Reformed Protestant checking in!

[Krsto]

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.

So the omniscient Holy Spirit who knew it wasn't going to work out in the 1st Century went ahead and inspired Jesus and the apostles to tell them it was going to be in their generation anyhow to get them to lead godly lives because they wouldn't have if they had known it was hundreds of years later? Sounds like deception to me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Welcome!

AMR

 

[csuguy]

Welcome

The funny thing about Open Theism is that it moves the direction it does in order to suppossedly solve the problem of evil, the free will problem, determinism, etc. That's reallly what drives propenents. But in so doing it doesn't solve the problem at all. Basically, it goes the heresy route in order to adopt a position that ironically doesn't help them.

What I like about Open Theism is not that it solves some moral dilemna, but a logical one - between freewill and determinism/foreknowledge. Obviously, if God pre-ordains everything, then freewill is non-existant. Also, if God knows everything before it happens, then there is no freewill as it is already determined prior to our "making" our choices - whether by God or another source. Thus [complete] determinism and [complete] foreknowledge are incompatible with freewill.

By saying that God knows all that can be known - which would not included yet to be decided choices - that solves the logical dilemma.

And I don't give much weight to church councils, and even less to the title 'heretic' - I judge the scripture and logic for myself.

What is illogical is the Calvinist idea that God is sovereign and THEREFORE nothing can resist his will. If nothing can resist his will then we could not sin, and if there is no sin then - for what reason did Christ die? For what reason are people punished for 'sin' in the bible?

 

[chrysostom]

ok so Reformed includes Calvinists

what else does it include?

 

[ChristianVox]

Chrysostom

Chrysostom

What else does it include? Oh... lots of specifics, I suppose. Covenant theology would fall under the rubric "Reformed." Paedobaptism (infant) usually does as well (Though there are Reformed Baptists- See London Confession of Faith).

Lutherans would trace their roots to the Reformation. Anglicans would. Etc.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

 

[ChristianVox]

Thanks AMR! I got your message as well... but don't see how to reply at the moment I don't have MSN set up either. But thanks for the heads up!

 

[ChristianVox]

csuguy

csuguy

It is striking how many open theists are running around here.

As for myself, I'm simply not going to wade into this mire. Free will theism can raise some interesting and important questions, but open theism has fallen off the rocker. Simple as that. Process theology, Socianism and Open Theism are heretical. You may not care what creeds say, or councils, but that too is part of the problem. No man is an island. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

All I would say to your post is that you should acquaint yourself, if you haven't, with D.A. Carson's book on the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. He did his doctoral dissertation on the subject. There is a vew called compatabalism that argues for genuine freedom and exhaustive foreknowledge and determinism. I would recommend John Frame as well.

Feel free to reply, but I am done entertaining questions about Open Theism. The subject has been adequately dealt with in recent years.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

 

[chrysostom]

What else does it include? Oh... lots of specifics, I suppose. Covenant theology would fall under the rubric "Reformed." Paedobaptism (infant) usually does as well (Though there are Reformed Baptists- See London Confession of Faith).

Lutherans would trace their roots to the Reformation. Anglicans would. Etc.

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

my history book has the Lutherans tracing their roots to the Catholic Church
and
the rest of you would be tracing yours to Luther

 

[ChristianVox]

Chrysostom

Chrysostom

Well, actually, I would trace my roots back to the apostles as well. We wouldn't hold to apostolic succession like the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but we see ourselves as part of the church universal, stretching throughout all time.

So yes, the Lutherans go back to Luther, as a certain man who articulated the gospel, which is connected with the stream of Christianity.

 

[csuguy]

It is striking how many open theists are running around here.

There's a bit of everything here Makes for interesting discussions.

As for myself, I'm simply not going to wade into this mire. Free will theism can raise some interesting and important questions, but open theism has fallen off the rocker. Simple as that.

That's a shame. But, then I suppose I feel the same way about Calvinism and determinism

Process theology, Socianism and Open Theism are heretical. You may not care what creeds say, or councils, but that too is part of the problem. No man is an island. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

I like what a Jewish Reformist had to say- "the past has a vote, not a veto." Studying the traditional views, councils, etc. is fine and a good place to start - but to truly progress you need to question these views and study the sides that lost. In some cases you will find that the church fathers/councils were right on - in other cases, not so much. Ultimately you realize that the church and its councils are composed of fallible men [and women] - and thus their decisions, doctrine, and thought processes are fallible.

As a side note, you sound a lot like a Catholic - which is humorous coming from a Protestant

All I would say to your post is that you should acquaint yourself, if you haven't, with D.A. Carson's book on the sovereignty of God and human responsibility. He did his doctoral dissertation on the subject. There is a vew called compatabalism that argues for genuine freedom and exhaustive foreknowledge and determinism. I would recommend John Frame as well.

