# Dealing with these objections



## arapahoepark (Oct 24, 2012)

Hey!
I am wondering how to deal with these objects posted on a comment at the Heidleblog:



> I appreciate the article which summarizes much of the Reformed thought on this issue. However, the Reformers themselves advocated for semper reformata – they wanted others to build on their foundation and continue to refine and develop doctrine. Therefore, the creeds and catechisms are good, but not infallible. They are valuable, but if they are shown to be in error in relation to God’s Word, those view must be discarded.
> 
> To that point, the Reformers were not correct in every single area of doctrine (they did not even agree on every area of doctrine) and while it is a false church, the RCC is not in error on every area of doctrine. Simply labeling a particular doctrine as Reformed does not make it automatically correct and simply labeling a doctrine as RCC does not make it automatically heretical.
> 
> ...



I realize they are FV and don't want to argue with the guy (there's no point), but just wondering how these objection are dealt with.
Thanks!

(turns out he has a FV church in the same metro area as me, that's too bad)


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 24, 2012)

Just read the objections. They are Arminian, Lutheran, and Roman. Why doesn't the author just join one of those communions? Probably because he thinks his eclectic collection of religious ideas is as stable as any of those three.

Hmmm, my guess is that if he knew the history of theology, he would have found that people holding mediating positions (like FV) have migrated into one of the other more stable theological expressions. FVers keep thinking that the day of real theological advance has finally arrived with their "new" ideas.

All such proposals, in one form or another, assert that it is possible for the elect to fall away. To actually obtain, have, possess, some salvific perfection from God; and then because of some human factor to lose it, to strip oneself of God's saving grip. It all comes down to that little bit I need to contribute to my final condition.

The writer ignorantly and ridiculously seems to figure that the Reformed never saw those verses in the Bible. Never heard Rome, Marbach, or Arminius raise certain objections to Reformed doctrine in those days long ago.

Don't our Confessions directly address the issue of sanctity? The necessity of genuine growth in grace? Graceless and impenitent lives of professors of religion? Sure they do.


----------



## KMK (Oct 24, 2012)

arap said:


> I appreciate the article which summarizes much of the Reformed thought on this issue. However, the Reformers themselves advocated for semper reformata – they wanted others to build on their foundation and continue to refine and develop doctrine. Therefore, the creeds and catechisms are good, but not infallible. They are valuable, but if they are shown to be in error in relation to God’s Word, those view must be discarded.



To this point I would reply, "Fine. If you want to jettison the Reformed creeds and catechisms, go ahead. But stop referring to yourself as 'Reformed'. It is disingenuous."


----------



## BarryR (Oct 24, 2012)

arap said:


> If removal from the marriage covenant were impossible, why were the Jews removed because of whoredom?



Well if one grabs only those texts that appear to support his conclusion they have failed to live up to sola scriptura. Does God's contradict himself?



> "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 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. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." - John 6:37-40





> "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." - Phi.:1:6





> "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, *neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand*. My Father, which gave them me, is *greater than all*; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. " - John 10:28 -29"





> WCF Chapter 17:
> I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but *shall certainly persevere therein to the end*, and be eternally saved.
> 
> II. This perseverance of the saints *depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election,* flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
> ...



There are more able men on this board to answer this, but it seems to come down to an error (among many) of conflating categories. There is a visible and invisible church - not just a visible only. Those that fall away never to return were never really of us. That is why we call it _"perseverance of the saints"_ No man can pluck himself out of the Father's hand. As Christians we should take great comfort in this - desiring to remain faithful to Christ because of what He has done on our behalf; our kinsman redeemer.


----------

