• 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!

Romans 8:6.....What is it getting at.

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
Not, Barth did not teach universalism (although anti-Barth folk often used that claim). There were good things.....and bad things....about his theology. NT Wright did question the traditional Calvinistic view of Justification. Some of his points are good, but he did not provide an adequate solution.

Same with Owen. He taught that the children of the elect are elect based on God's covenant with the parents. Hill taught that Michael the Archangel is Christ.

My point is astute scholarship did not die in the 17th century. God still gifts the church.
Click to expand...
Context here is vital, as Calvin also taught Preincarnate Christ was Michael, but both of them held was he was God in the OT!

and NT Wright still plainly NT wrong where iot matters most. how a lost sinner gets justified before Holy God!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
JesusFan said:
Context here is vital, as Calvin also taught Preincarnate Christ was Michael, but both of them held was he was God in the OT!

and NT Wright still plainly NT wrong where iot matters most. how a lost sinner gets justified before Holy God!
Click to expand...

Then Calvin taught that Jesus Christ is not YHWH as Michael was created
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Martin Marprelate said:
The term "Reformed" seems to be being devalued these days.
I find it hard to believe that any Reformed scholar would call Karl Barth "Reformed" although he is enjoying a bit of a revival today. While he was living, Cornelius van Til called him out. Here is a critique of his (Barth's) theology in the Reformed Forum. Read the next article as well as the one I've linked:
The Essential Van Til – The Absolutely Other

Also, Barth's view of Scripture marks him out as less than orthodox, which is why he is usually classified as neo-orthodox.
Here is something by Don Carson in What Should Evangelicals Make of Karl Barth?

Barth says many things that shows him affirming the truthfulness of Scripture, the reliability of Scripture, the authority of Scripture and if you take those things at face value, without reference to anything else that he says, then it is easy to imagine that he is essentially an evangelical in the history and tradition of the whole mainstream of the church. But he really isn’t. Part of it is because when he talks about inspiration and the truthfulness of Scripture, he wants to integrate both how God gave the Scripture, as Scripture, and how that Scripture is received by human beings, which requires the Spirit’s work in us to illumine us. He puts all those things together in one package and refuses to separate them.

By contrast Calvin separates them so that he insists that the Scripture is true and given by the Spirit of God even if nobody accepts it. Whereas they are so tied together in Barth’s thinking that he is uncomfortable talking about the truthfulness and reliability and Spirit inspiration of Scripture simply as Scripture without integrating it, as well, into the need for that Scripture to be accepted and received as it is the Word of God by virtue of the Spirit’s work within us to see that it is the Word of God.

And that has led many Christians trying to formulate Barth’s view as something like: The Scripture becomes the Word of God when it is received. Well, that is not quite what Barth says, but I understand why they want to say things like that. Moreover, there are a few passages — I listed some of them in the FAQ section of the book of Scripture — where Barth does say explicitly that there are concrete errors in Scripture. So on both of these fronts he is really different from the mainstream of the Church of Jesus Christ across the ages in affirming the truthfulness, reliability and inerrancy of Scripture.

Now I don't agree with everything Don Carson says, but Barth's understanding of Scripture makes me doubt if he was evangelical, let alone Reformed. Having said that, he did a great job in the early 20th Century debunking liberal theology.
Click to expand...
Would say that the really solid and good biblical authors of modern times were a majority of the time really either Reformed or Calvinists!
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
JesusFan said:
well, he did hold with and teach another gospel!
Click to expand...
Not really. He was a Calvinist. But he believed God used man (the preacher), truth (the gospel message), and the sinner (who would repent and believe). In using man he believed in emotional appeals.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
JesusFan said:
Context here is vital, as Calvin also taught Preincarnate Christ was Michael, but both of them held was he was God in the OT!

and NT Wright still plainly NT wrong where iot matters most. how a lost sinner gets justified before Holy God!
Click to expand...
Yes, they believed Michael the Archangel is Christ - God. They also believed in infant baptism.
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
Not really. He was a Calvinist. But he believed God used man (the preacher), truth (the gospel message), and the sinner (who would repent and believe). In using man he believed in emotional appeals.
Click to expand...
he held to full free will heresy, that has plagued the Church since his time!
 
