Calvin's Amillennialism and Infant Baptism

[Thomas Helwys]

Nope


I don't base my theology or dispensationalism on whether some academic scholar agrees or disagrees. The truth of the Bible does not depend on whether 500 people agree with dispensational truth, and 499 do not. If those scholars looked at the issue more carefully, if they have even considered it at all, they would realize that dispensationalism is NOT theology any more than hermenuetics is theology. Theology by definition (Theo logos) is the study of God, not HOW to study God. The conclusion is the theology, how you got there is not.


Yes I have read "City of God" and many of his other writings which is why some of us Non Cals have consistently stated that Calvinism, particularly when it comes to amellenialism is based on Augy.


You are still obfuscating the issues. If God's intent and determination is to restore the new world exactly as the first, that still does not tell us what is going to occur in between to get us there, and Revelation does.
It doesn't HAVE to be physical, BUT IT IS because the word of God SAYS SO. It should be as simple as that unless you allegorize the entire Bible. If you interpret the Bible allegorically, is there ever a time when is it interpreted literally. You could say Jesus didn't literally die on a cross, it was just a figure of speech to demonstrate suffering. You could he didn't literally raise from the dead (which some actually teach) but that it was only figurative.

Which brings up a crucial point: Did Jesus die physically and literally? and did He raise from the dead, physically and literally? If you answer yes to both of the above, then how do you justify what you interpret literally, and what you interpret allegorically? There must be an objective and concrete rule of interpretation of everything is merely subjective including how anyone interprets whatever YOU say.





So in other words, when Jesus said that He must be delivered into the hands of man and be crucified, that was literal (perhaps, at this point I don't even know if you believe THAT), but when He said hereafter you shall SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, that was figurative?

Did Babylon really fall or not? Was Babylon a real place that is now currently Iraq, or was Babylon merely figurative since it is actually used in a figurative sense in Revelation 17-18 to describe Rome? Was there ever REALLY a Babylon and was Nebechadnezzar REALLY a king?

No it is not an "allusion" to Daniel 7:13 any more than Jesus ascension into heaven was an illusion.

The disciples asked the question in Acts 1, "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?:

Notice the question:

1. At this time which shows that the kingdom was NOT in effect when Jesus ascended
2. It was in fact the KINGDOM that was being referred to
3. And it was the kingdom TO ISRAEL

After that Jesus ascended and the angel said "why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:11

The return of Christ will be "IN LIKE MANNER as ye have SEEN HIM GO". In Revelation 1:7, they see HIS PIERCED SIDE. Why go through all the details of WHAT THEY WILL SEE if it was only figurative?



If you hold to a future of ANY sort, then you are a dispensationalist. That is a fact that anti-dispensationlist refuse to admit. Once Jesus returns and causes a change in economies, you are holding to at least one dispensational position.


I have said in the introduction forum that I don't care what you call me. Iconoclast regular just says "ACH" and that's fine with me. It's a forum name. Why do you use "Greektim" if that's not YOUR real name?
I don't list my school location because of something that happened to my brother and law's wife and son, and the brother of a friend of mine who (when the friend was the actual target, not the brother) who were all murdered as a result of information obtained from where I went to school. My dissertation was on Preterism (60 pages). I did not publish it (for obvious reasons stated above) but will scan it and put it online eventually.

See bold. I completely understand, and I agree with your decision. You should safeguard your privacy. I have received threats from online nutcases, and I take them seriously.

 

[Greektim]

I don't base my theology or dispensationalism on whether some academic scholar agrees or disagrees. The truth of the Bible does not depend on whether 500 people agree with dispensational truth, and 499 do not. If those scholars looked at the issue more carefully, if they have even considered it at all, they would realize that dispensationalism is NOT theology any more than hermenuetics is theology. Theology by definition (Theo logos) is the study of God, not HOW to study God. The conclusion is the theology, how you got there is not.

Yikes…

Which brings up a crucial point: Did Jesus die physically and literally? and did He raise from the dead, physically and literally? If you answer yes to both of the above, then how do you justify what you interpret literally, and what you interpret allegorically? There must be an objective and concrete rule of interpretation of everything is merely subjective including how anyone interprets whatever YOU say.

So says the post-enlightened unacademic (i.e. fundamentalism). There MUST be an objective and concrete rule of interpretation in everything or it is all subjective???? Jesus gave us the standard… himself.

So in other words, when Jesus said that He must be delivered into the hands of man and be crucified, that was literal (perhaps, at this point I don't even know if you believe THAT), but when He said hereafter you shall SEE the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven, that was figurative?

Did Babylon really fall or not? Was Babylon a real place that is now currently Iraq, or was Babylon merely figurative since it is actually used in a figurative sense in Revelation 17-18 to describe Rome? Was there ever REALLY a Babylon and was Nebechadnezzar REALLY a king?

