a rats tail about weather King James was Gay, metrosexual, endogenous, bi or straight.

Better, older, more original texts have been discovered and translated since 1611 and the language has changed too. KJV was never the inspired word of God it was a translated and mis-translated copy. And Calvin was dead wrong. we are to>
Matthew 28: 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The word evangelize had not been created by 1611 but what the Lord instructed us to do fits the definition of evangelize which is evangelism! Remember the parable of the 3 servants who were trusted with different measurements of Gold? What happened to the servant who burried his?

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I don't give a rats tail about weather King James was Gay, metrosexual, endogenous, bi or straight.

Better, older, more original texts have been discovered and translated since 1611 and the language has changed too. KJV was never the inspired word of God it was a translated and mis-translated copy. And Calvin was dead wrong. we are to>
Matthew 28: 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The word evangelize had not been created by 1611 but what the Lord instructed us to do fits the definition of evangelize which is evangelism! Remember the parable of the 3 servants who were trusted with different measurements of Gold? What happened to the servant who burried his?

What makes you think Calvin was against evangelism?

Again, this is more Dave Hunt-level claims.

Calvin actually trained evangelists to go back into France and proclaim the Gospel to areas dominated by Roman Catholicism. Geneva was a hub of evangelistic activity.

But, if your source of church history is Dave Hunt and other propagandists, I won't try to dissuade you.

 

[Chester]

Faith alone? no love, no hope, no resurrection from the dead, no power over sin, just faith by itself and nothing else? Really?

What the Word of God says is never foolish!

 

[Chester]

Is it possible that you completely misconstrued my post?

Oh, I am sure I might have misconstrued what you are trying to say - but then I have not really been trying to answer you, my posts still go back to the original point of the Cambridge Declaration that I have not found in the Bible: that is - that salvation is by "faith alone". I think what you may mean is that salvation is by faith, and not by works. With that I agree completely: but that is quite different from the statement that salvation is by "faith alone".

 

[John146]

What the Word of God says is never foolish!

It’s foolishness to those that perish. Why? It’s so simple.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[John146]

Oh, I am sure I might have misconstrued what you are trying to say - but then I have not really been trying to answer you, my posts still go back to the original point of the Cambridge Declaration that I have not found in the Bible: that is - that salvation is by "faith alone". I think what you may mean is that salvation is by faith, and not by works. With that I agree completely: but that is quite different from the statement that salvation is by "faith alone".

Then, do tell, what does faith alone mean to you?

 

[Chester]

Then, do tell, what does faith alone mean to you?

Since I do not use the phrase because it is not found in the Bible (except in James 2:24 where it says, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.") it has no meaning to me except what it literally says.

So when someone says we are saved by "faith alone" I take it to mean that a person is saved by faith alone and nothing else is involved. That is why I ask: no love? no cross? no resurrection? no grace? no power over sin? no hope? not Jesus? not the Holy Spirit? just faith and nothing else?

 

[Nehemiah6]

So when someone says we are saved by "faith alone" I take it to mean that a person is saved by faith alone and nothing else is involved.

Saving faith is in the Person and Finished Work of Christ. But it is indeed faith alone, and no good works to supplement that faith. That is what justification by grace through faith means, and that is how God imputes righteousness to the one who believes on Him, believes Him, believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, and calls upon the name of the Lord in order to be saved. Everything else follows.

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Acts 16:29-31)

Getting back to the Cambridge Declaration. There is much that is good, and there are also quite a few errors and omissions (which is bad). The use of theological jargon, and the avoidance of plain language indicates that the people who put this together failed to keep things simple. Jesus never used theological jargon, but great plainness of speech. For example how many people would immediately understand the meaning of "saliency" "...and as its doctrines have lost their saliency..." ? Salient means important or significant, so why not say "importance"?

Also, the Calvinism of the authors is evident in such statements as "We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace." This is Total Depravity according to TULIP.