Should we put much stock in relatively NEW doctrine?

[Winman]

More

Irenaeus (AD120-202)
"This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honor,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honor, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do.

"But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it, — some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good. And therefore the prophets used to exhort men to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, as I have so largely demonstrated, because it is in our power so to do, and because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God has given us to know by means of the prophets. ... No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man’s power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. ... But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

"And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee; “ thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;” and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.” In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.”" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. IV, 37)

The above passage is immediately followed by Irenaeus' refutation of the Gnostic cults who "maintain the opposite to these conclusions."

"Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven. If then the advent of the Son comes indeed alike to all, but is for the purpose of judging, and separating the believing from the unbelieving, since, as those who believe do His will agreeably to their own choice, and as, [also] agreeably to their own choice, the disobedient do not consent to His doctrine; it is manifest that His Father has made all in a like condition, each person having a choice of his own, and a free understanding; and that He has regard to all things, and exercises a providence over all, "making His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sending rain upon the just and unjust."

"And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, "He that believeth in Me is not condemned," that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God;" that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. "For this is the condemnation, that light is come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. V, XXVII)

<>Tatian (AD110-172)
"Why are you fated to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we Ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it." (Tatian, Address to the Greeks, XI)

See next post

 

[Rippon]

However, exhaustive determinism was kicked around and many early church fathers address that mistaken view.

Such as...?

 

[Winman]

More

Tertullian (AD145-220)
"Moreover, man thus constituted will be protected by both the goodness of God and by His purpose, both of which are always found in concert in our God. For His purpose is no purpose without goodness; nor is His goodness without a purpose, except forsooth in the case of Marcion’s God, who is purposelessly good, as we have shown. Well, then, it was proper that God should be known; it was no doubt a good and reasonable thing. Proper also was it that there should be something worthy of knowing God. What could be found so worthy as the image and likeness of God? This also was undoubtedly good and reasonable. Therefore it was proper that (he who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself; so that this very thing — namely, freedom of will and self-command — might be reckoned as the image and likeness of God in him. For this purpose such an essence was adapted to man as suited this character, even the afflatus of the Deity, Himself free and uncontrolled. But if you will take some other view of the case, how came it to pass that man, when in possession of the whole world, did not above all things reign in self-possession — a master over others, a slave to himself? The goodness of God, then, you can learn from His gracious gift to man, and His purpose from His disposal of all things. At present, let God’s goodness alone occupy our attention, that which gave so large a gift to man, even the liberty of his will. God’s purpose claims some other opportunity of treatment, offering as it does instruction of like import. Now, God alone is good by nature. For He, who has that which is without beginning, has it not by creation, but by nature. Man, however, who exists entirely by creation, having a beginning, along with that beginning obtained the form in which he exists; and thus he is not by nature disposed to good, but by creation, not having it as his own attribute to be good, because, (as we have said,) it is not by nature, but by creation, that he is disposed to good, according to the appointment of his good Creator, even the Author of all good. In order, therefore, that man might have a goodness of his own, bestowed on him by God, and there might be henceforth in man a property, and in a certain sense a natural attribute of goodness, there was assigned to him in the constitution of his nature, as a formal witness of the goodness which God bestowed upon him, freedom and power of the will, such as should cause good to be performed spontaneously by man, as a property of his own, on the ground that no less than this would be required in the matter of a goodness which was to be voluntarily exercised by him, that is to say, by the liberty of his will, without either favor or servility to the constitution of his nature, so that man should be good just up to this point, if he should display his goodness in accordance with his natural constitution indeed, but still as the result of his will, as a property of his nature; and, by a similar exercise of volition, should show himself to be too strong in defense against evil also (for even this God, of course, foresaw), being free, and master of himself; because, if he were wanting in this prerogative of self-mastery, so as to perform even good by necessity and not will, he would, in the helplessness of his servitude, become subject to the usurpation of evil, a slave as much to evil as to good. Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon him in both tendencies; so that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by spontaneous observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous avoidance; because, were man even otherwise circumstanced, it was yet his bounden duty, in the judgment of God, to do justice according to the motions of his will regarded, of course, as free. But the reward neither of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to have been either good or evil through necessity and not choice. In this really lay the law which did not exclude, but rather prove, human liberty by a spontaneous rendering of obedience, or a spontaneous commission of iniquity; so patent was the liberty of man’s will for either issue. Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift to man of freedom in his will, it is not right, after ignoring the original definition of goodness and purpose which it was necessary to determine previous to any discussion of the subject, on subsequent facts to presume to say that God ought not in such a way to have formed man, because the issue was other than what was assumed to be proper for God. We ought rather, after duly considering that it behooved God so to create man, to leave this consideration unimpaired, and to survey the other aspects of the case. It is, no doubt, an easy process for persons who take offence at the fall of man, before they have looked into the facts of his creation, to impute the blame of what happened to the Creator, without any examination of His purpose. To conclude: the goodness of God, then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Bk. II, ch. vi)