Notice I was speaking of the genre of apocalyptic. Man, it’s like talking to a child. Do you even read the context of my posts. The gospels are not apocalyptic. Babylon was a real empire back in the day. But its demise was spoken of apocalyptically by Isaiah using the astrological signs you think must take place literally. I think you are confused about what I believe. Not surprising really. You think all futurism of any kind equals dispensationalism.

No it is not an "allusion" to Daniel 7:13 any more than Jesus ascension into heaven was an illusion.

I don’t know how to respond to this. Shared language and shared structure indicates it was an allusion.

If you hold to a future of ANY sort, then you are a dispensationalist. That is a fact that anti-dispensationlist refuse to admit. Once Jesus returns and causes a change in economies, you are holding to at least one dispensational position.

This is probably the dumbest thing you have said to date. Historic Premills and Progressive Dispensationalists would be horrified by your broad brushing them in with yourself. I don’t think God administers through dispensations but covenants. So I am not a dispensationalist in the least. But I look forward to the return of Jesus to consummate the kingdom and usher in new creation.


[quote="dr"ach]I have said in the introduction forum that I don't care what you call me. Iconoclast regular just says "ACH" and that's fine with me. It's a forum name. Why do you use "Greektim" if that's not YOUR real name?
I don't list my school location because of something that happened to my brother and law's wife and son, and the brother of a friend of mine who (when the friend was the actual target, not the brother) who were all murdered as a result of information obtained from where I went to school. My dissertation was on Preterism (60 pages). I did not publish it (for obvious reasons stated above) but will scan it and put it online eventually.[/QUOTE]
I must have missed your first post… but that aside. Greektim is my moniker. I would prefer Timotheos, but someone already had it.

I don’t know what kind of degree you got. It sounds like a diploma mill for a 60 page dissertation. And your excuse not to reveal its name seems shady. But for a 60 page dissertation for some “doctorate of theology”, I’d be ashamed too. I just wonder why you want Dr in front of your name when you didn’t do much to earn it. (Yes I’m a snob when it comes to theological education; I despise diploma mills and honorary doctorates and people who call themselves “doctor” when they have no business to such a title).

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

So says the post-enlightened unacademic (i.e. fundamentalism). There MUST be an objective and concrete rule of interpretation in everything or it is all subjective???? Jesus gave us the standard… himself.

Please stop mixing medications.

Man, it’s like talking to a child. Do you even read the context of my posts.

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" Eph 5:18

The gospels are not apocalyptic

.
Really? What about Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21? Those look pretty apocalyptic to me.

Babylon was a real empire back in the day. But its demise was spoken of apocalyptically by Isaiah using the astrological signs you think must take place literally.

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." Prov 23:31

I don’t know how to respond to this. Shared language and shared structure indicates it was an allusion.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Prov 20:1

This is probably the dumbest thing you have said to date.

"...and thine heart shall utter perverse things." Prov 23:33

Historic Premills and Progressive Dispensationalists would be horrified by your broad brushing them in with yourself. I don’t think God administers through dispensations but covenants.

Covenants are separated by dispensations...ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding:tonofbricks:

So I am not a dispensationalist in the least. But I look forward to the return of Jesus to consummate the kingdom and usher in new creation.

Um....drumroll...that's a dispensation quote!

I don’t know what kind of degree you got. It sounds like a diploma mill for a 60 page dissertation. And your excuse not to reveal its name seems shady. But for a 60 page dissertation for some “doctorate of theology”, I’d be ashamed too. I just wonder why you want Dr in front of your name when you didn’t do much to earn it. (Yes I’m a snob when it comes to theological education; I despise diploma mills and honorary doctorates and people who call themselves “doctor” when they have no business to such a title).

I will excuse the fact that you are an obtuse addlepate that has a serious drinking problem. You need some serious mental help. Jay Adams is a Calvinist (but a very good counselor) so perhaps he can help you with your issues. Or perhaps IBCD http://www.ibcd.org/ There is a section on the top "Find A Counselor" where you can choose your state, and find NANC certified counselor in your area.

Now run along and tell your buddies over at SFL I said high!

 

[Greektim]

Please stop mixing medications.



"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit" Eph 5:18
.
Really? What about Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21? Those look pretty apocalyptic to me.

"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright." Prov 23:31


"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Prov 20:1


"...and thine heart shall utter perverse things." Prov 23:33

Covenants are separated by dispensations...ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding-ding:tonofbricks:


Um....drumroll...that's a dispensation quote!



I will excuse the fact that you are an obtuse addlepate that has a serious drinking problem. You need some serious mental help. Jay Adams is a Calvinist (but a very good counselor) so perhaps he can help you with your issues. Or perhaps IBCD http://www.ibcd.org/ There is a section on the top "Find A Counselor" where you can choose your state, and find NANC certified counselor in your area.

