Featured 2 Thess. 2:13-14, What does it say? pt2

I agree Paul was sharing what he learned. And that is one aspect of a creed.

The idea Paul was citing a formal statement of belief rather than simply (in his words as guided by God) sharing what he was taught us extra-biblical (it is one idea, but an idea that diminishes Scripture).

 

I agree covenants exist. I agree we learn from covenants.

But Covenant Theology is a framework through which we view and interpret God's interaction. That's not the way Scripture handles itself.

 

No, you are wrong (and it is not opinion).

I never posted that Adam lacked a spirit (you claimed I did).

You and I differ in that I hold the "classic view" of the Cross and I do not believe we should limit ourselves by creating a framework (whether covenants or dispensations) through which to view God's actions.

You and @AustinC are wrong to call that "unorthodox".

You seem to believe you are the standard of orthodox.
You seem to lack any understanding of traditional Christianity.
And you seem to rely too heavily on subjectivity.

 

All Scripture is important.

A Dallas Seminary prof (and friend) once lectured using the illustration of a wheel for the Old Covenant with supporting covenants as spokes in this wheel (he is a Calvinist and taught Covenant Theology).

It is great to study covenants and how they were applied in redemptive history.

It is another thing, however, to confine God to such a framework. This invents covenants where Scripture does not actually present an "if and then" statement or command as an actual covenant (it cheapens the meaning of "covenant").

 

Sure he has. He rejected that Paul's statement was his own or actually "God breathed".

And he did attack me, rather than addressing my post

He claimed that my view of the Cross (the "classic view") is unorthodox (a foolish claim) but then went on to criticize my education (Masters degree in theology) and the seminary where I studied because I hold the "classic view" of the Cross.

And you have never once apologized for falsely claiming that I said Adam had no spirit. You merely whined when I attributed that claim to you and demanded an apology.

 

I don't have an issue with creeds. Some people need tools to keep them on track. Others can work through Scripture. Let people use what they need.

My point is you are making an assumption that Paul is citing a creed rather than simply relating in his words what was passed down to him.

The message is not extra-biblical. Your assumption, however, is extra-biblical. Scripture does not say either way. You assume.

 

I have repeatedly said that I simply tossed your false accusation back at you.

YOU lied and said that I posted Adam did not have a spirit. I responded by asking you why you believed that Adam did not have a spirit.

My point was that you were lying (I never posted or believed Adam didn't have a spirit, so you must be making a statement of your own view).

You repeated that lie several times here.

Then you started trying to spread that lie on another forum and was banned.

Did I reply to you by presenting your lie about me as something you must believe? Absolutely.

The fact remains you intentionally posted a false statement about me repeatedly and are only whining because I replied to the lie by turning it on you.

 

No, you are not. You are agreeing with a large amount of Presbyterian scholars in regards to Covenant Theology and with the majority of Reformed scholars in regards to the Cross.

Note that I did not call your view "unorthodox". The reason I didn't is that it is not unorthodox.

My view is the majority view throughout Christian history (excluding RCC theology) and remains the majority view among non-Catholic Christians today.

How is it that you do not know the classic view of the Cross is within orthodox Christianity??????

How is it that you do not know most of orthodox Christianity does not affirm Covenant Theology?????

You are not qualified to discuss these issues because of simple ignorance of Christianity outside of your small circle.

 

I do.

I do not reject that God interacts through covenants. I believe this obvious.

BUT I am not talking about biblical covenants. I am talking about Covenant Theology.

Scripture also talks about dispensations. By your criteria one must affirm Dispensationalism or reject Scripture.

Both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are frameworks developed within Calvinist circles to provide structure to the Economy of Salvation (Divine Economy).

I simply do not believe such a framework is necessary. Each emphasizes some aspect of Scripture (covenants or dispensations) while at best minimizing the other.

Also, we risk diminishing important periods in biblical history. The Dispensationalist may ignore the significance of a covenant to a specific people, but the Covenant theologian may minimize a dispensation where God withdraws or interacts in a different way under the same covenant).

I reject the idea we should look through Scripture and organize God's Words by importance. It is ALL important.

 

Sorry, but I do not understand the question.

Covenants and dispensations are in the Bible.

Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are frameworks developed in Calvinist churches as a tool to examine Divine Economy.

 

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than:
0330 GMT (Mon) -- 1130 PM EDT (Sun) 830 pm PDT (Sun)

 

Not at all.

I hold the classic view of the Cross.

You and @Iconoclast hold a Reformed view of the Cross.

If that is too "liquid" for you and @Iconoclast , if the two of you cannot grasp views other than your own, don't blame me. That is YOUR fault.

I wish we had the ability to restrict forums to people who have a formal theological education. It would be much easier to discuss differences with people who grasp Christian theology (rather than only their own).

Unfortunately that is not the purpose of this board,vso we get ignorant replies such as the last few you and @Iconoclast posted.

Mature Christians realize orthodox Christianity contains views other than their own. They are able to learn those views and argue against them. You and @Iconoclast are beyond learning. You simple speak about what you cannot comprehend.