"God put the question [to Adam - "where art thou"] with an appearance of uncertainty, in order that even here He might prove man to be the subject of a free will in the alternative of either a denial or a confession, and give to him the opportunity of freely acknowledging his transgression, and, so far, of lightening it. In like manner He inquires of Cain where his brother was, just as if He had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, in order that he too might have the opportunity from the same power of the will of spontaneously denying, and to this degree aggravating, his crime; and that thus there might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them: so that even then was initiated the evangelic doctrine, “By thy words thou shall be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Bk. II, xxv)

"That rich man did go his way who had not “received” the precept of dividing his substance to the needy, and was abandoned by the Lord to his own opinion. Nor will “harshness” be on this account imputed to Christ, the Found of the vicious action of each individual free-will. “Behold,” saith He, “I have set before thee good and evil.” Choose that which is good: if you cannot, because you will not — for that you can if you will He has shown, because He has proposed each to your free-will — you ought to depart from Him whose will you do not." (Tertullian, On Monogamy, XIV)

Clement of Alexandria (AD153-217)
"God, then, is good. And the Lord speaks many a time and oft before He proceeds to act. ... For the Divine Being is not angry in the way that some think; but often restrains, and always exhorts humanity, and shows what ought to be done. And this is a good device, to terrify lest we sin. “For the fear of the Lord drives away sins, and he that is without fear cannot be justified,” says the Scripture. And God does not inflict punishment from wrath, but for the ends of justice; since it is not expedient that justice should be neglected on our account. Each one of us, who sins, with his own free-will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame. “But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? God forbid.” ... It is clear, then, that those who are not at enmity with the truth, and do not hate the Word, will not hate their own salvation, but will escape the punishment of enmity. “The crown of wisdom,” then as the book of Wisdom says, “is the fear of the Lord.” Very clearly, therefore, by the prophet Amos has the Lord unfolded His method of dealing, saying, “I have overthrown you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah; and ye shall be as a brand plucked from the fire: and yet ye have not returned unto me, saith the LORD.” See how God, through His love of goodness, seeks repentance; and by means of the plan He pursues of threatening silently, shows His own love for man. “I will avert,” He says, “My face from them, and show what shall happen to them.” For where the face of the Lord looks, there is peace and rejoicing; but where it is averted, there is the introduction of evil. The Lord, accordingly, does not wish to look on evil things; for He is good. But on His looking away, evil arises spontaneously through human unbelief. “Behold, therefore,” says Paul, “the goodness and severity of God: on them that fell severity; but upon thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness,” that is, in faith in Christ." (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Bk. I, viii)

See next post

 

[Winman]

Last page

Origen (AD185-254)
"This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition; that it has a stuggle to maintain with the devil and his angels, and opposing influences, because they strive to burden it with sins; but if we live rightly and wisely, we should endeavor to shake ourselves free of a burden of that kind. From which it follows, also, that we understand ourselves not to be subject to necessity, so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are our own masters, some influences perhaps may impel us to sin, and others help us to salvation; we are not forced, however, by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly, which those persons think is the case who say that the courses and movements of the stars are the cause of human actions, not only of those which take place beyond the influence of the freedom of the will, but also of those which are placed within our own power." (Origen, De Principis, Preface)