Now run along and tell your buddies over at SFL I said high!

Now who is being obtuse??? You can't even read that I don't live in the States. But you keep confirming what I wrote. A 60 page "doctor" is all you are. This is why no one takes fundies seriously outside of your own bubble. You tout academic degrees yet live in ignorance holding views that are completely ridiculous. I stand by my view that fundamentalism is nothing but the result of post-enlightenment modernity mixed with anti-scholarship (though you throw around "doctor" for anyone who can talk loud enough about the KJV).

BTW... though the gospels may quote Jesus using apocalyptic language to refer to the destruction of the temple (harkening back to Isa. yet again), that doesn't put the gospels in the genre of apocalyptic... not like Rev.

And equating the consumated kingdom with new creation is not dispensational. It is the complete opposite. It implies that the kingdom is already begun, and it implies that its fullest form is achieved when Jesus returns thus equating it with new creation. You have to fit you inane 1,007 year stuff in there somewhere. I don't.

And PS... I do drink on occasion, but I never get drunk. Let me guess, long hair is evil too, right?

When you are ready for a real debate, let me know.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Though education in his day was different than ours:

Collège de Montaigu (philosophy)
University of Orléans (law)
University of Bourges (law and classics)

These were only among the top schools in Europe of the time.

Precisely....no Doctora Theologiae. He was a highly educated..........Lawyer.

So, you can try to pretend that my question was answered by listing his Juris Doctorate............or you could have said:
"He didn't have one." :wavey: But that would have ACTUALLY answered the question I DID ask. (Which was rhetorical anyway).
Remember, we've had almost 8 years of listening to Obama. We have learned to spot people who answer the questions they WANT you to have asked, rather than the ones they DID ask. Try that tactic on some liberal college Sophomore pea-wit....not me.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

This is why no one takes fundies seriously outside of your own bubble. You tout academic degrees yet live in ignorance holding views that are completely ridiculous.

" I have a doctorate in theology, masters in Biblical counseling (nouthetic) and BA in law. My "credentials" don't make me smarter than anyone, and frankly I don't care if you call me Doc, Dr, James, Mr Ach. When I preached to some prisoners, I met an 80 year old guy that had the entire Bible memorized from Genesis to Revelation, and had the 1550 Stephens Greek New Testament memorized (Yes, IN Greek) and that helped put my "degree" in perspective ever since." http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86112

First, I earned my doctorate after 7 years of previous schooling. But it makes no difference because as I stated in the introduction section, I have met plenty who were just as smart. However, you're not one of them. I may disagree with a large many on here, but at least most of them are intelligent enough to articulate their positions, and I can tell that they were not drunk when they posted their comments.

I stand by my view that fundamentalism is nothing but the result of post-enlightenment modernity

That's downright hilarious consideration that the major fundamentalist movements at the turn of the century was a response TO modernism against it. Keep sticking your foot in your mouth.

mixed with anti-scholarship (though you throw around "doctor" for anyone who can talk loud enough about the KJV).

I remember the Pharisees saying the same thing about Jesus' "scholarship" too:

"How knoweth this man letters having never learned" John 7:15

BTW... though the gospels may quote Jesus using apocalyptic language to refer to the destruction of the temple (harkening back to Isa. yet again), that doesn't put the gospels in the genre of apocalyptic... not like Rev.

Here again I will demonstrate how Biblically ignorant you are:

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:" Matthew 24:15

That doesn't look like Isaiah to me.

Furthermore, how would you know if what was said in Matthew 24 does not "put the gospels in the genre of apocalyptic...not like Revelation" if you don't think Revelation has literal interpretations to it?

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Matthew 24:29

"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." Revelation 6:12-13

Not as Revelation huh!!:tonofbricks:

And equating the consumated kingdom with new creation is not dispensational. It is the complete opposite. It implies that the kingdom is already begun, and it implies that its fullest form is achieved when Jesus returns thus equating it with new creation. You have to fit you inane 1,007 year stuff in there somewhere. I don't.

This shows you clearly have no idea what dispensationalism is. Dispensationalism separates the changes in economies. Once you admit that any future economy will be different from the one we live in now, you are conceding to at least one dispensational tenet. Perhaps you can find a clue on discount somewhere so save your beer cans, you'll need them to buy a few

And PS... I do drink on occasion, but I never get drunk.

Gee, and just how did I know you drank at all! That's that "60 page doctorate" being able spot a drunk from a mile away. Furthermore, speaking of doctorate, a dissertation isn't the only thing a person has to do to earn a doctorate. There's still @ 2 more years of schooling after the masters degree.

Let me guess, long hair is evil too, right?

Nope, long hair isn't evil, my wife has long hair. But of course I know where you were going with that, you just failed to ask the right question.

