Ordo Salutis

[Rippon]

Now what did I tell you earlier?Don't try revisionist history.Erasmus was far from being a Baptist! He was a Roman Catholic -- through and through.

David H.Sorenson is a KJVO.He is quoted by David Cloud approvingly.That should tell you something.

From book reviews which I have read on Sorenson's book -- it looks like he rivals Gail Riplinger in factual errors.Perhaps you're thinking :"Maybe he made some mistakes about textual stuff,but he was right about Erasmus."No.KJVO'ers tend to revise history when it comes to the subject of the KJV.

You need to quote from reputable sources! Froude had a book on the life and letters of Erasmus.That should be on a slightly higher plane than your "author".How about trying Phillip Schaff?

Though you won't admit it -- Martin Luther had more in common with Baptists today than Erasmus ever did.And I say that knowing Luther and Baptists are not exactly in the same ball park.

Erasmus was a Baptist?! Do pigs fly?

 

[Rippon]

Erasmus was a Humanist? Yes .Erasmus was a Rationalist? Yes. Erasmus was a Reformer in the Reformationist sense of the word? No. Erasmus was a Baptist or Baptist sympathizer of Baptistic views? Certainly not!

 

[DHK]

Now what did I tell you earlier?Don't try revisionist history.Erasmus was far from being a Baptist! He was a Roman Catholic -- through and through.

David H.Sorenson is a KJVO.He is quoted by David Cloud approvingly.That should tell you something.

From book reviews which I have read on Sorenson's book -- it looks like he rivals Gail Riplinger in factual errors.Perhaps you're thinking :"Maybe he made some mistakes about textual stuff,but he was right about Erasmus."No.KJVO'ers tend to revise history when it comes to the subject of the KJV.

You need to quote from reputable sources! Froude had a book on the life and letters of Erasmus.That should be on a slightly higher plane than your "author".How about trying Phillip Schaff?

Though you won't admit it -- Martin Luther had more in common with Baptists today than Erasmus ever did.And I say that knowing Luther and Baptists are not exactly in the same ball park.

Erasmus was a Baptist?! Do pigs fly?

What is it with you? When you don't like facts, you make them up.
When you don't like the research someone has done, you typically slander them.
Is this typical of you?
First of all, Sorenson is not KJVO. Buy his book. Read. He devotes more than one chapter to speaking out against the errors of KJVOism. That is one position that he doesn't have any use for. He realizes that both Ruckmnan and Riplinger have gone way overboard. So before you go slandering people on the web, I suggest you read their material and find out what they believe.
Sorenson's book is well-researched, provides first hand citations for every thing that he has written, backing up all of his information. The book was written as a result of the research that he did for a doctoral dissertation.

Perhaps I should wait for an apology, until you retract the slander you have posted. Or should we require that you write an apology to Sorenson himself. After all it is a public forum isn't it?

 

[Rippon]

What is it with you? When you don't like facts, you make them up.

That itself is an untruth.What facts did Sorenson present?Remember facts are true.

When you don't like the research someone has done, you typically slander them.

There you go again.You are slandering me.BTW,what other "research" has someone done in which I have slandered them according to your slanderous standards?

Is this typical of you?

I've got a good idea what is typical of you by now.

First of all, Sorenson is not KJVO.

So when he out-and-out condemns the NIV and NASB he's not KJVO?

He may say that he holds to the 'Preserved Text Position';but he basically has a KJVO stance.

He devotes more than one chapter to speaking out against the errors of KJVOism. That is one position that he doesn't have any use for. He realizes that both Ruckmnan [sic]and Riplinger have gone way overboard.

Yeah,he acknowledges that.But he's still in the KJVO fold regardless.

So before you go slandering people on the web...

Does that go for you charging me with slander rather regularly with no foundation in fact?

Sorenson's book is well-researched, provides first hand citations for every thing that he has written, backing up all of his information. The book was written as a result of the research that he did for a doctoral dissertation.

Do you think this project of his in which he was awarded a D.Min. degree from Pensacola Theological Seminary is credible?! Perhaps others can chime in to air their views about the trustworthiness of PTS.

Perhaps I should wait for an apology, until you retract the slander you have posted.

I guess slander is your favorite new word.Be mindful how you use it.

Or should we require that you write an apology to Sorenson himself.

