Reformed Protestant checking in!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
godrulz said:
Pre-mill. is the biblical, historical view. Thank Augustine, et al, for amill. which relies on an allegorical approach (subjective) to Scripture vs a normative literal, grammatical, historical, contextual approach.

These issues are peripheral when you have a defective Christology. If you were Reformed on the doctrine of God, we would rejoice. Many of the other issues are not salvific.
Click to expand...

I hear "normative, literal, grammatical etc." spouted by a few but when I tell them Jesus and the apostles expected Jesus to return in their (at least John') lifetime, not 2000+ years later, they tell me "to God a thousand years is but a day," implying I should not take those time cues literally. The same ones also want me to take the symbols in Rev. as literal even though they are obviously symbols, especially when vs. 1 says the angel sent and "symbolized" them.

So you tell me who's got the "normative, literal, grammatical" approach, me or them.
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Krsto said:
I hear "normative, literal, grammatical etc." spouted by a few but when I tell them Jesus and the apostles expected Jesus to return in their (at least John') lifetime, not 2000+ years later, they tell me "to God a thousand years is but a day," implying I should not take those time cues literally. The same ones also want me to take the symbols in Rev. as literal even though they are obviously symbols, especially when vs. 1 says the angel sent and "symbolized" them.

So you tell me who's got the "normative, literal, grammatical" approach, me or them.
Click to expand...


The literal approach certainly factors in symbols and figurative language vs wooden literalism. Most literalists fully recognize symbols/figures of speech that convey literal truth. The bigger problem is a subjective, allegorical approach that takes clearly literal truths and makes them figurative, without warrant.

Jesus, Paul, early church did expect the imminent return of Christ. I would not use the perspective (1000 years/day is a metaphor/simile, not literal equivalent) issue to negate this. Dispensationalism and Open Theism would account for the INDETERMINATE Church Age that was mystery, not prophesied. Depending on the unfolding of history, God's plan and timing was in flux, not fixed (hence Jesus not knowing the hour of return because Father had not fixed it yet).
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Hey Kristo

Hey Kristo

I would love to recommend a couple books. "The Millennial Maze: Sorting out Evangelical Options" is a must read, if you want a fair and balanced introduction to all four major views. I would also recommend Kim Riddlebarger's book, "The Case for Ammillennialism." It is very readable.

Those would be where I would start you. I can also recommend a lot of audio as well (which is free). But I need to limit how much I do that here.

But thanks for the question.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Godrulz

Godrulz

Godrulz.

It looks like you are very convinced of open theism, or free will theism. Look, in order to really dig into this subject means devoting a lot of time to the issue. At the end of the day, you may still be unconvinced. I think the Scriptures are sufficiently clear on this issue, and I think Piper, et all, understand the issue very, very well. And I think their critique is right. If you have seriously read them, Piper, John Frame, Calvin, etc., then I'm not going to convince you to the contrary.

I nevertheless stand by my charge of heresy. I made the Ephesus jab because I think Open Theism falls prey to idolatry, in the final analysis. If you don't like me saying that, ok.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Chrysostom

Chrysostom

Do I agree with that statement?

The words are nearly synonomous, though from a historical standpoint, it wouldn't be the case. John Calvin was a Reformer. So was Zwigli, Luther, etc. More accurately, then, Reformed would be someone who holds to the Reformed Confessions of Faith. Like the Westminster. The three forms of Unity. Belgic. Heidelberg. Etc.

Does that help?

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Godrulz

Godrulz

One thing you said:

"Without free will, we have no love..."

God cannot sin. He is perfectly and absolutely holy. Is His love sincere? Is He free?

Ironically, sin is slavery. Perfect holiness is freedom (John 8:34).

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
ChristianVox said:
Do I agree with that statement?

The words are nearly synonomous, though from a historical standpoint, it wouldn't be the case. John Calvin was a Reformer. So was Zwigli, Luther, etc. More accurately, then, Reformed would be someone who holds to the Reformed Confessions of Faith. Like the Westminster. The three forms of Unity. Belgic. Heidelberg. Etc.

Does that help?

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
Click to expand...

so why don't you call yourself a Calvinist?
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Chrysostom

Chrysostom

Why not call myself a Calvinist? I do. I have no problem with the term.

It's kind of like human being and caucasian. Caucasian is a little more narrow. But all caucasians are humans.

Most people associate Calvinism with the doctrines of sovereign grace (TULIP). But Reformed is broader in its conception.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
ChristianVox said:
Why not call myself a Calvinist? I do. I have no problem with the term.

It's kind of like human being and caucasian. Caucasian is a little more narrow. But all caucasians are humans.

Most people associate Calvinism with the doctrines of sovereign grace (TULIP). But Reformed is broader in its conception.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!
Click to expand...
Absolutely. From one to another,

Welcome

- Lon
 
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
godrulz said:
The literal approach certainly factors in symbols and figurative language vs wooden literalism. Most literalists fully recognize symbols/figures of speech that convey literal truth. The bigger problem is a subjective, allegorical approach that takes clearly literal truths and makes them figurative, without warrant.

Jesus, Paul, early church did expect the imminent return of Christ. I would not use the perspective (1000 years/day is a metaphor/simile, not literal equivalent) issue to negate this. Dispensationalism and Open Theism would account for the INDETERMINATE Church Age that was mystery, not prophesied. Depending on the unfolding of history, God's plan and timing was in flux, not fixed (hence Jesus not knowing the hour of return because Father had not fixed it yet).
Click to expand...

So they all believed in the imminent return of Christ in error?
 
Krsto

Krsto

Well-known member
ChristianVox said:
I would love to recommend a couple books. "The Millennial Maze: Sorting out Evangelical Options" is a must read, if you want a fair and balanced introduction to all four major views. I would also recommend Kim Riddlebarger's book, "The Case for Ammillennialism." It is very readable.

Those would be where I would start you. I can also recommend a lot of audio as well (which is free). But I need to limit how much I do that here.

But thanks for the question.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria
Click to expand...

Hey A. - I've got more on my plate than I can handle so prob. won't be buying any books soon which is why I was wondering about a good, concise online overview of ammillennialism (I think I figured out how to remember how to spell it - just double the first 3 consonants!)

God bless,

Krsto
 
C

ChristianVox

New member
Kristo

Kristo

Hermeneutics in eschatology is crucial when discussing dispensational theology vs non-dispensational theology. But note how godrulz makes a false contrast between literal and allegorical/subjective views. The Amill. position does not utilize an allegorical method. Not at all.

An interesting study, for any involved, is how the the NT uses the OT. In this respect, I would highly recommend D.A. Carson's "The Use of the OT in the NT" lectures which can be found online. They are very, very helpful.

For example, did Matthew misquote Hosea in Matthew 2:15? Not at all. One must simply understand their methodology. It is far more profound than we are accustomed to thinking.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!
 
G

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Krsto said:
So they all believed in the imminent return of Christ in error?
Click to expand...

Every generation of believers has and should expect His return. The rapture could happen at any time. If Israel would not have rejected their Messiah, history would be different than it is. The visible Second Coming 7 years later is preceded by signs. Their expectations were reasonable and God's right to pull the plug when He wants to is also upheld. God may have intended to establish His kingdom in the first century, but contingencies resulted in a changed mind (35x Scripture says that God changes His mind, contrary to classical theology). A believer's wrong expectations or God delaying (the Church Age was indeterminate mystery, not fixed revelation) does not mean they were all unreasonably wrong. We should not set dates for His coming, but we should know He is coming and occupy until He comes. He does tell us to watch, so He could decide to come sooner or later (2 Peter 3:9 reason why He delayed). The future is open, not settled, so there is room for possible scenarios depending no changing contingencies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top