When you are ready for a real debate, let me know.

You've struck out before it even started. I'll save the serious discussions for those who actually take them seriously. You are just entertainment.:laugh:

 

[Greektim]

" I have a doctorate in theology, masters in Biblical counseling (nouthetic) and BA in law. My "credentials" don't make me smarter than anyone, and frankly I don't care if you call me Doc, Dr, James, Mr Ach. When I preached to some prisoners, I met an 80 year old guy that had the entire Bible memorized from Genesis to Revelation, and had the 1550 Stephens Greek New Testament memorized (Yes, IN Greek) and that helped put my "degree" in perspective ever since." http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=86112

First, I earned my doctorate after 7 years of previous schooling. But it makes no difference because as I stated in the introduction section, I have met plenty who were just as smart. However, you're not one of them. I may disagree with a large many on here, but at least most of them are intelligent enough to articulate their positions, and I can tell that they were not drunk when they posted their comments.


That's downright hilarious consideration that the major fundamentalist movements at the turn of the century was a response TO modernism against it. Keep sticking your foot in your mouth.

I remember the Pharisees saying the same thing about Jesus' "scholarship" too:

"How knoweth this man letters having never learned" John 7:15



Here again I will demonstrate how Biblically ignorant you are:

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:" Matthew 24:15

That doesn't look like Isaiah to me.

Furthermore, how would you know if what was said in Matthew 24 does not "put the gospels in the genre of apocalyptic...not like Revelation" if you don't think Revelation has literal interpretations to it?

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:" Matthew 24:29

"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." Revelation 6:12-13

Not as Revelation huh!!:tonofbricks:




This shows you clearly have no idea what dispensationalism is. Dispensationalism separates the changes in economies. Once you admit that any future economy will be different from the one we live in now, you are conceding to at least one dispensational tenet. Perhaps you can find a clue on discount somewhere so save your beer cans, you'll need them to buy a few


Gee, and just how did I know you drank at all! That's that "60 page doctorate" being able spot a drunk from a mile away. Furthermore, speaking of doctorate, a dissertation isn't the only thing a person has to do to earn a doctorate. There's still @ 2 more years of schooling after the masters degree.
Nope, long hair isn't evil, my wife has long hair. But of course I know where you were going with that, you just failed to ask the right question.

You've struck out before it even started. I'll save the serious discussions for those who actually take them seriously. You are just entertainment.:laugh:

First... I'm reporting you for accusing me of being a drunk.

Second... 2 years of schooling when you don't have a theology degree to begin w/ is not worthy of consideration. And 2 years + 60 page dissertation = diploma mill. I'm guessing that you didn't have to take any biblical languages either.

I've come out of the underbelly of IFBdom. You make my point that you are so engrossed in modernity (not rationalism mind you) yet it is not tempered w/ an honest academic pursuit. Your modernity is that it has to be objective and such. You have to be able to know the full truth and whatever. Yet you can't read the text as it was read by ANEers 2k+ years ago who were not dogmatic like you.

Worldviews aside... you still have no idea of what I am talking about when it comes to genres, apocalyptic, and the gospels. For you, the Bible is one genre... a book of doctrines. How sad.

When it comes to dispensationalism, I was the uber dispie. I am published in the JODT. I was working on a PhD w/ a dissertation topic on a "consistent" understanding of the kingdom of God in the gospels/acts. I know dispensationalism quite well. Changes in "economies" does not equal dispensationalism. And not all dispensations correspond to covenants (unless you believe in a covenant in the garden of eden much like covenant theology does).

I challenge you... pick a topic. Let's debate it. I will be as cordial as possible. You have just brought out the worst in me. For that, I apologize. Let's have a real discussion over a topic of your choosing. If you are up for it. (it can be about the KJV too and textual criticism)

 

[Bro. James]

In spite of the fact that right reverend doctors think they control the world of theology, a small child,(kinder-gartener),can understand the real things of God for: "of such is the Kingdom of God."

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

First... I'm reporting you for accusing me of being a drunk.

Go for it, wouldn't be the first time that someone started acting like a jerk towards others, and then when the rabbit got the gun, they didn't like getting what they dished out, and whined to the moderators.

Second... 2 years of schooling when you don't have a theology degree to begin w/ is not worthy of consideration. And 2 years + 60 page dissertation = diploma mill. I'm guessing that you didn't have to take any biblical languages either.

Apparently, you seemed to think that because I said it took 2 years to get a doctorate, that I took ONLY 2 years of schooling. Apparently you missed the part about the masters and BA degrees that preceded it. It was a little over 8 years altogether. But hey, I'm used to those who can't debate the issues that choose to insult someone's intelligence as a defense against having to provide reasonable arguments to objections to their views.