No,that won't be necessary.You have yet to establish that anything I said is false.

After all it is a public forum isn't it?

Yes,it is.You need to exercise caution before saying things you will regret.

 

[Rippon]

Here is what Doug Kutilek said in his conclusion about Sorenson's book:

If I had written and published a book that was so palpably false and filled to overflowing with gross error and misinformation,I would immediately issue public disclaimers renouncing my own book and do all in my power to recall and destroy as many copies as possible.

 

[Rippon]

Again,Sorenson said : "By the time he[Erasmus-Rip] died in 1536,he had virtually become Anabaptist in his theology."

Could one have been a virtual Anabaptist without any pope censuring him in his lifetime?

Could one who called Mary "my salvation","my refuge" or "Queen of Heaven and earth" be an Anabaptist?!

Could one be considered an Anabaptist with the following statement? :"Her [RCC-Rip]consent is so important to me that I would agree with the Arians and Pelagians if the church should approve of what they taught."

Could Sorenson be a non-KJVO guy if he has said "one stream of Bibles has always been associated with belief"?

 

[DHK]

Again,Sorenson said : "By the time he[Erasmus-Rip] died in 1536,he had virtually become Anabaptist in his theology."

Could one have been a virtual Anabaptist without any pope censuring him in his lifetime?

Could one who called Mary "my salvation","my refuge" or "Queen of Heaven and earth" be an Anabaptist?!

Could one be considered an Anabaptist with the following statement? :"Her [RCC-Rip]consent is so important to me that I would agree with the Arians and Pelagians if the church should approve of what they taught."

Could Sorenson be a non-KJVO guy if he has said "one stream of Bibles has always been associated with belief"?

First, How much of Catholic doctrine had Luther held on to by the time of his death?
But aside from that, It seems apparent, that in the course of his study of the Scriptures, that he had renounced Catholic doctrine by the time of his death. He had become an enemy of the Catholic church, not a friend. What evidence do you have that he was still holding on to these doctrines (such as Mary being the Queen of Heaven at the time of Heaven)

On another point, I (as well as many others on the board) take the position of King James Preferred. In no way do I consider myself KJVO, and would hate for anyone to slander me as such. We have KJVO churches in our area. We have little in common with them. The reason for that is that I am not a KJVO. They have broken fellowship with me, even though I believe that the KJV is preserved in the Majority Text, or in the TR. But I certainly don't believe that God inspired a translation (the KJV), and neither does Sorenson. To associate him with that camp is a grave injustice. Perhaps it shows that you do not have a grasp of the issues. Either that or you do like to slander people. You can choose which.

 

[DHK]

Here is one of the things I object to, Rippon. Perhaps you can be a bit objective here.
Those who believe in MV or in the Critical Text are going to slam Sorenson without even taking a good look at what he says. He obviously isn't KJVO. And he footnotes almost everything he says. But because some people associate him with a certain camp everything he says is thrown out.

Some people don't like David Cloud because he IS KJVO. But he has written an excellent encyclopedia. What he has written on the SDA's, for example, is very good information and well researched. There are hundreds of topics that are well-researched by him. But, nooooo. He is KJVO. Therefore everything he says is tainted, and thrown out the door. The position is totally unreasonable.

John MacArthur is not only a Calvinist but believes in Lordship Salvation, as has been espoused by some on the board. I certainly don't believe that, and frankly I think he is going off the deep end with it. But I do enjoy his commentaries, and wouldn't shy away from using them. Because he is wrong in one area doesn't mean he is wrong in everything.

When I debate with Charismatics, and quote from MacArthur's book: "Charismatic Chaos," I am criticized heavily--Macarthur, that extremist, who would believe him anyway. It is the same reaction that I get from you about Sorenson. Their opinion about MacArthur is about the same as you have about Sorenson. Why? They are in the opposing camp and don't like what he has to say. Thus everything that he says is like poison to them. This is human nature. If one thing is wrong, then everything is wrong.

FYR, I do read many Calvinistic authors. I just don't agree with you and your brand of it. I also realize that on this planet it is doubtful that no two men agree on absolutely everything.

You disagree with a person in essence. But that doesn't mean you have to disagree with every point of research the man has every done. That is an unreasonable position.