"And for this reason we think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the salvation of all His creatures through the ineffable plan of His word and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force, against the liberty of his own will, to any other course than that to which the motives of his own mind led him (lest by so doing the power of exercising free-will should seem to be taken away, which certainly would produce a change in the nature of the being itself); and that the varying purposes of these would be suitably and usefully adapted to the harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and contest to those who are making progress, amongst whom their diligence would be deemed more worthy of approval, and the place of rank obtained after victory be held with greater certainty, which should be established by the difficulties of the contest." (Origen, Bk. II ch. I)

Hippolytus (AD170-236)
"But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil, that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently. Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages." (Hippolytus, Against all Heresies, Bk. X, ch. xxix)

Novatian (AD210-280)
"And lest, again, an unbounded freedom should fall into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree; but he was forewarned that evil would arise if perchance he should exercise his free will, in the contempt of the
law that was given. For, on the one hand, it had behooved him to be free, lest the image of God should, unfittingly be in bondage; and on the other, the law was to be added, so that an unbridled liberty might not break forth even to a contempt of the Giver. So that he might receive as a consequence both worthy rewards and a deserved punishment, having in his own power that which he might choose to do, by the tendency of his mind in either direction: whence, therefore, by envy, mortality comes back upon him; seeing that, although he might escape it by obedience, he rushes into it by hurrying to be God under the influence of perverse counsel." (Novatian, Trinity, ch. I)

Archelaus (AD277)
"This account also indicates that rational creatures have been entrusted with free-will, in virtue of which they also admit of conversions." ... "For all the creatures that God made, He made very good; and He gave to every individual the sense of free-will, in accordance with which standard He also instituted the law of judgment. To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift, as our will is constituted to choose either to sin or not to sin. ... The judges said: He has given demonstration enough of the origin of the devil. And as both sides admit that there will be a judgment, it is necessarily involved in that admission that every individual is shown to have free-will; and since this is brought clearly out, there can be no doubt that every individual, in the exercise of his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases." (Archelaus, The Acts of the Disputation)

Alexander of Alexandria (AD273-326)
"I will endeavor, with your assistance and favor, to examine carefully the position of those who are offended, and deny that we speak the truth, when we say that man is possessed of free-will, and prove that “They perish self-destroyed, By their own fault,” choosing the pleasant in preference to the expedient." (Alexander, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse VIII, ch. xii)

Lactantius (AD260-330)
"When, therefore, the number of men had begun to increase, God in His forethought, lest the devil, to whom from the beginning He had given power over the earth, should by his subtilty either corrupt or destroy men, as he had done at first, sent angels for the protection and improvement of the human race; and inasmuch as He had given these a free will, He enjoined them above all things not to defile themselves with contamination from the earth, and thus lose the dignity of their heavenly nature." (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Bk. II, ch. xv)

There seems to have been no exceptions among early Christian writers to the orthodox teaching that man has been granted by God a free will to choose his destiny, and that salvation is available to all. The opposing view, that man is controlled by fate, could only be found in the Greek philosophical schools, Gnosticism, and Eastern mysticism during the first 300 years of Christianity. It is no wonder that the man who introduced Greek fatalism into Christianity should come from a Gnostic and Neo-Platonic background. Augustine's theory differed from the Greek philosophers mainly by naming the CAUSE of fate — God's mysterious will which must not be questioned, and cannot be understood by mortals. The impact of Augustine's teaching probably would not have been nearly so great if Pelagius had not gone to the opposite extreme in renouncing Augustine.

While those of the Reformed persuasion are right to reject the Latin heresies of Rome, they have been lax to recognize the Greek heresies introduced before the Latin era, which are equally contrary to the truth of the Christian Faith "once for all delivered to the saints" by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. They seem to hold a higher opinion ofphilosophers, like Augustine, than of the Apostles themselves, and those to whom the Apostles entrusted the Apostolic tradition.