I've come out of the underbelly of IFBdom. You make my point that you are so engrossed in modernity (not rationalism mind you) yet it is not tempered w/ an honest academic pursuit. Your modernity is that it has to be objective and such. You have to be able to know the full truth and whatever. Yet you can't read the text as it was read by ANEers 2k+ years ago who were not dogmatic like you.

Here's another example of ridiculous conflicting logic. If you equate modernity with those concerned about academia, and then confess that I do not have an "honest academic pursuit" then you just admitted that I'm not a modernist.

And the dogmatic assumption is a farse is well, because you are being dogmatic about your criticisms. You fully believe that your accusations are right. So in accusing someone else of being dogmatic, you are being a hypocrite!

Worldviews aside... you still have no idea of what I am talking about when it comes to genres, apocalyptic, and the gospels. For you, the Bible is one genre... a book of doctrines. How sad

.
Once again, you are sleeping in class. If I explained to you that dispensationalism is a division of the economies, then how could I possibly at the same time claim that the Bible is "one genre". Good one there Einstein:tonofbricks:
And for your information, the Bible IS full of doctrines. John 7:17, Titus 2:7, 2 Tim 4:2, 2 John 10.

When it comes to dispensationalism, I was the uber dispie. I am published in the JODT. I was working on a PhD w/ a dissertation topic on a "consistent" understanding of the kingdom of God in the gospels/acts. I know dispensationalism quite well. Changes in "economies" does not equal dispensationalism. And not all dispensations correspond to covenants (unless you believe in a covenant in the garden of eden much like covenant theology does).

Hmmmm... you were working on a PhD, and the entire time you have been criticizing my education and talking about those who pursue acedemia, not once mentioned that you had a masters, bachelors degrees in anything else. Not to mention it's more than hypocritical for you to belittle my credentials, and then come of out the closet with how you attempted to get a PhD.

I challenge you... pick a topic. Let's debate it. I will be as cordial as possible. You have just brought out the worst in me. For that, I apologize. Let's have a real discussion over a topic of your choosing. If you are up for it. (it can be about the KJV too and textual criticism)

You have already began with a faulty assumption that people should debate for the sake of debating. This will be my last correspondence with you because I care not to win debates. I present what I believe to be the truth, and others can agree or disagree and for those who are in gross error I can only hope that something I have written can be useful to them. But even if I win a debate, and they don't change their mind, I've accomplished nothing.
You have a lot to learn, and the only way that you will learn anything is when you learn that you must DECREASE and Christ must increase (John 3:30). There is a difference in earnestly contending for truth, and being downright obnoxious and condescending and I hope this exchange has proven to you how foolish that is.

 

[HankD]

I tried wading through this thread but to avoid the redundancy and harsh exchanges I've skipped to the end.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that the Reformation (starting with Henry the 8th, Luther, Calvin, etc...) was a failure.

What emerged from the Reformation was "protestantism" which at its root (in the beginning) was a refusal to acknowledge papal authority first and the theology of Rome second and yes , its debatable as to which is/was the dominant motive.

What is left in the 21st century which is held in common is the protest against papal authority. All the churches of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbytarian, Methodist, etc...) IMO are seriously flawed when it comes to Rome's theology and all the reformation churches wear many of the grave clothes of Rome to this day.

This not only includes confusion concerning regeneration via water baptism (e.g. Pado-baptism as a necessity for the removal of Original Sin) but also the over-all theology of sacramentalism as a means of maintaining sanctifying grace, a sacerdotal/ministerial priesthood, apostolic succession, church autonomy, Sola Scriptura, and on and on...

HankD

 

[Greektim]

Apparently, you seemed to think that because I said it took 2 years to get a doctorate, that I took ONLY 2 years of schooling. Apparently you missed the part about the masters and BA degrees that preceded it. It was a little over 8 years altogether. But hey, I'm used to those who can't debate the issues that choose to insult someone's intelligence as a defense against having to provide reasonable arguments to objections to their views.

You are going to accuse me of being a hypocrite later, yet you have insulted me in a very offensive way here. You are being just as hypocritical. I at least apologized for my behavior.

And the dogmatic assumption is a farse is well, because you are being dogmatic about your criticisms. You fully believe that your accusations are right. So in accusing someone else of being dogmatic, you are being a hypocrite!

Perhaps, but my critique is the certainty of fundamenatlism vs. the honest inquiry of others. I have no problem admitting that I could be wrong about much of what I believe. I have not cornered the market on certainty. But I think fundieism has instead of pursuing truth pursued certainty-2 vastly different things.

Once again, you are sleeping in class. If I explained to you that dispensationalism is a division of the economies, then how could I possibly at the same time claim that the Bible is "one genre". Good one there Einstein:tonofbricks:
And for your information, the Bible IS full of doctrines. John 7:17, Titus 2:7, 2 Tim 4:2, 2 John 10.