 

[Rippon]

First, How much of Catholic doctrine had Luther held on to by the time of his death?

It's hard to give a percentage.Certainly his doctrine of consubstaniation wasn't materially different from transubstaniation.There were vestiages that he clung to.But remember how much of a radical change he was responsible for in the first place.Be careful not to judge him by modern standards.And give him credit for many church practices which you may have taken for granted.

But aside from that, It seems apparent, that in the course of his study of the Scriptures, that he had renounced Catholic doctrine by the time of his death. He had become an enemy of the Catholic church, not a friend.

Are you switching here from Luther to Erasmus?If so,you're wrong.Erasmus was still a loyal son of the RCC.Sorenson was wrong.He's practically the only one who has come up with this stuff.(I'm not counting all the extreme Fundamentalists of the KJVO faction.)

On another point, I (as well as many others on the board) take the position of King James Preferred. In no way do I consider myself KJVO, and would hate for anyone to slander me as such. We have KJVO churches in our area. We have little in common with them. The reason for that is that I am not a KJVO. They have broken fellowship with me, even though I believe that the KJV is preserved in the Majority Text, or in the TR.

Well fine and dandy then.BTW,the Majority Text doesn't = the TR.

But I certainly don't believe that God inspired a translation (the KJV), and neither does Sorenson. To associate him with that camp is a grave injustice. Perhaps it shows that you do not have a grasp of the issues. Either that or you do like to slander people. You can choose which.

There are different degrees of KJVO.The various parties disagree on some particulars.

You had to bring up the "S" word again;didn't you?

When a man decides to associate with an institution such as PCC/PTS which is noted for its extreme King James Onlyism and has even castigated BJU for being liberal -- that man is asking for it.

 

[Rippon]

Here is one of the things I object to, Rippon. Perhaps you can be a bit objective here.
Those who believe in MV or in the Critical Text are going to slam Sorenson without even taking a good look at what he says. He obviously isn't KJVO. And he footnotes almost everything he says. But because some people associate him with a certain camp everything he says is thrown out.

No.I disagree with him on specific errors he espouses.Yet it is a bit of an eye-opener to note the kind of folks with which he runs.

Some people don't like David Cloud because he IS KJVO. But he has written an excellent encyclopedia. What he has written on the SDA's, for example, is very good information and well researched. There are hundreds of topics that are well-researched by him. But, nooooo. He is KJVO. Therefore everything he says is tainted, and thrown out the door. The position is totally unreasonable.

I disagree much of David Cloud's stuff especially his diatribes against Calvinism and his rants against modern versions of the Bible.

I agree with him regarding his stance on CCM.I have been to his site numerous times.I mainly look into his Calvinism-bashing and MV-bashing.I don't have much time to see all that he has written on a variety of topics.But he doesn't have a good track record.

John MacArthur is not only a Calvinist but believes in Lordship Salvation, as has been espoused by some on the board. I certainly don't believe that, and frankly I think he is going off the deep end with it. But I do enjoy his commentaries, and wouldn't shy away from using them. Because he is wrong in one area doesn't mean he is wrong in everything.

Comparing Cloud with MacArthur is doing a grave disservice to the latter.

When I debate with Charismatics, and quote from MacArthur's book: "Charismatic Chaos," I am criticized heavily--Macarthur, that extremist, who would believe him anyway. It is the same reaction that I get from you about Sorenson. Their opinion about MacArthur is about the same as you have about Sorenson. Why? They are in the opposing camp and don't like what he has to say. Thus everything that he says is like poison to them. This is human nature. If one thing is wrong, then everything is wrong.

It's not a matter of not liking what Sorenson has said -- it's the matter of a significant amount of falsehood in his book.So your last four sentences lead to a wrong conclusion -- you had a bad premise to start with.

FYR, I do read many Calvinistic authors. I just don't agree with you and your brand of it. I also realize that on this planet it is doubtful that no two men agree on absolutely everything.

Let's face it.You don't agree with any brand of Calvinism.

You disagree with a person in essence. But that doesn't mean you have to disagree with every point of research the man has every done. That is an unreasonable position.

I have dealt with this earlier for the most part.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think this thread has long ago lost focus. No need to start slamming individual writers for their errors. And 20 pages becomes unwieldly.

Closed until further notice. :tonofbricks: