You're one of the few who can, at least, articulate one version of justification.
Recently heard of a chap who was baptized decades ago living as a Bible Christian. Long after that big day, someone casually mentioned that Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity, is God. This Christian was shocked to hear of this completely-new revelation.
Unlike you, there are many Christians running around out there without a clue who Jesus is. To mention faith alone, justification, imputation, monergism, double-predestination, solas, TULIP, Nicene Creed, WCF, LBCF, L&SC or some other religious jargon would cause their eyes to roll back in their heads as they lapse into a boredom-induced coma. As long as they're saved, they couldn't care less about the details.
Neil wrote: Argument from silence. And why should the agenda of television broadcasters (few of which call themselves "Protestant" anyway) dictate what is worth teaching & what is not? I have even encountered Fundy Baptists on this site who distance themselves from Protestantism. I don't care if justification gets "buried under the sands of time" or not. I don't care if billions have died & will die in unbelief; justification by faith alone in the imputed righteousness of Christ is what Scripture clearly teaches, & that is enough for me.
Perhaps Justification was buried under 1,600 years of sand, then, Luther grabbed it as soon as it emerged. But because he didn't identify those who would continue to hold it in succeeding generations, there's not one person (denomination) who has a grip on it.
John UK wrote: Ah, this is more like it! You see how fellowship is not only wonderful but possible, around the glorious truth of Christ's imputed righteousness given to those who exercise their God-given faith in his Son, who died for his sheep duly predestinated and chosen, called in time, and justified freely by his grace, that they may be eternally grateful, giving thanks continually for such matchless grace, worshipping him who has done so much for them, and continues to do, and who will come again to receive them to himself, in the glories of heaven, God himself receiving all the glory and praise for these marvellous works.
Aren't you disconnected from the Church? Why would Spurgeon's words be comforting to one who is a thorough-going Bible Alone Christian? Aren't you the least bit suspicious of man-made confessions and creeds? Doesn't the Nicene Creed give you a belly-ache? Why, then, would the LBCF (which version?) be a balm to you?
Neil wrote: As a side-note, our Presby brethren should know better than to recite these ambiguous Creeds in worship w/o clarification, for the importance of justification is ignored.
Reformed Presbyterians faithfully recite the Nicene Creed but ignore nuance differences about Justification, thus are losing the Reformed faith. Meanwhile, most Reformed Baptists, who look to the Bible Alone as the sole-source for faith and practice, would never recite the Nicene Creed and have an inherent visceral disdain for the 1689 LBCF and other man-made inventions.
On dual slippery slopes away from Calvinism, at the current rate of descent, in how many months will imputation be buried under the sands of time? Also, if imputation is totally required for salvation ("The article upon which the Church stands or falls" -Luther), why doesn't Protestant TV discuss it?
In fact, there are several books currently in print by prominent Calvinist authors merely describing 4, 5 or more views of imputation but unwilling to state which is the correct view -- the correct article. If the Reformation can't even keep straight which is "The (correct) article" hasn't their church all but fallen?
And when it falls, which religion (or not) will the faithful be attracted to?
Mike wrote: If he doesn't believe the written Word of God, why would he believe a creed derived from, yet in part contradicts it?
At the dawning of the Christin Era almost two millennia ago our Christian forefathers created a creed, the Gospel in a nutshell, which billions have subscribed to as their only statement of faith, yet, in some part, it patently violates Scripture? How would this even be possible?
After reading the biblical text and the Nicene Creed (the Gospel in a nutshell), does Dawkins really think that Jesus doesn't know that He's God from God, Light from Light, being of one substance of the Father, He became man, born of the Virgin Mary ... ascended into Heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead? As a British schoolboy who went on to earn a Ph.D., wouldn't he have this memorized by now? It's got to be hard to be an atheist when this bibically-grounded 1,600 year old Creed is staring you in the face teaching you otherwise.