More insults I see. Who is the hypocrite now? By saying that Bible is broken up in various economies, you are declaring it to have one genre of dispensations. But I didn't even accuse you of that. I think you percieve the Bible to be about doctrine more than anything else. I just see Scriptures doing so much more than that.

Hmmmm... you were working on a PhD, and the entire time you have been criticizing my education and talking about those who pursue acedemia, not once mentioned that you had a masters, bachelors degrees in anything else. Not to mention it's more than hypocritical for you to belittle my credentials, and then come of out the closet with how you attempted to get a PhD.

First, when I criticize your "doctorate" (which you still have not identified the actual degree conferred) only having 2 years of theology and a small dissertation, I am assuming that you masters in counseling and your BA in law was light on theology. Even NANC is not a theology heavy load in itself.

Second, I am not against academia. As I said, I am an academic snob when it comes to theological education. I have a BA and MA in biblical studies, and I am on the tail end of my ThM from SEBTS. I have been in education longer than you, and the vast majority of it has been theological education.

Third, I did not say I attempted to get a PhD only to fail. I dropped out b/c the program wasn't very challenging. Then I decided I wasn't ready for a PhD and decided to get a ThM instead. You assumed much about my life w/out really knowing. At least I took the time to ask about yours first.

Fourth, I only belittle your degree because it sounds like a diploma mill issued it. Even w/ 8 years of theological training (did you take biblical languages???), a 60 page dissertation is not the culmination of a real doctorate. My ThM thesis has to be 2x's as long as that.

You have already began with a faulty assumption that people should debate for the sake of debating. This will be my last correspondence with you because I care not to win debates. I present what I believe to be the truth, and others can agree or disagree and for those who are in gross error I can only hope that something I have written can be useful to them. But even if I win a debate, and they don't change their mind, I've accomplished nothing.
You have a lot to learn, and the only way that you will learn anything is when you learn that you must DECREASE and Christ must increase (John 3:30). There is a difference in earnestly contending for truth, and being downright obnoxious and condescending and I hope this exchange has proven to you how foolish that is.

Listen, I will admit that I have been discorteous and evil in this thread. I confess that publicly, and I would call you to do the same thing since you have been very insulting to me as well. I was saved out of a life of drugs and alcohol, so for you to accuse me of being a drunk is quite offensive. You don't even know me.

I would enjoy having a civil discuss/debate with you. Call it "starting over" if you will, as a sign of good will. It's not even debate for the sake of debate. It is to challenge each other and sharpen our iron. I hope you can at least appreciate that. I am trying to take the higher road here. Will you join me?

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

Since you have mentioned personal matters about issues in your life, I'm responding to you privately.

 

[Bro. James]

I tried wading through this thread but to avoid the redundancy and harsh exchanges I've skipped to the end.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that the Reformation (starting with Henry the 8th, Luther, Calvin, etc...) was a failure.

What emerged from the Reformation was "protestantism" which at its root (in the beginning) was a refusal to acknowledge papal authority first and the theology of Rome second and yes , its debatable as to which is/was the dominant motive.

What is left in the 21st century which is held in common is the protest against papal authority. All the churches of the Reformation (Anglican, Lutheran, Presbytarian, Methodist, etc...) IMO are seriously flawed when it comes to Rome's theology and all the reformation churches wear many of the grave clothes of Rome to this day.

This not only includes confusion concerning regeneration via water baptism (e.g. Pado-baptism as a necessity for the removal of Original Sin) but also the over-all theology of sacramentalism as a means of maintaining sanctifying grace, a sacerdotal/ministerial priesthood, apostolic succession, church autonomy, Sola Scriptura, and on and on...

HankD

These are real valid observations.

Some more: True Baptists are not connected in any way with Rome, Wittenburg, Geneva or Canterbury, nor have they ever been. They are not connected with the so-called Protestant Reformation. In fact they have been persecuted by the daughters as well as the mother.

This is a pivotal point not addressed very seriously on this blog.

How soon we forget.

We are in the midst of a universal, ecumenical implosion.

Beware the wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

BTW, Henry, the eighth one, was looking for an authorized divorce. Failing with Rome, he decided to be pope himself. He really reformed very little: celibacy and uniforms perhaps. The Anglican Church and offspring differ little from their mother/grandmother--all pedobaptists of the highest order.

Peace,

Bro. James

 

[HeirofSalvation]

These are real valid observations.

Some more: True Baptists are not connected in any way with Rome, Wittenburg, Geneva or Canterbury, nor have they ever been. They are not connected with the so-called Protestant Reformation. In fact they have been persecuted by the daughters as well as the mother.

This is a pivotal point not addressed very seriously on this blog.

How soon we forget.

We are in the midst of a universal, ecumenical implosion.

