I'd leave that one up to you and those folk. We have to decide for ourselves what is important enough to give our time.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God the Son's Assent to The Eternal Covenant of God's Giving Salvation, by Grace.
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
How can one hold to that and still have a literal fall and a literal Adam then?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
There would have to be, "a Jesus", that Came to wait for sinners in the sense of fallen, that will still fully freely accept Jesus as lord or not?
a.) 'that' Jesus doesn't exist.
b.) The Jesus Who Came to Seek and to Save that which is lost would be waiting Forever, with no takers.
c.) Jesus Came to Seek, "The Lost" and those who think they can or will still fully freely accept Jesus as lord, or not, are not "Lost".
I hadn't heard this until you bring it up here. I found this quote, which I find interesting.
I recently replied to a JW on /r/TrueChristian about how they believe that Christ is the chief angel in heaven. The infamous controversy is they believe that there is only one archangel and that it is only Christ. I brought up how Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the chief princes", and from that I noted that there must be more than one chief prince, thus there is not just one as they claim.
But when I looked at the commentaries of this verse I found something that surprised me:
John Wesley: "Michael here is commonly supposed to mean Christ."
John Gill: "and is no other than Christ the Son of God, an uncreated Angel; who is "one", or "the first of the chief Princes""
Geneva: "even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels."
And then I looked at the Wikipedia article for Michael, and at the Protestant section it states:
Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel." Charles Haddon Spurgeon, a Trinitarian, stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”, and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father. In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)
Is Michael the Archangel the pre-incarnate Christ? : Reformed
Yep. The idea is certainly not unique to Gill. There are many others who held the idea. I really do not find it a problem in their theology - it's just enough that I personally don't turn to them.
I like mentioning Gill because so many use him due to his commentary being online. It is not a very good commentary (like the Matthew Henry commentary is not a very good commentary). It is outdated, absent much scholarship and deprived many of the recent developments concerning first century belief. It's just fun to toss his view of Michael out there.
The problem with that is the Angel of the Lord in the OT was Christ before the NT, and was not Michael, as Michael was a created being!
He was a Baptist though...Yep. The idea is certainly not unique to Gill. There are many others who held the idea. I really do not find it a problem in their theology - it's just enough that I personally don't turn to them.
I like mentioning Gill because so many use him due to his commentary being online. It is not a very good commentary (like the Matthew Henry commentary is not a very good commentary). It is outdated, absent much scholarship and deprived many of the recent developments concerning first century belief. It's just fun to toss his view of Michael out there.
Yep. And....wait for it....N.T. Wright is a Reformed theologian.
Anglican , same as JI packer was, but not nearly as good theology wise!Yep. And....wait for it....N.T. Wright is a Reformed theologian.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Yep. The idea is certainly not unique to Gill. There are many others who held the idea. I really do not find it a problem in their theology - it's just enough that I personally don't turn to them.
I like mentioning Gill because so many use him due to his commentary being online. It is not a very good commentary (like the Matthew Henry commentary is not a very good commentary). It is outdated, absent much scholarship and deprived many of the recent developments concerning first century belief. It's just fun to toss his view of Michael out there.
Jesus is referred to as many things, not Angelic, such as a man, "David", or even"bread", etc.
An Angel is a messager and Jesus is The Head Massager,
of all messagers, Angelic and man.
I believe when Scripture refers to the Angel of the Lord it is referring to Christ.
That's the issue with "theology wise". It depends not on Scripture but on the theological system held. If we were to look at which is more "biblical" then it would probably be impossible to choose - we certainly could not say Wright is less biblical than Packer. But Packer is closer to our theology.
If you can't tell, the obvious "problem" is the crux of determining who to "follow". For decades men like Packer lifted up Wright as the expert in one field (Pauline theology). But one day the "expert" said something about the area of his expertise that did not sit well with those who thought him the expert and they decided that he would no longer be the expert. The criteria becomes the theological system itself.
To illustrate, it would be like recognizing Dr. A as the foremost virologist and top of his field for decades. But then one day he says to wear masks and the people who did not want to wear masks then denounce Dr. A as quack. The expertise did not change (Dr. A is still the expert in his field just as Wright is still the foremost scholar of Pauline theology). The virus did not change (just as Scripture does not change). The criteria for Dr. A did not change (and the criteria for Wright did not change). What changed was an observation which may or may not be true but that set Dr. A (and Wright) outside of the camp that had previously looked to them as experts.
Except that Wright was not recognized by his peer's as being such an expert outside his own church, as many Baptists and reforms have had issues with him!
That is not true. John Piper, R.C. Sproul, and Tim Keller are not Anglican. The issues with his Pauline theology only came about when he realized a problem may exist in the Reform view of the Jewish faith concerning salvation.
He deviated away from Reformed theology regarding this when he went away from Pauline Justification...
That is not drifting from Reformed Theology (except for those who worship the theology of the Reformers as inerrant and equal to Scripture).
When Wright states that we totally misunderstood Pauline Justification, I would trust the reformers more then him in this!
Glad we did not trust the Catholic Church when Martin Luther suggested we totally misunderstood biblical justification though.
We actually have more information about first century Judaism (and the 1st century church) than did the Reformers. We have to be careful not to set up the Reformers as the new RCC.
Wright sees the Judaism in the time of Jesus as teaching salvation, but the Pharisees clearly show us was by works and legalism!
Not quite. Wright views the Jews as seeing themselves as a "saved" people by virtue of election (that they were elect by virtue of birth into Israel). The idea of covenantal rightness was based on a current state as applies to a future status. The issue was most often argued over purity laws.
Wright is correct with that observation. History confirms this. (A brief examination of the Hasmonean dynasty proves this).
Wright observed that the Reformers presented first century Judaism as if it were the Roman Catholic Church and the first century church as if they were reformers. He is correct here as well.
That does not mean Wright is correct with his NPP. But his observations are actually correct, even if his conclusions are wrong. The Reformers did miss the mark on a few important issues.