Source:

http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin12.html

 

[Van]

Such as...?

See the slew of posts by Winman, #140 - #144 excluding yours.

 

[Iconoclast]

so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it[/QUOTE]

sounds like a gospel of works....

Unless these men quote from scripture or back it up biblically...it is vain babbling.They are offering their personal philosophy , nothing from scripture that speaks to the issue.
Taken from another anti -cal site...what a surprise...who would have thought?

 

[Van]

so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it[/QUOTE]

sounds like a gospel of works....

Unless these men quote from scripture or back it up biblically...it is vain babbling.They are offering their personal philosophy , nothing from scripture that speaks to the issue.
Taken from another anti -cal site...what a surprise...who would have thought?

1) The claim that exhaustive determinism, or the absence of free will, was not addressed and refuted by the early church fathers using scripture is mistaken.

2) Calvinism sounds like a gospel of Greek and neo-Plato philosophy. Thus a corruption like salvation by works.

3) Romans 4:4-5, 24 speaks of God crediting or accepting our faith in Christ as righteousness. Doubtful God would see the compulsion of faith as righteous. Wait, does that mean Calvinism is a corruption.

4) We should put no stock in any doctrine invented by men, including the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination of foreseen individuals for salvation unconditionally. For example 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we were chosen conditionally through faith in the truth. Wait, does that mean Calvinism is a corruption?

5) 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches we were chosen after we had lived without mercy. How did we live without mercy before creation? Wait, does that mean Calvinism is a corruptioon? Or a looney toon?

6) Does being heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God mean individuals were chosen based on their love of God? Wait, does that mean Calvinism is a corruption? See James 2:5.

 

[webdog]

Isn't the perceived relative newness of doctrine the main reason most reformed reject dispensationalism and pretrib eschatology?

Hmmm....

 

[Reformed]

Isn't the perceived relative newness of doctrine the main reason most reformed reject dispensationalism and pretrib eschatology?

Hmmm....

Partly. If a new doctrinal teaching appears on the scene after 1950 years it should be greeted with intense skepticism. In the Reformed camp there has been two new teachings that have been under the cloud of skepticism: the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. They are not wrong because they are new, they are wrong because they are ubiblical.

I am fine with Reformed theology being attacked on it's merits, and specifically the Reformed view of predestination and election. I understand what Skan is trying to do. By framing the question the way he did he's trying to find new ground on which to debate. But that approach is doomed to failure for the very reason you cited. It undermines the validity of the
Arminian's eschatological system - dispensationalism.

In truth there is no more new ground to fight on. The lines have been clearly delineated. If the arguments are not understood by now they never will be.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Isn't the perceived relative newness of doctrine the main reason most reformed reject dispensationalism and pretrib eschatology?

Hmmm....

Nope...not for me anyway.

 

[Greektim]

Taken from another anti -cal site...what a surprise...who would have thought?

Just to even the odds, here is a slew of quotes from a Calvie site giving the exact opposite.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/armini...-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/

Here's a goodie

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly.”

 

[Winman]

Just to even the odds, here is a slew of quotes from a Calvie site giving the exact opposite.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/armini...-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/

Here's a goodie

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly.”

I noticed there are no footnotes for those quotes. When you try to look them up you find those are many various quotes spliced together so as to appear as a single statement. They do not necessarily reflect the author's true views.

Nice try though.

 

[Winman]

Gotta love this little statement;

These quotes are simply that – quotes taken out of context that teach the doctrines of grace.

This is what you call CYA. :laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

Partly. If a new doctrinal teaching appears on the scene after 1950 years it should be greeted with intense skepticism. In the Reformed camp there has been two new teachings that have been under the cloud of skepticism: the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. They are not wrong because they are new, they are wrong because they are ubiblical.