Beware the wolves dressed like sheep.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

BTW, Henry, the eighth one, was looking for an authorized divorce. Failing with Rome, he decided to be pope himself. He really reformed very little: celibacy and uniforms perhaps. The Anglican Church and offspring differ little from their mother/grandmother--all pedobaptists of the highest order.

Peace,

Bro. James

:thumbs::thumbs: The REAL truth..........and in a nut-shell.

The true "Church" of Christ, (whatever she is) is NOT the bastard child of a Catholic whore. That's why I'm a "Baptist" and not a "reformer" of a damned false religion.

You can "reform" the Catholic religion to your heart's content........and it will still remain a synagogue of Satan.

If I honestly believed that Baptists were merely an out-growth of a "Reformation" of a false religious system.......I wouldn't be one.

They aren't, they NEVER were...........but, we OBVIOUSLY now need to start eradicating from our ranks those who would wish us to be so. Those people who are defenders and lovers of either the Catholic Religion, or any of her "reformed" bastards need to be separated from.

 

[saturneptune]

:thumbs::thumbs: The REAL truth..........and in a nut-shell.

The true "Church" of Christ, (whatever she is) is NOT the bastard child of a Catholic whore. That's why I'm a "Baptist" and not a "reformer" of a damned false religion.

You can "reform" the Catholic religion to your heart's content........and it will still remain a synagogue of Satan.

If I honestly believed that Baptists were merely an out-growth of a "Reformation" of a false religious system.......I wouldn't be one.

They aren't, they NEVER were...........but, we OBVIOUSLY now need to start eradicating from our ranks those who would wish us to be so. Those people who are defenders and lovers of either the Catholic Religion, or any of her "reformed" bastards need to be separated from.

The Catholic Church was founded basically to consolidate power in European city-states. I will have to admit, someone was a political genius, but it has nothing to do with the Gospel or Scripture. Most Protestant Churches just cannot let go of parts of the Catholic Church. To review the models

Catholics, visible, universal church
Protestant, invisible, universal church
Baptist, visible, local church

It is obvious that the work of the Lord and the preservation of His church is a work of the local church from the book of Acts until today.

I am impressed by the statement "how does one reform a false religion." Had we followed the model the Lord left us with, there would be no need for reform. Reform is a direct result of flawed humans running the church and putting themselves and their pride first.

The Catholic Church was rotten to the core the day it was founded, and it is rotten to the core today.

I do not know that much about Luther, Knox, Wesley, etc, but hopefully they had more character and Calvin.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The Catholic Church was founded basically to consolidate power in European city-states. I will have to admit, someone was a political genius, but it has nothing to do with the Gospel or Scripture. Most Protestant Churches just cannot let go of parts of the Catholic Church. To review the models

Catholics, visible, universal church
Protestant, invisible, universal church
Baptist, visible, local church

It is obvious that the work of the Lord and the preservation of His church is a work of the local church from the book of Acts until today.

I am impressed by the statement "how does one reform a false religion." Had we followed the model the Lord left us with, there would be no need for reform. Reform is a direct result of flawed humans running the church and putting themselves and their pride first.

The Catholic Church was rotten to the core the day it was founded, and it is rotten to the core today.

I do not know that much about Luther, Knox, Wesley, etc, but hopefully they had more character and Calvin.

My statements are generated from an "Ecclessiastical" position.........which boils down to something like this basic idea:
1.) Christ founded something called the "Church" in an INSTITUTIONAL sense.....and it was quite rather more than merely another word for any random "saved" person

2.) Christ has preserved that "Church" throughout all time and history.

3.) The modern exemplar of that Institution is what we essentially call "Baptist" Churches in this day and age.

I do NOT consider my-self nor true "Baptists" to be products of the "Reformation"....

I believe the true "Church" of Jesus Christ existed THROUGHOUT the Dark ages and has gone through the Reformation of Catholicism as regularly persecuted victims of Calvin and even Luther and (actually Zwingli) and other such beings.

But they are not mere "Protestants" who have tried to "Reform" a Satanic Religion..........they were that identifiable group of individuals who have NEVER traced their lineage to Rome.

I do NOT believe that Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Melanchthon were men of Christ's "Church"....I believe that most of the "Reformers" (even though many were good and intelligent men whom we may very well see in heaven) were never part of the "Church".

I am a "Baptist" because I believe (by extension at least) that it is the modern equivallent of the "Church" that Christ founded on Earth during his earthly ministry....

From a sheerly dispensational perspective I reinforce that idea from my understanding of the church at (Pergamos I think) which was a veiled prophecy of a sort of "Reformation" of the Synagogue of Satan.......i.e. Protestants.

I do NOT consider the Reformers men of the "Church". I don't consider "Baptists" as "Protestants"....ironically, it was something like B.H. Carrol (a Calvinistic Baptist) who outlined my basic view of ecclesiology.