M

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JesusFan said:
For An Answer: Did John Calvin Really Teach that Jesus was the Archangel Michael?
Click to expand...
Very good. In fact, all sorts of very respectable theologians have seen Michael as being the Lord Jesus. I have a really excellent book called Rock of our Salvation by a 19th Century Presbyterian called W.S. Plumer (reprinted by Sprinkle Books) who does just that. I disagree, but I'm not about to discard the rest of the book.
I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that it is unwise to get too preoccupied with the various "gradations of honour" among angels.

One other point: if to be 'Reformed' means nothing more today than not to be Dispensational, then the word has lost its meaning. In fact, to be Reformed means to accept one or more of the Reformed Confessions as correct*, and especially to uphold Article 1:1 of the1689 Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, Faith and Obedience. There is no way in the world that Karl Barth, Finney or N.T. Wright are Reformed.

*A certain latitude is generally allowed in adherence to one or two articles, particularly that which pronounces the pope to be the Antichrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsr
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Martin Marprelate said:
Very good. In fact, all sorts of very respectable theologians have seen Michael as being the Lord Jesus. I have a really excellent book called Rock of our Salvation by a 19th Century Presbyterian called W.S. Plumer (reprinted by Sprinkle Books) who does just that. I disagree, but I'm not about to discard the rest of the book.
I'm inclined to agree with Calvin that it is unwise to get too preoccupied with the various "gradations of honour" among angels.

One other point: if to be 'Reformed' means nothing more today than not to be Dispensational, then the word has lost its meaning. In fact, to be Reformed means to accept one or more of the Reformed Confessions as correct*, and especially to uphold Article 1:1 of the1689 Confession: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, Faith and Obedience. There is no way in the world that Karl Barth, Finney or N.T. Wright are Reformed.

*A certain latitude is generally allowed in adherence to one or two articles, particularly that which pronounces the pope to be the Antichrist.
Click to expand...

Yes, to suggest these men were reformed shows a lack of knowledge as to what being reformed is.
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Iconoclast said:
Yes, to suggest these men were reformed shows a lack of knowledge as to what being reformed is.
Click to expand...
To suggest otherwise is not to understand what Reformed is.

"After the war, Barth engaged in controversies regarding baptism (though a Reformed theologian, he rejected infant baptism), hermeneutics, and the demythologizing program of Rudolf Bultmann (which denied the historical nature of Scripture, instead believing it a myth whose meaning could heal spiritual anxiety)."


Some people idolize Karl Barth as entirely in line with the heritage of John Calvin. Others demonize him as clearly emerging from one of the lower rims of Dante’s Inferno. In my judgment the truth of the matter is far more complex. There are many parts of Karl Barth’s writings that are luminescent. They are wonderfully evocative when he speaks of the glory and the greatness and the majesty of God and when he speaks of the importance of Christ. On so many, many fronts Karl Barth really was the premier theologian of the twentieth century in terms of volume of writings, profundity of analysis and so on. It would be nice if every movement that came along was right from the throne room of God or right from the pit so you could bless it or damn it and get on with life, but that is just not the way life is.

And so it is sad if knowledgeable pastors don’t make use of Barth, but it is even more sad if they make a wrong use of Barth.

(D.A. Carson, The Gospel Coalition)

We even see R.C. Sproul relying on Barth in How Should I Live in This World.

It is no accident Barth is considered "the gold standard of Reformed theology".
 
Last edited:
I

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JonC said:
To suggest otherwise is not to understand what Reformed is.

"After the war, Barth engaged in controversies regarding baptism (though a Reformed theologian, he rejected infant baptism), hermeneutics, and the demythologizing program of Rudolf Bultmann (which denied the historical nature of Scripture, instead believing it a myth whose meaning could heal spiritual anxiety)."


Some people idolize Karl Barth as entirely in line with the heritage of John Calvin. Others demonize him as clearly emerging from one of the lower rims of Dante’s Inferno. In my judgment the truth of the matter is far more complex. There are many parts of Karl Barth’s writings that are luminescent. They are wonderfully evocative when he speaks of the glory and the greatness and the majesty of God and when he speaks of the importance of Christ. On so many, many fronts Karl Barth really was the premier theologian of the twentieth century in terms of volume of writings, profundity of analysis and so on. It would be nice if every movement that came along was right from the throne room of God or right from the pit so you could bless it or damn it and get on with life, but that is just not the way life is.

And so it is sad if knowledgeable pastors don’t make use of Barth, but it is even more sad if they make a wrong use of Barth.

(D.A. Carson, The Gospel Coalition)
Click to expand...

I am at The pilot truckstop off of exit 11 on I -20 if you have any spare time..will be here for a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top