# What are the proper boundaries of theological discussion?



## polemic_turtle (Jun 4, 2007)

I've wondered now for a while what the Biblical justification for anathamatizing people was, beyond what is already said in Scripture, such as the Galatian heresy. Perhaps I'm just hugely fuzzy in my thinking, but what verses of the Bible can you cite to support shutting down such a conversation? The closest I can think of is 1 John 2:22, which would have to be logically connected to what bookslover is saying for me, since I really can't see the connection myself.

I suppose I really would have preferred to have seen a presentation of both sides of the issue, rather than a quick take down which I don't understand. Why so touchy, outside of the creeds? Or am I too utilitarian toward the creeds in your opinion? Ought they be revered and treated on a par with Scripture, "since they're right", or should they always be open to criticism like any other human writing, though useful and correct as they are?

I hope I'm not being disrespectful in how I'm expressing myself, but I'd appreciate a response.

Also, would you then anathamatize Robert Reymond, based upon what you're saying?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 4, 2007)

Sure, no problem. I'm now reading the thread which was linked to above and am getting largely what I was looking for in the exchange between brother Richard & brother Matthew Winzer( always an interesting read ). If my previous questions aren't answered in this thread, that's fine. I'll probably run into the answers eventually, wherever they are to be found.

On second examination, I'm not particularly appreciative of the claim that unless you understand and affirm a point which I don't understand fully you cannot be saved. I'm sure there are millions who will never understand this fine point of patristic theology; will they be fallen from grace? In summary, a position isn't strengthened in the least if the advocates of it refuse to discuss the relevant texts and end the discussion with an appeal to human authority, unless perhaps the viewers already perfectly understand why a doctrine is so unquestionable. Are there any other threads which accomplished anything which could be linked to, even if locked? Forgive me if I sound uppitty; curious minds want to know and are easily frustrated without assistance.


----------



## Herald (Jun 4, 2007)

Tyler - you're right. A Christian may live their entire life without ever having to deal with the issue of eternal generation. It is a minority of believers who frequent places like the PB or who engage in detailed theological discussions. Does that mean they are not saved because they have never wrestled with the topic? Of course not. 

On the other hand, if a central component of the Christian faith _is_ encountered...let's say the trinity...and an individual denies it, they are not lost because of an improper trinitarian belief. Their denial of the triune godhead is symptomatic of a more wholesale theological deficiency. It simply surfaced in the area of the trinity.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2007)

Nobody has been anathematized. They've been suspended. There is spiritual danger in arguing with the Church over Scripture on the nature of God.

I do think your utilitarian view of Creeds and Confessions can be very dangerous. It's not necessarily but can be. Every heretic states that all they're doing is interpreting Scripture and letting it speak for itself as if nobody thought that one before. 

Tyler, why do you trust your interpretation on the face of it? If the Church has confessed a doctrine that "...this is how we interpret the Scriptures for 1700 years..." then is that simply something "useful"?

I don't know why people take more confidence in their interpretation from a short lifespan with limited personal pastoral, biblical, and scholarly experience over a Confession formed by the collective wisdom of centuries of study. It's not, at that point, a matter of the Scriptures vs the Confession but an ignorant interpretation vs. a well informed interpretation.

This does not make the Scriptures subordinate to the Church as Rome avers but it does recognize that the Church has a role in testifying to the meaning of the Word and it is not "...every man interpreted as he saw right in his own eyes." How could Church discipline function in such a context?

I think there is a dangerous tendency to approach the Scriptures with an independent spirit. It is arrogant and prideful to assume that the whole Church has gone before me but I know some Greek and Hebrew now and "...look how they have misinterpreted this...."

This is not all to be levelled at Mr. Zuelch but is to point out the larger issue in brief. There is sufficient breadth of Confessions to choose from on the forum to remain a member here but this forum is not a "free for all" where Catholics, Pentecostals, Jehovas Witnesses, Mormons, and Christians can come together and each man say: "...my interpretation of the Scriptures is this and by my own authority, you are wrong!"

This is a board for Christians with Reformed and Baptist Confessions. We bound the acceptable content pretty broadly but, rest assured, there is a boundary. Mr. Zuelch was not suspended for simply stating an opinion once. For his part, he has been very gracious in receiving the suspension, which is to be commended.


----------



## MW (Jun 4, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> On second examination, I'm not particularly appreciative of the claim that unless you understand and affirm a point which I don't understand fully you cannot be saved. I'm sure there are millions who will never understand this fine point of patristic theology; will they be fallen from grace? In summary, a position isn't strengthened in the least if the advocates of it refuse to discuss the relevant texts and end the discussion with an appeal to human authority, unless perhaps the viewers already perfectly understand why a doctrine is so unquestionable. Are there any other threads which accomplished anything which could be linked to, even if locked? Forgive me if I sound uppitty; curious minds want to know and are easily frustrated without assistance.



Hi Tyler. Isn't there a difference betwen inquiry and opposition? A person who doesn't understand has the opportunity to ask searching and difficult questions within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy. He might even come to a different conclusion and decide to keep that between God and himself for the sake of maintaining the peace of the confessional community. But so far as the church is concerned, the creeds and confessions express what the believing community understands Scripture to teach. To outrightly oppose the stance of the church is to follow a divisive course. To state that the church has erred in making a declaration which is regarded as catholic is very presumptuous, especially when it is built on a flimsy exegetical foundation and involves a misunderstanding of terms. If the matter is not so clear as you suggest, surely the wisest course is to refrain from such bold and confident pronouncements.

