What is your opinion of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
Not a very high one. Both as cavalier and non-christian I find pressie doctrine repellent and annoying. Predestination alone is a ghastly distortion of even a religion I don’t care for*.
Odd that you’ve linked to a Spurgeon site, he being one of the greatest of Baptist preachers, to illustrate Presbyterianism. The two creeds, whilst vieing for the post of most annoying protestant sect, are quite antagonistic in doctrine; and in former times, in practice.
- See Hogg’s magnificent novel, ‘Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner’ to see how Calvinism worked out in it’s decadence.
The site’s an archive for Calvinist theology and history in general and Spurgeon was a Calvinist. And you have to be kidding me if you say you’re a Cavalier-they represented aristocratic absolutism not too different from Louis XIV while the Roundheads supported Parliamentary power.
Nope: Spurgeon was a true Baptist,
Many like to claim Spurgeon as a staunch Calvinist, all the way through, but listen to what he said concerning free-will, and I quote: “I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, “The Spirit and the Bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely.” Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that “it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once to Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find in one part of the Bible that everything is foreordained, that is true; and I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.”
God, he talked a lot…
And nope again: cavaliers and jacobites represent royalist absolutism. In which I believe as strongly as did Spurgeon in his form of christianity. I hope that parliamentary power and all variants thereof to be utterly expunged from the face of the earth.
You must be kidding me. You think arrogant monarchs who lord over the people without any complaint and throwing massive parties and having sex with dozens of mistresses while the mass of the population have no real rights is better than what we have?
As for that link, the person seems to have an agenda as Spurgeon himself preached a sermon entitled “A Defence of Calvinism”. In the quote Spurgeon simply argues that man is responsible for his actions despite divine soverignty which is what Calvinists do believe. http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
Thank you for your reasoned propositions for republicanism, channelling a 17th century peasant who’s never been more than three miles from home.
Wait so you want Tiger Woods to be King?
It seems awfully elaborate for a dog show.
Are we STILL doing your homework for you.
Okay, here’s my opinion: it’s long, boring, and probably no more or less stupid than any of the other guff that religionists feel the need to make believe in. Happy now?
How about YOU tell US what YOUR opinion is?
For the love of cupcakes, kid, why don’t you take yourself to the library and start checking out books about other religions and God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, instead of asking the same questions constantly?
Because he’s interested in what we think. I know the concept of common sense is lost on a lot of you, but this is pathetic.
Okay, that was a crappy post. Sorry. It just bugs me when you guys attack Qin. Get a pit thread.
It seems no more or less irrational or internally inconsistent than any other religious document.