Quote
J_Edwards said:

First, I would look at Refcon 3.0 and make a link to it on your new forum. These have references to Confessions, etc, with the Scripture references.

Yes, I actually have that already. It's an excellent resource for many things, and actually I've been using it some already. Though this is a good idea for a reformed forum, that isn't quite what I intend for it. I myself am very reformed (though as a few of your comments have shown, I'm not always good at expressing it), but the group I intend to serve the forum for is not necessarily all going to be reformed; it's a place where doctrines can be discussed by people on both sides of the issues (i.e. predestination, election, dunking vs. sprinkling <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" />, etc.). At the same time, I want to avoid things like salvation by works, universal salvation, and such the like.

Quote
J_Edwards said:Lastly, IMO it would just be easier to use the Confessions and Catechisms.

I'm guessing you mean as quotes? Yes, I'm thinking about doing that. The reason I wrote my own was due to the fact that I've recently had to deal with discussions where the persons involved twisted meanings and came out to a salvation by works result, namely, being saved by communion and baptism. Communion and baptism are both outward signs, but they do not make us more saved, nor does not partaking of them make us less saved, even though we should. That actually is a problem I have with one of your later statements. I understand the role that baptism and communion have in terms of our Christian walk, that isn't the issue. The reason I made the rule about it, was so that it could not be said that sacraments are "God's" action and not ours, and thus can be a means of transferring regeneration and saving grace. I guess I should have clarified that in the first place, though. I didn't give any context for my making that statement.

Quote
J_Edwards said:I would like to note that while certain doctrines are absolutely necessary to the Christian faith, it is not absolutely necessary that a Christian believe everyone of them in order to be a Christian. i.e. once a person becomes a Christian over a period of time they may and should be able to better articulate what they believe, however I have NEVER met a “new” Christian that has been able to articulate EVERY doctrine without error – especially the doctrine of the Trinity!

Point taken, and accepted. Nevertheless my aim was still to maintain those doctrines core to the Christian faith on the forums at least, and I wasn't intending to use them to judge a person's salvation. We can't, only God can, however if a learned "Christian" has studied those doctrines and rejected them in favor of a heresy, it isn't as likely that we can consider them as saved.

Quote
J_Edwards said:Uhmm, there is no other true God (“G”) Isaiah 45:21-22, but there are other false gods (“g”) (the Bible itself lists many and we may all study: Ishtar, who has been identified with the Phoenician Astarte, the Semitic Ashtoreth, the Egyptian Isis, the Greek Aphrodite, and the Roman Venus. Ishtar's male fertility counterpart was Tamuz who was closely associated with the Canaanite fertility god, Baal. Baal's mistress or lover was Anat. Anat is sometimes identified with the queen of heaven in mentioned in Jeremiah. Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites whose worship was accompanied by the burning of children offered up in sacrifice by their own parents. Chemosh was the national god of the Moabites who was also worshiped with child sacrifices. Ashtoreth was the ancient goddess of the moon, sexuality, sensual love, and fertility and is often associated with the worship of Baal Zeus was the supreme god of the Greeks. All this and then we need not forget also about the “unknown god," Acts 17:22-23, who’s not known but can be mentioned, which means he had to be known in some way, anyway <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />)?

I'm well aware of the fact that there are many false gods. Perhaps I just didn't state it clearly. My point in the doctrinal statement was that God is the only God there is, and that there are no other Gods than Him. Any false gods are of course not Gods, and are not real. I guess that just seemed rather obvious to me.

Quote
J_Edwards said:Uhmm, I have some problems here? Regeneration I would say is more according to God’s “grace” which He ordained by His eternal judgment. Personally, IMO the term “judgment” may be misinterpreted the way you are using it. Moreover “regeneration” and “calling” are not the same, etc. Look at your ordo salutis.

Again, point taken. My use of the term "judgment" was in the manner of "determination" or "choice," rather than punishment. In no way was the statement meant to imply that God does not preordain salvation, however predestination is not one of the doctrines that I'm specifically supporting in the forums. Also, I never once denied that regeneration was the result of God's grace -- in fact that is a point I am very avidly in defense of myself. Again, I suppose I took that for granted.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Blanding states,

No sacrament, rite, or action can save us, convey saving grace, or add anything to our salvation; likewise the lack of any sacrament, rite, or action cannot detract from our salvation if we are indeed regenerated. God’s act of regeneration is totally independent of any action that we take, and as already specified, any work of salvation by God is completely sufficient and irrevocable.

No sacrament, rite, or action cleanses us from sin. The cleansing and covering of our sin took place at the moment of salvation, and from that point onward God’s grace covers all of our sin and our sin nature which remains with us until death.

Uhmm, just to clarify in Reformed circles we say that our baptism may be improved upon — that meaning that we CAN GROW in grace and truth (sanctification). Think of salvation as the car (complete) and these other things as divine luggage, added as one is on his pilgrimage upon this earth.

Again, never once did I deny that we can grow in grace and truth. I'll just reiterate here that the thing I am going against is becoming more or less saved by the addition or subtraction of these things. Our salvation is completely dependent on God alone, and if we are saved, we are entirely saved, and if we are unsaved, we are entirely unsaved. Neither baptism nor communion make us any more saved than we already are, though we should be baptized and partake of communion if it is possible.

Quote
J_Edwards said:
Quote
Blanding states,The Bible is God's word, divinely inspired and as such infallible, protected by God's guidance and all-encompassing sovereign action, and surviving the corruption of men.
Uhmm, since your whole intention of this post is to “proof text” your doctrine wouldn’t this better being item #1 in your list – as it is in the WCF?

I only copy and pasted the rules. Their order isn't direct to the order in which I necessarily plan to use them.

Quote
J_Edwards said:I would say, aside from the corrections and clarifications that need to be made that the use of the confessions and catechisms would be a “better” example of “the core truths of Christianity.” This is not meant to be a poor commentary on what you have written, but we should be as complete as possible and thus… <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

I really do appreciate the time you took to read through the list, and the references that you provided. I admit I'm not the most eloquent speaker, and sometimes not quite as precise as I should be, but I have to again note that these were tailored to the purpose of the forum.