I doubt that anathema means eternally damned. It is a technical term which emphasises the person's extra-ecclesial position. When Moses and Paul wished they were accursed, the meaning is not that they might be eternally damned, but simply cut off from the visible church and its ordinances. To be in such a position because of ecclesiastical pronouncement is indeed a precarious situation, but the purpose of it is in the hope that repentance will be the issue and the person's soul saved on the day of the Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Hi Tyler. Isn't there a difference betwen inquiry and opposition? A person who doesn't understand has the opportunity to ask searching and difficult questions within the parameters of confessional orthodoxy. He might even come to a different conclusion and decide to keep that between God and himself for the sake of maintaining the peace of the confessional community. But so far as the church is concerned, the creeds and confessions express what the believing community understands Scripture to teach. To outrightly oppose the stance of the church is to follow a divisive course. To state that the church has erred in making a declaration which is regarded as catholic is very presumptuous, especially when it is built on a flimsy exegetical foundation and involves a misunderstanding of terms. If the matter is not so clear as you suggest, surely the wisest course is to refrain from such bold and confident pronouncements.
> 
> I doubt that anathema means eternally damned. It is a technical term which emphasises the person's extra-ecclesial position. When Moses and Paul wished they were accursed, the meaning is not that they might be eternally damned, but simply cut off from the visible church and its ordinances. To be in such a position because of ecclesiastical pronouncement is indeed a precarious situation, but the purpose of it is in the hope that repentance will be the issue and the person's soul saved on the day of the Lord.



Well said.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 4, 2007)

Well, far be it from me to actually claim to have done more study than any theologian both of us could mention by name. I agree in at least a general way that the consensus of the Church means a lot in the end, although it's very easy to say that the actual numbers of those who have affirmed this particular point in faith, rather than for any genuinely compelling line of reasoning is a majority of those who have affirmed it. I need to study.

On the other hand, if what Dr. McMahon was doing wasn't anathamatizing Dr. Reymond on condition of his not repenting of his belief, I don't know what it was. I could see such a statement being understandable as a conclusion of a larger statement, but short of that, I can make neither heads nor tails of it.

Would the reading of "Anathema Maranatha" I have received be just a theory among theories, then? "Accursed on the coming of our Lord?" Is this non-eternal temporal understanding that of the creeds?


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2007)

I do not have a dog in this particular theological fight, but -

I would like to point out that the attitude that Tyler perceives to be active here is a problem within modern confessional circles. I consider myself to be confessional, but I also believe that any believer has a right to ask "why?" regarding _any point_ in the confession - even the Holy Trinity. Why is that? It is because of the reality that if you cannot convince them through intelligent biblical discussion, and if you do not have the knowledge of that doctrine to make intelligent discussion, then you are requiring them to sign on to the same sort of thinking as the church of Rome requires - that of implicit faith.

Remember, faith must be with understanding. If you cannot convince a man of the biblical validity of your theology, then he should not be required to believe it. Rome appeals to creeds, the writings of the early church, etc. So do we. Wherein lies the difference? It lies in the careful exegesis of the Scriptures. 

Many modern reformed types, like to say "the church has always confessed...", but that rings hollow in the ears of those who are not already convinced. 

First off, there is the problem of somebody raising the question, "Which church?" RC? EO? Reformed? Lutheran? Methodist? etc. All of these church bodies have confessions (yes, even the Methodists). For one who has just become a Christian, they do not have enough doctrinal background to discern the right confession, they only have the Scriptures. Again, saying "_Our_ confession is the right one" requires the problematic engagement of an implicit faith. 

Second, just because the church has "always confessed it" doesn't mean that they could not have gotten something wrong. To decide this, however, takes a willingness to allow frank and open discussion of a subject. This is why some people think that strict subscription creates a problem within confessional churches. If the confession is technically up for revision where it is in error, but the first man to question a position is cast out of the church as a heretic without discussion, well then, there really is no room for intelligent and frank discussion is there?

Protestant believers must discuss from the Scriptures first, and this must come before any confession, although it may be informed by one. And yes, some will not like the fact that there are those with a knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that others do not have. It does not mean that their conclusions are always right, but if you'd like to challenge them, you'd better get your language skills up to snuff. It is difficult to argue, with any credibility, the superiority of your own exegesis against something of which you have no knowledge. 

Confessions are only as good as our understanding of the Scriptures. Where our understanding improves, we should be willing to accept change. Of course, even where the languages have been learned (or not), there is still the matter of discerning various philosophies that may be underlying one's conclusion. That is another issue altogether. Still, discussion of all doctrines must be allowed, and biblical exegesis must be _foremost_ in that discussion, not historical theology. That has always been the Reformed position.


----------



## sotzo (Jun 5, 2007)

> Confessions are only as good as our understanding of the Scriptures. Where our understanding improves, we should be willing to accept change. Of course, even where the languages have been learned (or not), there is still the matter of discerning various philosophies that may be underlying one's conclusion. That is another issue altogether. Still, discussion of all doctrines must be allowed, and biblical exegesis must be _foremost_ in that discussion, not historical theology. That has always been the Reformed position.



You make a sensible point. If historical theology had won the day the Reformation would not have happened. You can't have the primacy of confessions and semper reformada at the same time can you?


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

Archlute, Men do not learn in a vacuum. They start from precommitments. The appeal to the confession is in order to ascertain the shared commitment to biblical propositions and how we approach the theological endeavour. If there is no shared commitment it doesn't matter how much Scripture one brings to support their position, it will not be received because it cannot meet the burden of proof without some proposition upon which to rest it. Unitarians appeal to Scripture. Trinitarians appeal to Scripture. What makes one appeal more compelling than the other? It is the consistency with which the Trinitarian position builds upon a prior commitment to the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. One is not at liberty to confess one thing, and then pursue theological endeavour on the assumption that they have not committed themselves to prior beliefs.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

sotzo said:


> You make a sensible point. If historical theology had won the day the Reformation would not have happened. You can't have the primacy of confessions and semper reformada at the same time can you?