In short.........I think Jesus was (for all intents and purposes) a "Baptist".
If I didn't think that........I wouldn't be one.

 

[saturneptune]

My statements are generated from an "Ecclessiastical" position.........which boils down to something like this basic idea:
1.) Christ founded something called the "Church" in an INSTITUTIONAL sense.....and it was quite rather more than merely another word for any random "saved" person

2.) Christ has preserved that "Church" throughout all time and history.

3.) The modern exemplar of that Institution is what we essentially call "Baptist" Churches in this day and age.

I do NOT consider my-self nor true "Baptists" to be products of the "Reformation"....

I believe the true "Church" of Jesus Christ existed THROUGHOUT the Dark ages and has gone through the Reformation of Catholicism as regularly persecuted victims of Calvin and even Luther and (actually Zwingli) and other such beings.

But they are not mere "Protestants" who have tried to "Reform" a Satanic Religion..........they were that identifiable group of individuals who have NEVER traced their lineage to Rome.

I do NOT believe that Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Melanchthon were men of Christ's "Church"....I believe that most of the "Reformers" (even though many were good and intelligent men whom we may very well see in heaven) were never part of the "Church".

I am a "Baptist" because I believe (by extension at least) that it is the modern equivallent of the "Church" that Christ founded on Earth during his earthly ministry....

From a sheerly dispensational perspective I reinforce that idea from my understanding of the church at (Pergamos I think) which was a veiled prophecy of a sort of "Reformation" of the Synagogue of Satan.......i.e. Protestants.

I do NOT consider the Reformers men of the "Church". I don't consider "Baptists" as "Protestants"....ironically, it was something like B.H. Carrol (a Calvinistic Baptist) who outlined my basic view of ecclesiology.

In short.........I think Jesus was (for all intents and purposes) a "Baptist".
If I didn't think that........I wouldn't be one.

That is a good post, and yes, if I did not believe Baptists were as close as one can get to the NT church Jesus Christ founded, I would not be one either. All the Protestant churches have some vestages to the RCC, to varying degrees. I would say the worst is the Episcipalian church, and the one that stands out as the best and fairly close to Baptist, is conservative Presbyterians.

Any nitwit can see that the church was not preserved from the from the founding of the Catholic Church (different dates but around 400) until the Reformation. The only other choice was the local, autonomous churches of the day. Before the Reformation the RCC persecuted these local churches, and after the Reformation, both the RCC and some of the newly created Protestant churches, including your friend and mine John Calvin.

The point I was trying to make about the word "reformed" is the fact that the word itself implies something is wrong with the prevailing view, and something that man did. The churches in Acts did not need reforming. Had we run the church as Christ intended, it would not need reforming today.

The other point is, to be reformed, an entity has to have been pure at one time. Something that started off as evil from day one cannot be reformed. There is no way, as someone said, reform the RCC. There is no way to reform the Mormons, Church of Christ, JWs, or SDAs.

I often wonder what the Lord thinks about His church being now split into hundreds of denominations and subgroups.

Well, without a doubt you are on the right track.

 

[Rippon]

Reform is a direct result of flawed humans running the church and putting themselves and their pride first.

Nonsense.

The Catholic Church was rotten to the core the day it was founded, and it is rotten to the core today.

I assume you mean the Roman Catholic church.,because as a Christian you are Catholic.

And no,the Rooman Catholic church was no more "rotten to the core the day it was founded" than many IFB churches of today. There were "extras added" as time went on.

I do not know that much about Luther, Knox, Wesley, etc, but hopefully they had more character and [sic]Calvin.

You know about as much regarding them as you do John Calvin then.

 

[saturneptune]

Nonsense.



I assume you mean the Roman Catholic church.,because as a Christian you are Catholic.

And no,the Rooman Catholic church was no more "rotten to the core the day it was founded" than many IFB churches of today. There were "extras added" as time went on.



You know about as much regarding them as you do John Calvin then.

There have been several posts where you have gone to bat for the Catholic Church, which is right in line with your approval of Calvin's character. Why are you a Baptist? You become clearer each time you open your mouth. You just cannot let go of the Catholic trappings just like your beloved reformers.

 

[Rippon]

I do NOT believe that Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Melanchthon were men of Christ's "Church"....I believe that most of the "Reformers" (even though many were good and intelligent men whom we may very well see in heaven) were never part of the "Church".


I do NOT consider the Reformers men of the "Church".

You have not thought things through. You contradict yourself.

If these good and godly men such as Calvin,Luther and company "whom we may very well see in heaven";then they were and are part of the universal church for whom Christ shed his blood.

You can't make distinctions that you have tried to force because of your bias. Any saved person,regenerate,and bound for heaven is part of the Church. Period.