Hate it when people just refer to random authors/articles and won't debate. >.>

Feel free to reply, but I am done entertaining questions about Open Theism. The subject has been adequately dealt with in recent years.

You'll find that all subjects [save some truly unique ones from, say, OMEGA] have been dealt with by theologians. Doesn't mean much, as we must individually research the matters for ourselves. But I can understand being tired with an issue.

So what theological issues are of interest to you?

 

[ChristianVox]

Re:

Re:

I'm especially interested in the use of the OT in the NT these days. I just put on a post on my website (see below), if you're interested in seeing what I have to say, and some recommened listening on the subject.

More recently I've been chewing on that and the atonement and I'm about a fourth of the way through a book I'm working on, the tentative title being, "The Fall of Satan and the Meaning of Life: Reflections on Satan’s terrible idea and its implications on the unfolding human drama."

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

 

[Psalmist]

Greetings all. I'm new to the forum. Looks interesting... and lively!

Cheers,

Austin

:thumb: Yes, welcome to TOL . . . Lively? By all means :wave2:

Psalmist
​

 

[csuguy]

I'm especially interested in the use of the OT in the NT these days. I just put on a post on my website (see below), if you're interested in seeing what I have to say, and some recommened listening on the subject.

More recently I've been chewing on that and the atonement and I'm about a fourth of the way through a book I'm working on, the tentative title being, "The Fall of Satan and the Meaning of Life: Reflections on Satan’s terrible idea and its implications on the unfolding human drama."

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

Ah - good topics :thumb:

It's cool that you like to read a lot. I like to read a lot of theology books myself - although I tend to go for primary sources as much as possible over modern theologians. I don't care too much to study particular theologians views (unless they are historically significant) - most of the time their goal is to uphold their specific denominations views anyway.

I got myself the Ante-Nicene Fathers series and I am working on reading through that. I'm on the second book (outta ten) - its very interesting studying the beliefs of the early church, and the proto-orthodox scriptures which we no longer use. I am particularly intersted in early church Christology, and generally in the foundations of Christianity as a whole.

 

[rainee]

Hello and welcome, sir.

And Chrys - you are just killing me!
Again!

Am I not reformed???

Ahem.

Anyway, Mr Christian Vox,
I'm also Reformed Protestant but more than a little odd.
Nice to meet you.

You might should know I saw several of these posters here, like Godrulz, write on their concept of Jesus - and there is no way I
cannot acknowledge their Christianity - and in that area be impressed with it.
So I earnestly urge you to read a few threads about the trinity or the deity of Christ before you enter into too much of a battle with any of these here.

It may be that many here do not really understand Calvinism, or Reformed thinking or even their own beliefs. (Which I just love to say, lol!)


Mr AMR has a saying that we are all Calvinists on our knees, I like that!
And think even they (believers) are all Calvinists in more ways than that! (Including Catholics of today)

But with that said Reformed thought should need to grow too - imho, along with Reformed People.

We can't thrive without growing. Not any of us, imho.

 

[chrysostom]

It may be that many here do not really understand Calvinism, or Reformed thinking or even their own beliefs. (Which I just love to say, lol!)

very few understand Calvinism anywhere
and
that should cause you to reflect on your beliefs

I know it's complicated
but
it shouldn't be

 

[ChristianVox]

Rainee

Rainee

Thanks Rainee! I appreciate your post!

Austin Brown
www.soundofdoctrine.com
Sola Dei Gloria!

 

[Lon]

very few understand Calvinism anywhere
and
that should cause you to reflect on your beliefs

I know it's complicated
but
it shouldn't be

I've heard it said, most of us are born-again Arminians and then we grow-up to be Calvinists.
Peter wrote that Paul was not easy to understand.

Point being: it doesn't have to always be easy or uncomplicated to be right. Just some food for thought.

-Lon

 

[Krsto]

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!

Yes, hermeneutics is key. I find myself giving a lesson on hermeneutics when explaining how it is we are living in the New Heavens and New Earth and the old passed away with a fervent heat and darkened sun and bloody moon.

 

[chrysostom]

I've heard it said, most of us are born-again Arminians and then we grow-up to be Calvinists.
Peter wrote that Paul was not easy to understand.

Point being: it doesn't have to always be easy or uncomplicated to be right. Just some food for thought.

-Lon

now I do not know what that means
and
I have been around the block

 

[chrysostom]

Peter wrote that Paul was not easy to understand.

Peter also said that they were wresting what Paul wrote