The slogan is reformata, semper reformanda. "Reformed" first -- there is the confessional stance. "Always to be reformed" proceeds on the basis of the reformed confessional commitment. Scripture is the supreme standard, but a confessing community must of necessity maintain a commitment to uphold a shared set of beliefs which it regards as the teaching of Scripture.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 5, 2007)

I posted my thoughts on this subject which were in a great deal of agreement with Adam's post. I deleted this post because I can see both sides of the complex issue. I understand where Adam and Tyler are coming from and I also understand where Matthew and Rich are coming from. I've enjoyed the discussion as it has caused me to think about the issue of confessionalism even more.


----------



## sotzo (Jun 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The slogan is reformata, semper reformanda. "Reformed" first -- there is the confessional stance. "Always to be reformed" proceeds on the basis of the reformed confessional commitment. Scripture is the supreme standard, but a confessing community must of necessity maintain a commitment to uphold a shared set of beliefs which it regards as the teaching of Scripture.



Thanks for that clarification and help...much appreciated.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Adam,

There is a fundamental difference between propagating an unconfessional position and saying: "Nicea was wrong." and asking about a doctrine by saying: "Please explain Nicea because I don't understand it."

Yes, there are many confessions just like there are many religions. I purposefully do _not_ commit to all of them as if all of them represent the truth or all of them do or maybe some get some of it right.

Just because we affirm the necessity of Sola Scriptura against Solo Scriptura does not, on the same hand, mean that we believe that the Church is infallible and needs no reform.

I do think there is a boundary that a man's heart can cross where the need for explanation crosses into sinful speculation. It's easier to see it happen than to describe it. How can I put it more plainly than I believe the Reformed Confessions are a faithful interpretation and summary of the Scriptures and thatthey agree with centuries old fenceposts that men have crossed at their own peril. I can certainly talk to people about how different people have denied eternal generation but that doesn't mean I have allow those who deny eternal generation to start arguing their pont here. Why not justification by faith? Why not the Trinity? Why not a host of other doctrines?

I categorically deny that frank discussion has not been allowed except to the extent that certain dogmas are not allowed to be pressed as within the bounds of confessionalism here. We can discuss the teachings of the Federal Vision all day long here. I expect us to represent their view accurately so that we can set it _against_ Confessional Reformed theology but somebody who is an apologist for it is not permitted to interact with Confessionally Reformed Christians here.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Archlute, Men do not learn in a vacuum. They start from precommitments. The appeal to the confession is in order to ascertain the shared commitment to biblical propositions and how we approach the theological endeavour. If there is no shared commitment it doesn't matter how much Scripture one brings to support their position, it will not be received because it cannot meet the burden of proof without some proposition upon which to rest it. Unitarians appeal to Scripture. Trinitarians appeal to Scripture. What makes one appeal more compelling than the other? *It is the consistency with which the Trinitarian position builds upon a prior commitment to the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.* One is not at liberty to confess one thing, and then pursue theological endeavour on the assumption that they have not committed themselves to prior beliefs.



Yes, but even _that_ confession comes from a study of Scripture. The Ethiopian eunuch had no precommitments regarding the Messiah, but he was shown from the OT Scriptures that Christ was He, and he believed (by the power of the Holy Spirit, also, not just argumentation). 

Precommitments only have so much weight. Unitarians are wrong because so many of their "proofs" are partial and faulty. If the Unitarian argument had more internal biblical consistency than the Trinitarian position, then it would be right rather than wrong. It does not even come close in this regard, however.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Precommitments only have so much weight. Unitarians are wrong because so many of their "proofs" are partial and faulty. If the Unitarian argument had more internal biblical consistency than the Trinitarian position, then it would be right rather than wrong. It does not even come close in this regard, however.



"Internal biblical consistency." That assumes infallibility. You have made an assumption there without exegetical support. What are you appealing to in making that assumption, if not to Scripture? I am just proving a point, not vexing you; I only hope to show you how silly it is to require a person to prove what should be accepted in an intramural discussion. The fact we do not always appeal to Scripture does not mean we lack exegetical support for our position.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Adam,
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between propagating an unconfessional position and saying: "Nicea was wrong." and asking about a doctrine by saying: "Please explain Nicea because I don't understand it."
> 
> ...




I don't believe that Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al, were/are saying, "Please explain Nicea because we don't understand it." I believe that they were/are challenging its legitimacy. Would you suspend any of these fine theologians from this board? If so, then I applaud you for your honesty, but I think that it just goes to show again that it is easier to take one's security in a confessional statement, than to think it through and to argue it out from Scripture.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> "Internal biblical consistency." That assumes infallibility. You have made an assumption there without exegetical support. What are you appealing to in making that assumption, if not to Scripture? I am just proving a point, not vexing you; I only hope to show you how silly it is to require a person to prove what should be accepted in an intramural discussion. The fact we do not always appeal to Scripture does not mean we lack exegetical support for our position.




This _is _getting silly. You know what I am getting at.


----------



## Archlute (Jun 5, 2007)

So as not to waste anymore of my time I will most likely cease at this point, and merely refer anyone who wants to see the thrust of what I was originally getting at back to my original post here - post #9.


----------



## MW (Jun 5, 2007)

Archlute said:


> This _is _getting silly. You know what I am getting at.



It is silly, isn't it? And yet that is what I hear you calling me to account for.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Archlute said:


> I don't believe that Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al, were/are saying, "Please explain Nicea because we don't understand it." I believe that they were/are challenging its legitimacy. Would you suspend any of these fine theologians from this board? If so, then I applaud you for your honesty, but I think that it just goes to show again that it is easier to take one's security in a confessional statement, than to think it through and to argue it out from Scripture.



