# The least clear reformed doctrine (biblically)



## Scott1 (Aug 29, 2008)

Which major doctrine area is most difficult for you to resolve biblically so you can confidently hold and practice a reformed biblical position?

This poll allows multiple choices.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 29, 2008)

Eph 5:19, Col 3:16, James 5:13


----------



## yeutter (Aug 29, 2008)

*imputation rather then infusion*

The reformed / evangelical doctrine that in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.
I am troubled by this because it implies a denial that justification is in any sence grounded on an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us.
I can not prove to my satisfaction the imputation of Christ's righteousness exclusively to the exclusion of infusion of Christ's righteousness.
I sometimes wonder if the infusion/imputation issue is not what is at the bottom of the New Perspctive on Paul and of the related Federal Vision contraversy at lest as it applies to the Rt. Rvd. N. T. Wright.


----------



## Timothy William (Aug 29, 2008)

I voted for the fourth commandment and spiritual gifts.

The imputation of Christ's active obedience was also one I struggled with, but was able to resolve fully after a brief period.


----------



## Kim G (Aug 29, 2008)

*baptism*

I voted for the baptism debate. My problem is that *I see both sides *of the issue. What do I do? Write the choices down and play "eenie, meenie, miney, mo"? 

Also, I didn't grow up with any teaching on the Sabbath, so I'm still trying to figure out how to honor the 4th commandment.

And the tongues issue--well, let's just say that I grew up cessationist, decided I didn't have a good reason to be, so I'm (for now) a non-cessationist who doesn't believe the current "practice of tongues" is valid.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 29, 2008)

> And the tongues issue--well, let's just say that I grew up cessationist, decided I didn't have a good reason to be, so I'm (for now) a non-cessationist who doesn't believe the current "practice of tongues" is valid.



You may find the PCA "Pastoral Letter" on this helpful:

PCA Historical Center: PCA Pastoral Letter on the Expeience of the Holy Spirit in the Church Today




> Also, I didn't grow up with any teaching on the Sabbath, so I'm still trying to figure out how to honor the 4th commandment.



Regarding Lord's Day worship (Fourth Commandment), this may be helpful:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2005/09/15/from-sabbath-to-lords-day-2/


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 29, 2008)

yeutter said:


> The reformed / evangelical doctrine that in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.
> I am troubled by this because it implies a denial that justification is in any sence grounded on an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us.
> I can not prove to my satisfaction the imputation of Christ's righteousness exclusively to the exclusion of infusion of Christ's righteousness.
> I sometimes wonder if the infusion/imputation issue is not what is at the bottom of the New Perspctive on Paul and of the related Federal Vision contraversy at lest as it applies to the Rt. Rvd. N. T. Wright.



It is at the bottom. Because infusion is a pernicious Roman doctrine that denies true justification by faith alone. This was the cornerstone of the Reformation. The gospel of infusion is another gospel.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2008)

Moderator's Voice On

The imputation/infusion debate was the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, the Reformers all unanimously rejecting infusion as being part of the basis of justification. If it is not clear to some, then read John Owen's works, volume 5, James Buchanan's book on justification, and John Fesko's brand new book on justification. But do not call into question the doctrine for which the Reformers died. This is a Reformed board.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 29, 2008)

I chose the first option.

I agree that Biblical civil law is applicable today, but to what extent as the answer denotes, I am unsure of.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 29, 2008)

Zenas said:


> I chose the first option.
> 
> I agree that Biblical civil law is applicable today, but to what extent as the answer denotes, I am unsure of.



You _would_ choose the civil law issue.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Aug 29, 2008)

I chose the civil law issues because I have found it is tough to ever get a clear answer from both camps as to what does and does not apply today.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Aug 29, 2008)

I chose civil law and specifics of the 4th commandment...


----------



## KMK (Aug 29, 2008)

I choose paedobaptism.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 29, 2008)

*Imputation vs infusion*



fredtgreco said:


> It is at the bottom. Because infusion is a pernicious Roman doctrine that denies true justification by faith alone. This was the cornerstone of the Reformation. The gospel of infusion is another gospel.


I agree that I can prove imputation from the Bible. How, from the Bible, do I disprove infusion, or show that the two are mutually exclusive?


----------



## yeutter (Aug 29, 2008)

*imputation/infusion*



greenbaggins said:


> The imputation/infusion debate was the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, the Reformers all unanimously rejecting infusion as being part of the basis of justification. If it is not clear to some, then read John Owen's works, volume 5,



Thanks. I have pulled Owens off the shelf. I had not read this volume in nearly thirty years.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches teach infusion without the Romish denial of imputation. I suspect this is also where N. T. Wright is coming from.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2008)

Thomas, it goes like this, and this is the final word on this poll post about it. Further comments will be deleted. 

Infusion automatically makes justification a process that is dependent at least partly on our Holy-Spirit-inspired works. That was the whole reason that Rome pushed infusion. Imputation and infusion are exclusive precisely because they operate with diametrically opposite methods. Imputation is by definition outside of us, and declares us righteous by reckoning Christ's righteousness as ours. Infusion is like a shot in the arm (Reformers talk about sanctification this way). The problem with putting infusion into justification is that what is infused is the Holy Spirit _for the purpose of works_. And since Paul rejects works over and over again as playing any part in justification, infusion can therefore play no part in justification. Imputation-reckoning-outside righteousness on the one hand; infusion-Holy Spirit-works on the other hand. No one should want to show up at the judgment seat of God dependent on their own works, Spirit-inspired or otherwise. We are dependent solely on the ground of Christ's righteousness. Period. End of story.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 30, 2008)

The poll has closed.

The doctrine most unclear to voters, by far, is that related to keeping (and violating) the Fourth Commandment (Sabbath, Lord's Day).

Second is a basic eschatological position.

Then, closely followed by the validity of certain baptisms, exclusive psalm singing in worship, and the extent to which civil biblical law applies today. 
_________________________________________________________________________

Below are a few resources I have found helpful in studying some of these difficult issues, biblically. Not every doctrine in the poll is referenced, but most are:

*The extent to which biblical civil law applies today (i.e. theonomy) *


*Basic millennial eschatological position * 
The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, (first edition), GI Williamson, “Millennial Views,” et. Seq. p 260-267 (includes one page chart).

*Exclusive use of psalm singing in worship * 
PCA Position Papers - 1993 Report of the "Psalm Singing" Subcommittee

The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God


*Basis for receiving another denomination's Christian baptism as a valid and biblical * 
http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/2-078.html


*Regarding infant baptism:*
Why Does the Orthodox Presbyterian Church Baptize Infants?



*What specifically is required to keep, and to disobey, the Fourth Commandment * 
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2005/09/15/from-sabbath-to-lords-day-2/



*Whether spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues apply today * 
http://www.pcahistory.org/documents/pastoralletter.html


*Whether women are to be "deaconesses" and what role that entails * 
Women « Green Baggins


Any other suggested additions for further biblical study of these doctrines is helpful and please feel free to list or link to them here.


----------