I am fine with Reformed theology being attacked on it's merits, and specifically the Reformed view of predestination and election. I understand what Skan is trying to do. By framing the question the way he did he's trying to find new ground on which to debate. But that approach is doomed to failure for the very reason you cited. It undermines the validity of the
Arminian's eschatological system - dispensationalism.

In truth there is no more new ground to fight on. The lines have been clearly delineated. If the arguments are not understood by now they never will be.

1. Well you have some very well informed and educated and respected theologian who would disagree with you. I guess they should have consulted you first before they dipped into the pool of NP. You obviously disagree, but does that mean YOU are correct? Nope.

2. Who is it that designated that dispensationalism is the Official eschatological position of all armininians?

 

[Greektim]

I noticed there are no footnotes for those quotes. When you try to look them up you find those are many various quotes spliced together so as to appear as a single statement. They do not necessarily reflect the author's true views.

Nice try though.

I didn't say it was a good source. I just wanted to even the odds. It was more of a joke.

 

[Reformed]

1. Well you have some very well informed and educated and respected theologian who would disagree with you. I guess they should have consulted you first before they dipped into the pool of NP. You obviously disagree, but does that mean YOU are correct? Nope.

2. Who is it that designated that dispensationalism is the Official eschatological position of all armininians?

The NPP has a small but fanatical following. It is found more among Presbyterians than Baptists, although it has lured many Baptists into its clutches. At its heart the NPP is a refutation of the doctrine of justification by faith. If you really need quotes from Sanders and Wright I will be more than happy to accommodate you.

The Federal Vision is a strictly Presbyterian position because one must be a paedobaptist to believe in it. Since this is a Baptist board I am fairly confident not many board members even know about it.

Am I correct? Yeah. I am. Both of these doctrines which are found in the Reformed camp are minority positions that are far outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

As far a Dispensationalism, are you really going to deny that it is the dominant eschatology among Arminians? Or if you need it to be drilled down a little finer, how about the dominant eschatology among Baptists?

 

[Luke2427]

Your whole argument is pathetic. Obviously, if language says God has dozens of eyeballs, that is figurative language. But there is absolutely no reason not to interpret 2 Chronicles 32:31 literally except that it disagrees with your concept of God.

No Winman. A literal interpretation of God "searching the hearts of men" contradicts what other Scriptures, like those we have shown you in this very thread, teach about God being omniscient.

THAT is how we know such passages are figurative. We compare Scripture WITH scripture. Something you DESPERATELY- I mean as much as anybody I have ever talked to- DESPERATELY need to learn to do.

 

[Iconoclast]

The NPP has a small but fanatical following. It is found more among Presbyterians than Baptists, although it has lured many Baptists into its clutches. At its heart the NPP is a refutation of the doctrine of justification by faith. If you really need quotes from Sanders and Wright I will be more than happy to accommodate you.

The Federal Vision is a strictly Presbyterian position because one must be a paedobaptist to believe in it. Since this is a Baptist board I am fairly confident not many board members even know about it.

Am I correct? Yeah. I am. Both of these doctrines which are found in the Reformed camp are minority positions that are far outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

As far a Dispensationalism, are you really going to deny that it is the dominant eschatology among Arminians? Or if you need it to be drilled down a little finer, how about the dominant eschatology among Baptists?

Yes...agreed. QF is fond of NT Wright:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

I wouldn't care if everybody here at BB disagrees with me,

:laugh:good thing...because they do not agree with you:laugh:

I don't have the ability to kill a thread.

Sure you do.Do not underestimate your self...you have done it many times.You are a serial TK.

You will not understand, but I believe God is omniscient. At the same time, I believe God learns. At the same time, I do not believe this is a contradiction.

?????

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As far a Dispensationalism, are you really going to deny that it is the dominant eschatology among Arminians? Or if you need it to be drilled down a little finer, how about the dominant eschatology among Baptists?

Of course not....how can he?!? :laugh:

Just as "Reformed " Baptists flock to CT.....but the newfangled (kinda) one is NCT. That is kinda nutty too. But there ya have it...Baptist liberty. :laugh: