Indeed it seems that the Cumberland confession really doesn't know what it is, either. The attempt to maintain a Reformed viewpoint on the absolute sovereignty of God, while at the same time trying to preserve the "absolute, unviolated free-will" of man, leads directly to many inconsistencies.
The Cumberlands have closer to true Reformed confessions such as the original
1814 Confession that at least admits its own inconsistencies and leaves them to the "High Mystery" of the incomprehensible wisdom of God.
Here is a link to the original confession
1814 Confession of Faith - Cumberland Presbyterian Church Quote:
Originally Posted by Galatians220  Hi, Andrew,
I looked also at the points under 4.00 of the Confession of Faith and when read in context with Point 2.01, I don't know the answer to your question... That comparison is confusing to me and I eagerly anticipate edification by others here.
For a long time, I've considered the arguments against "whosoever will" teachings that are made by the Protestant Reformed Church of America, e.g., Whosoever Will - The Act of Coming. The debate between Dr. Richard Mouw and Dr. David Engelsma on "common grace" that was held a few years ago made a strong impression.
The church of which I'm presently a member stands for the doctrine of common grace, and also strictly for the teaching that "there is nothing in us that makes us choose God." Total depravity, for sure, and I heartily accept that and offer an "amen" to its mere utterance, for that's Biblical - and it was my experience as well. This is also puzzling: would not "grace" in any "form" be of the Lord and therefore, eventually and necessarily result in salvation, given 2 Peter 3:9? If not, why not call "grace" resistible and dispense entirely with the fourth point of Calvinism?
As I said, I look forward eagerly to the input of others... |