I think you're being extremely uncharitable in your charecterization of not only what I have stated but also of my own Scriptural convictions. Perhaps when I gain your Scriptural acumen and be able to think things through then I won't need the Confessional "security blanket". Is this the intended argument?

The hypothetical "Would you ban Warfield, Murray, Reymond, et al..." is the true silly statement. It is an _ad populum_ argument. If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!

Perhaps you have a list of the doctrines that can be propagated here without controversy? That way, then all can rest assured that it won't be based on some silly Confessional "security blanket".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Archlute said:


> So as not to waste anymore of my time I will most likely cease at this point, and merely refer anyone who wants to see the thrust of what I was originally getting at back to my original post here - post #9.



Yes, and post # 9 has not been demonstrated to reflect this board. It oversimplifies and pretends like we're just parroting the Confession like 9 year olds who can recite the Confession but can't give arguments for it. It denies the entire context of this thread as well as the thread referenced that led to the suspension.

For his part, Richard understood why he was suspended. His only surprise was that he thought he didn't think I had sufficiently warned him or he would not have continued to be a proponent of the un-Confessional position on this board. It was a reminder to myself to state things more plainly next time. Nevertheless, it's not as if I was capricious with the whole thing. Have you read the previous thread? It's not as if the ideas of Warfield and others were merely mentioned and my head exploded.

If you're going to criticize a position then criticize it on the merits of what it's arguing and not some imagined sensus fide.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

I realized this discussion had jumped far afield from the OP and moved to a new thread.

Incidentally, I don't mind this discussion. I merely prefer all parties to accurately characterize what they are against and what they are for.

I also think that, if one is going to criticize a position they ought to positively put forth their own idea about how men are to attain to the unity of the faith prescribed in the Scriptures. How are elders to exercise Church discipline over men who are free to decide for themselves the interpretation of Scripture? How are matters of controversy and doctrine to be resolved? Don't just give me a list of great theologians to ask: "Would you ban him? What about him?" I want to know what your standard for unity is and how you would preserve it given your system of Confessionalism.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 5, 2007)

my 2 pennies:

If this were a real church, all this explanation would surely be fit and necessary.

But this is the internet folks, If C.Matt pays $200+ per year for this forum board and asks that people refrain from certain talk, that's all there is to it.

He would even be justified, if he were for example say, no one is permitted to write the word "the". I think we need to back up a bit and see the immediate picture, it's the internet.

If this were a church setting, you set up an appointment with the elders and then discuss the above posts like gentlemen.

 No offense intended on any of the above.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jun 5, 2007)

reformedman said:


> my 2 pennies:
> 
> If this were a real church, all this explanation would surely be fit and necessary.
> 
> ...



 With that said I believe there would be a lot of good, orthodox Christians that would fall more in line with Adam's post #9 than strict confessionalism. Perhaps they need to come to a better understanding of confessionalism, but I don't think that is for anyone in here to decide on outside of this board.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!



 Just a side note, Rich. As a strong supporter (politically) of Ron Paul I'd nevertheless completely and strongly defend a decision to ban him-- if he applied and did not commit to the confessional requirements. Politics should never be allowed to transcend the truth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> If you really want to go for the jugular, why don't you claim that I might even ban Ron Paul from membership here. There would be virtual blood spilled everywhere!



*draws knife, smells blood*


Just kidding, I needed to laugh. That was a good one.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 5, 2007)

May I ask again whether Dr. McMahon's pronouncement of anathema against any who question the eternal generation aspect of historical Trinitarianism will be substantiated here? Can it be shown that eternal generation is really the crux of Biblical Trinitarianism and therefore unquestionable or is there room to refer to the pre-Incarnate Christ as the "Word" exclusively? I'm more than willing to be convinced of this doctrine biblically, but from where I stand, I would like to ask to be shown whether it really is so crucial that salvation depends on it, as Dr. McMahon has said. I know people who deny it; should I consider them as lost until they repent? Was Dr. Walter Martin lost because he denied the doctrine? I'm not very hard to satisfy here; I'm just wishing to have an explanation.


----------



## Herald (Jun 5, 2007)

Tyler - let me ask a question: 

Was Jesus the Son _before_ His first advent? Did His being "begotten" confer to Him the title, "Son of God", or did He possess this position pre-incarnation and for all of eternity past? Isn't this the essence of the debate?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 5, 2007)

As was said before in another thread, a merely incarnational sonship would seem to confuse the matter, since it was the Spirit which conceived the human nature of the Son and not the Father. Whether this is satisfactorily answerable or not, I don't know, having not read the material from the other side; however, I imagine that the objection is answered in one way or another by those who reject the doctrine, since it so immediately suggests itself. Whether they do well or not, I don't know. I'd like to observe the reasoning out of the various points in this discussion, but can't be a part of that myself at this point. However, my question is really concerned with the absolute necessity of believing one way or the other on this issue. Is it necessary to salvation and if so, how do we know so? Athanasius apparently thought so; what chapters / verses did he cite in support of such a position?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Tyler,

Let me quote what the Athanasian Creed said about it:



> ...Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly...



I don't know what kind of certainty you're looking for here. The Ecumenical Creeds that you can use for a basic "Is this Church Christian or not" are Nicea, Athanasian, and Chalcedon. They all affirm it.

I'm not sure what your interest in Matt's belief is as if he has the power within himself to "bind and loose". This is an oddity I've noticed before. People will state what they believe and then somebody will say: "Yeah but then you've just consigned a man to hell!"

Not so.

I tread with great trepidity around the doctrine of the Trinity because the men of God who have gone before me, who _were_ in positions of Church authority and sat in Synods and Councils and agreed to the Scriptural interpretation of core doctrines said: "This is what the Scriptures teach! Put all the Arians, Nestorians, Socinians, etc. out of the Church!"

Will God damn you immediately if you hold to a doctrine contrary to the Eternal Generation of the Son? I don't know. What did he think about Warfield and others that taught contrary to His witness in this world? I don't know.

I don't form my important and unimportant doctrines by lining up those who taught them and didn't and then thinking "...well if it's OK for them to do it then I guess it's OK for me...." Frankly, I can't search any of those men's hearts and it's not my place to do so. I have a responsibility to believe the Word of God as well as to submit to the authority that has been given to the Church as well.

It's not that my mind lacks the capacity for curiosity. I suppose I could speculate as well as the best man. Is it healthy, however, to approach a doctrine that the Church has said for 1700 years: "Do not tread beyond this!" and say "Well, I'm curious so I'd like to tread beyond and see where this thinking takes me...." On the one hand, I don't believe that the Church, on the basis of the Athanasius creed, is the basis for my damnation if I reject such a doctrine but on the other hand, I think I'd be a fool to just assume that the warning carries as much weight as a 3rd Grade hall monitor.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 5, 2007)

It seems that if one must believe in the eternal generation of the Son to be saved - the reason should be obvious - i.e. a cardinal doctrine hinges on it. I asked at church and they said, you would be violating the 1st Commandment by worshipping a god of your own making rather than God as He has revealed Himself. I believe in the eternal generation - but I don't understand how it could impact someone's salvation. I thoroughly expect to see Warfield in heaven. But I haven't seen any proof that he denied this doctrine. Maybe it was just the wording?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2007)

Right. What's the point in asking if another man is in heaven? I think we forget sometimes that men are saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ and not the brilliance of their works. I have no reason to doubt any Saint's salvation but I'm not going to be willy-nilly about the things I believe or reject because of academic arguments. I think some of us forget that Synods and Councils settle controversies and not seminaries.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 6, 2007)

May I presume that if there were any form of exegetical arguement which could back up the statement quoted from the Athanasian Creed, it would have already been quoted? If there is none, I doubt whether I buy it( that one must believe this precisely in order to be saved ). Perhaps there is a good one we're simply not seeing brought into the light; I'd like to see it.

Note that I am not here talking about the Trinity( which I believe in whole-heartedly ) or Eternal Generation( which I am not able to affirm or deny yet at this point ); I'm talking about the anathema attached apparently on Athanasius' own authority. This is important because this clause of the creed was apparently why a discussion was shut down; do the Scriptures teach it( the anathema )? Does anyone remember the Scriptural justification for the pronouncement of anathema upon disbelievers of Eternal Generation?

The reason I ask about Dr. Reymond's et al salvation is because apparently your position has no hope for their salvation. It should be 1 of 3 things which you can answer me: 1. "I agree that their position places them outside of heaven eternally as far I'm concerned", 2. "Let me clarify my position and then you'll understand why that's not true", or 3. "I don't believe that it's neccessary for salvation to believe in EG". In saying this, I assume that you take the position most explicitly said by Dr. McMahon. You haven't said anything so explicit, though you sound like you're defending his position. I'm interested in which it is.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 6, 2007)

I simply don't know how a man can read what I wrote and claim that my position offers no hope for their salvation. It baffles the mind quite frankly, Tyler. Why don't you read what I wrote again. If you still want to ask the same question then read it again. Then ask your question after you've taken the time to understand my post.

I'm getting very little sleep and have a ton of things on my plate but I honestly want to help you understand the role of the Church. I simply cannot recognize myself in your reply.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 6, 2007)

It appears that Warfield and Calvin were *incorrectly* quoted as holding the non-EG view. There must be a reason for the anathema by Athanasius. I'm sure it will become clear in time. I must read more about him.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I simply don't know how a man can read what I wrote and claim that my position offers no hope for their salvation. It baffles the mind quite frankly, Tyler. Why don't you read what I wrote again. If you still want to ask the same question then read it again. Then ask your question after you've taken the time to understand my post.
> 
> I'm getting very little sleep and have a ton of things on my plate but I honestly want to help you understand the role of the Church. I simply cannot recognize myself in your reply.


I think I have been primarily speaking all along to Dr. McMahon, who, in the previous thread in which we were involved before this was split into a new one, said that:



> All, yes, this is a place of theological reflection. Yes, we should discuss doctrine. But understand, if one were to reject as error the eternal generation of the Son, they would not make it to heaven, and suffer for all eternity under the wrath of God for denying God as Christ has revelaed Him. This should be, at no time, a light matter to throw around as if we were speaking about what color the hymnals should be, or whether the pulpit should be made out of glass or wood. This is the doctrine of God. Tread carefully.



Can you understand my questions now? I want to know what he's talking about, mainly, and since you've been the one responding, I guessed you held the same position. In fact, you quoted the Creed which said that you had to hold to the "catholic faith" as defined by it( which includes EG ) to be saved. Period.

Do you believe that "*Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly*"? If so, does this mean that those who differ from Athanasius on EG shall "_perish everlastingly_"? If so, then are these men who deny EG lost? Dr. McMahon seems to definitely say that they are.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 6, 2007)

Tyler,

What did I write?


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 6, 2007)

You don't seem to agree with Dr. McMahon; let Dr. McMahon answer my question then.

I think I get what you're saying, Rich: it's important to stay within the boundaries of the creeds, although you wouldn't say a man is lost if he departs from them on some point. In saying that, of course, you depart from at least the creeds with the anathema clauses included. I can appreciate such a position; however, I don't believe Dr. McMahon has shown himself to agree with you on that. He said that a man would be lost forever if he denied EG. That is what I've wanted addressed all along. So, I'd like to invite him to explain himself. Perhaps it will be a while before he is able to get back to this thread, busy as he is. So be it; I'd like an explanation and Biblical justification for pronouncing a man accursed before God on the judgment day because he denied this particular point of theology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2007)

Imagine the thunderous ramifications this would have for Reformed theological education.

Reymond has the top systematic theology in Reformed-land.
Reymond's salvation, so some implications would seem, might be in question.
Therefore,
Reformed education is using a reprobate's systematic theology!

*some caveats*
I hold to EG
I whole-heartedly believe Reymond is saved.
I think the rest of his ST is good (except his part on theonomy and eschatology).
I just did this to point out possible implicates.


----------



## turmeric (Jun 6, 2007)

Does Reymond really disbelieve in EG or does he just object to the wording of Nicaea?


----------



## MW (Jun 6, 2007)

turmeric said:


> Does Reymond really disbelieve in EG or does he just object to the wording of Nicaea?



Let's put it this way -- those Scriptures you provided in the other thread are explained away by Reymond so as to leave no Scriptural support for the doctrine of eternal generation. (1.) The distinct terms Father and Son are only taken to mean "equality" and "reciprocal affection." (2.) It is suggested that monogenes does not mean only-begotten but "one and only." (3.) The giving of life as per John 5:26 is explained in purely incarnational terms, and denied to be ontological. (4.) Doubt is cast on 1 Jn. 5:18b referring to Jesus. Having cast doubt on the exegetical support of the doctrine (notice, without having engaged the text itself), he concludes "Scripture provides little to no clear warrant for the speculation that the Nicene Fathers made the bedrock for the distinguishing properties of the Father and the Son." (NSTCF, 325, 326.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> You don't seem to agree with Dr. McMahon; let Dr. McMahon answer my question then.
> 
> I think I get what you're saying, Rich: it's important to stay within the boundaries of the creeds, although you wouldn't say a man is lost if he departs from them on some point. In saying that, of course, you depart from at least the creeds with the anathema clauses included. I can appreciate such a position; however, I don't believe Dr. McMahon has shown himself to agree with you on that. He said that a man would be lost forever if he denied EG. That is what I've wanted addressed all along. So, I'd like to invite him to explain himself. Perhaps it will be a while before he is able to get back to this thread, busy as he is. So be it; I'd like an explanation and Biblical justification for pronouncing a man accursed before God on the judgment day because he denied this particular point of theology.



Tyler,

I didn't say I departed from them. I said: "I don't know."

I'm not willing to grant that either Athanasius taught without referring to the Scriptures nor that that the anathema is included on his authority. Such declarations are ministerial in one sense. The Church doesn't unite or disunite actual union with Christ. You need to understand that first. What they can _do_ is threaten with hellfire or declare the promise of salvation to mankind.

I'm simply not comfortable giving a man any kind of comfort that he may reject EG and be saved. I think it's playing with fire.

But God knows the heart.


----------



## Herald (Jun 7, 2007)

> I'm simply not comfortable giving a man any kind of comfort that he may reject EG and be saved. I think it's playing with fire.



Rich - well said. I'm reminded of Jude:

[bible]Jude 22-23[/bible]

Is a prescribed anathema in a confession binding on men who believe contrary to the confession? Maybe, maybe not. As Rich said, "...God knows the heart." But when Jude writes, "snatching them out of the fire", he is using the language of judgment. Fire is associated with either purifying or judgment. In this case it is judgment. It is worth considering that some beliefs indicate a heart that is still reprobate and unchanged. I understand that we like to argue opposite views or open our minds to seldom discussed doctrines. But proceed with caution. 

[bible]Ephesians 4:27[/bible]

p.s. brother Ryan, this post was not directed towards you personally.


----------



## satz (Jun 7, 2007)

> I'm simply not comfortable giving a man any kind of comfort that he may reject EG and be saved. I think it's playing with fire.



I am really, sincerely interested though, why this particular doctrine, out of so many that are discussed on this forum should be treated as so 'sacred' that disagreement on it is playing with fire.

Yes, I know this involves the identity of Christ and is integral to the gospel, however, I would still maintain that to deny eternal sonship in the Nicean sense does not automatically line a person up with the JWs or any of the other groups that deny that Christ is the Son of God, or God, anymore than to deny calvinism automatically makes one a fully fledged Plegianism.

To explain further, when we talk of those who question eternal generation, I assume we do not mean those who deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Some one can deny eternal generation and still believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is the Son of God. Is that still as serious an error as the ancient councils seem to have made it out to be?

I just really want to know, what makes this doctrine so important.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2007)

Mark,

It's part of the historical formulation of the Trinity. I'm in no position to call it important/unimportant. I'm uncomfortable taking on the Church's testimony of this doctrine on the basis of personal study.

I was just listening to the Narrow Mind today and Gene Cook was dealing with folks who denied the eternal nature of Hell. They were two Arians and an Atheist. The Arians started out as Christians. I don't know how to describe it, Mark, but every man I've ever read about that slides into Apostasy (like the recent Roman Catholic "convert") begin with self-autonomy in theological investigation. I want to begin within the context that I'm studying as part of the Reformed Church and listen to the testimony of the Church. I don't know how to more basically describe it than that.

I think if you read what I write, I tend to shy away from authoratative prescriptions of who's in/out even though people keep wanting to press that very point.

I think this particular discussion is dangerous because it takes on Nicea, Athanasian, and Chalcedon as well as all the Reformed Confessions that interpret the nature of Christ in this way. Does the whole thing stand or fall on the Eternal Generation of the Son? I don't know but it is strange to me that this discussion keeps focusing on people desirous of me (or others) to grant some permission to it. I simply cannot give that liberty which the Church has never permitted in any of her Confessions.


----------



## satz (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanks Rich, that makes sense.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 7, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> A Christian may live their entire life without ever having to deal with the issue of eternal generation. It is a minority of believers who frequent places like the PB or who engage in detailed theological discussions. Does that mean they are not saved because they have never wrestled with the topic? Of course not.


Not only may Christians live their entire life without dealing with the issue of eternal generation, I've heard there are actually Christians who have lived their entire lives without even having heard of it before ...

... What's "eternal generation of the Son"?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jun 7, 2007)

Here's the Theopedia entry on the topic. It even quotes from Dabney and Reymond.


----------



## blhowes (Jun 7, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Here's the Theopedia entry on the topic. It even quotes from Dabney and Reymond.


Thanks, Bob.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 10, 2007)

I don't want to be mean on this point, but the word of God says that "sin is the transgression of the law". There would seem to not be any Scriptural requirement of holding to this doctrinal formulation, because if there were we would have already seen it presented to us. I for one won't declare it an unforgivable sin. For that matter, neither is disagreement with popes or councils, if that rings a bell.

I understand that my fellowship here with you wonderful people is contingent on my agreeing in the main with several Confessions of Faith; that's a perfectly acceptable condition for fellowship on a message board or within a local church or for ordination in a denomination. However, I cannot think that holding to or not holding to a church creed _as such_ is a Scriptural requirement for union with Christ; therefore, I do not think that Dr. Reymond's state of grace is to be viewed as contingent upon this point.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> I don't want to be mean on this point, but the word of God says that "sin is the transgression of the law". There would seem to not be any Scriptural requirement of holding to this doctrinal formulation, because if there were we would have already seen it presented to us. I for one won't declare it an unforgivable sin. For that matter, neither is disagreement with popes or councils, if that rings a bell.


How would that ring a bell Tyler? Can you point to a Confession that rings true with what you just wrote?

Are you saying that it is not a sin to deny that Christ is God? That's a doctrinal formulation derived from the Scriptures.

Is it a sin to deny that there is one God in Three Persons?



> I understand that my fellowship here with you wonderful people is contingent on my agreeing in the main with several Confessions of Faith; that's a perfectly acceptable condition for fellowship on a message board or within a local church or for ordination in a denomination. However, I cannot think that holding to or not holding to a church creed _as such_ is a Scriptural requirement for union with Christ; therefore, I do not think that Dr. Reymond's state of grace is to be viewed as contingent upon this point.


So you don't believe that striving for unity of the faith is a Scriptural requirement? I've asked you to positively state what your idea of how a Church may discipline. Present your scheme for how the Church exercises authority in the matter of the interpretation of the Scriptures and make your case.

I'll give you an easy case: a man is cheating on his wife. The Church wants to administer Church discipline on the man on the basis that the Scriptures condemn adultery. The man disagrees. No Church, you see, has the right to to creedally state that adultery is wrong. He disagrees that the Scriptures teach this doctrine. How does the Church proceed unless it can enforce a creedal stance on the interpretation of the Scriptures regarding adultery?

Further, Tyler, you seem to be missing the obvious statements that have constantly been made and construing them in an unusual way. If a man has union with Christ a man has union with Christ. Can such a man still sin even in his doctrine? Yes. Is it the nature of the Spirit to lead Christians into disunity? 

In all of this talk, there is this naive and insidious assumption that the nature of the law of the Spirit is to lead a man to stand completely apart from the visible Body of Christ and confess completely separately. Could it be the case that the Church universal has confessed in error for millenia and that, outside of any Synods and Councils, a few scholars have correctly ascertained the true nature of the Trinity? Could it be the case that the Church has confessed such things and even excommunicated on its basis for millenia but these scholars have themselves found the truth in the matter? I suppose anything is possible theoretically. Presuppositionally, I reject the notion on the basis of the Providence of God for such an important doctrine. I might as well just be willing to forfeit the Trinity if I accept any such fantastic schemes.

I have not judged Reymond or any man on the subject. I have stated repeatedly what the Church has confessed. I don't make light of this confession but I don't know what was in Reymond's mind and I am not God who knows his heart. I cannot read or see if a man is in union with Christ. I'm quite weary of truth being measured by people lining up their favorite theological heroes and then asking the "...well if that's true then so and so is condemned...." As noted already, they are _ad populum_ arguments and quite vaccuous. The bottom line for me is that it is not an _evidence_ of the Spirit of Grace when a man is willing to throw the entire Church under the bus for a doctrine that he has come to a different interpretation. You certainly cannot find such a Spirit in any of the Reformers.


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 10, 2007)

In brief, a church indeed has no authority to condemn something creedally which the word of God has not condemned. So, if adultery was not against the Scriptures, the church could not condemn it. Christ's church only has as much authority as its constitutional documents( Scripture ) assign.

Your statements regarding the Trinity and the deity of Christ are misplaced, I think; the basic elements of Trinitarianism as named by Warfield are easily found in Scripture. Honest, mature investigation is required to fully understand the full Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity; however, that does not and cannot require anything outside of the Scriptures as an actual authority. There is room for helps, but they are to be regarded with suspicion and only trusted as far as they reflect what can be found in the Word.

Churches may require subscription to creeds, I suppose, but they're only helps for requiring unity in essential doctrines in a church or denomination, not actually absolutely authoritative eternally. To believe otherwise, I'd have to see an exegetical case.

The issue seems simple to me: Scripture is infallible; creeds are not. Act like it: point out the exegetical reasons not to depart from the creed; don't appeal to "church authority". I'm not against saying we can be biased initially toward believing what has been believed by a great number of Christ's saints on the basis of that fact, but all that counts for nothing unless there is reason from the Scriptures to believe "x".

Rev. Winzer has done a good job outlining the case against EG; it shows he understands it and still rejects it; his defense of the doctrine would hold a lot more weight than an appeal to church authority, because it would be exegetically based.

More later.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

Again, Tyler, you fail to grasp my simple statements differentiating between union with Christ on the one hand and being schismatic or foolish on the other. You're either being obdurate concerning them or not reading them carefully. Either way, I'm not going to repeat myself a fifth, sixth, or seventh time.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2007)

The answer to your one dimensional question is answered by a varied dimensional answer here:

The Two Wills of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 10, 2007)

Well, after a bit of encouragement from some Mods, I'm going to go ahead and close this thread. I think the positions have been clearly outlined. 

To be clear, I hold to EG on the basis of Scripture but to assume I divorce my understanding of the Scripture from the testimony of the Church is what is flawed. Some assume that to ascribe any such authority to the Church is to ascribe infallible authority to it. This would be about as accurate as saying that I only have authority over my children if I, myself, am infallible. 

To say that the Reformed Church confesses something is to say that it interprets the Scriptures as such. This is why we have Confessions. The Scriptures that teach EG are not numerous and the doctrines of the Confession are either derived directly from the Word or are necessarily deduced from them. This is the nature of much Systematic Theology. 

The arguments for EG have been presented already in a previous thread and this thread, whose focus was on the spirit of a confession, has gone in circles with the underlying tenor that a doctrine isn't important "...because I ain't seeing it...." In the end, it's a dispute about whose intrepration you're going to accept but not whether the Confessional understanding or its denial can use the Scriptures to make a case.

As I have repeatedly articulated, an independent approach to the Scriptures that brashly asserts that Confessional writers "...just accepted things..." or "...didn't use Scripture...", etc is flawed and very dangerous. To say this does not claim infallible hidden knowledge on the condition of men's souls but simply echoes Confessional language that give Synods and Councils the authority to settle matters of controversy. 

People who state they fully subscribe to a Confession but then deny Synods and Councils such authority reveal who they really believe has such authority: _themselves_.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2007)

> Churches may require subscription to creeds, I suppose, but they're only helps for requiring unity in essential doctrines in a church or denomination, not actually absolutely authoritative eternally. To believe otherwise, I'd have to see an exegetical case. The issue seems simple to me: Scripture is infallible; creeds are not.


 
I think what is slipping by you is that without a confession (of some sort no matter how base) one cannot in any way express thier view on what the Scripture says.

In other words, when the Creed or Confession says "Don't commit adultery" it is as binding as the Bible since it is what the Bible says. For someone, then, to explain ANYTHING, is creedal. Hopefully, one is a good exegete to explain what the Bible says. Which is what makes good preachers and bad preachers.

For example, the Bible is very specific about Hymaneus and Alexander being given over to Satan. 

*1 Timothy 1:18-20 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. 
* 

Why? Soteriology? Not really. Trinitarian heresy? Not really. Paul says they blaspheme, not holding faith and a good conscience. 

As a result, Paul condemned them for such a "trite" issue, really. (There is obviously more to it, but I'm making a point here.)

Then in 2 Tim. 2:17 Paul says,

*2 Timothy 2:17-18 *Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. 
 
Now its an issue of 1) eschatology and 2) division.

Paul implies in the next verse that God says that such people are not "His."

So, biblically, men should be careful about what they teach and what they say because God stand upon every word of it, or not.

You cannot get the nature of God worng and go to heaven. THe Bible affirms that you can't even get matters of conscience wrong, or certain eschatological issues worng without "shipwrecking your faith" (of which that demonstrates it was no faith at all.)

In such cases, as with those Paul dealt with, you hand them over to the devil.

*Titus 3:10-11 *As for a heretic, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

God is very clear about knowledge and what one must believe (as a matter of fact, my next book is going to cover exactly that - what MUST be beleived in order to "believe the Gospel?")

For example, Jesus is very particular about what men "must believe" (i.e. understand the Bible to say) in ORDER to demonstrate the fruit of conversion.

Just in John's Gospel alone this is staggering - 

ESV *John 1:7* He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might *believe* through him.

12 But to all who did receive him, *who believed in his name*, he gave the right to become children of God.



ESV *John 2:11* This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, *and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken*.

23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, *many believed in his name* when they saw the signs that he was doing.


ESV *John 3:12* If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

15* that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."*

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, *but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.*

36 *Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.*


ESV *John 4:21* Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

39 Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did."

41 And many more *believed because of his word.*



ESV *John 5:24* Truly, truly, I say to you, *whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life.* He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent.

44 How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"


ESV *John 6:29* Jesus answered them, *"This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent."*

30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform?

35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

40 For this is the will of my Father, *that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."*

*47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.*

64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)

69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."


ESV *John 7:5* For not even his brothers believed in him.

31 Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?"

38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, 'Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.'"

39 Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

48 Have any of the authorities or the _Pharisees_ believed in him?


ESV *John 8:24* *I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."*

30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "*If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,*

45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?


ESV *John 9:18* The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"

36 He answered, "And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?"

38 He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.


ESV *John 10:25* Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not *believe*. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,

26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;

38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

42 And many believed in him there.


ESV *John 11:15* and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

27 She said to him, "Yes, Lord; I *believe* that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world."

40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?"

42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me."

45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him,

48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

ESV *John 12:36* While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.

37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,

38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

42 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue;

44 And Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.

46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever *believes* in me may not remain in darkness.


ESV *John 13:19* I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may *believe* that I am he.


ESV *John 14:1* "Let not your hearts be troubled. *Believe* in God; *believe* also in me.

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever *believes* in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe.


ESV *John 16:9* concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;

27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have *believed that I came from God*.

30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."

31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe?


ESV *John 17:8* For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.

20 "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will *believe *in me through their word,

21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may *believe* that you have sent me.


ESV *John 19:35* He who saw it has borne witness- his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth- that you also may *believe*.


ESV *John 20:8* Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;

25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. *Do not disbelieve, but believe*."

29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.​


----------

