Would Both Scofield/Ryrie Been Seen as Calvinist Bibles?

JesusFan · Nov 23, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

Jerome,

TULIP was a response to the Remonstrance, they were major area of contentions. However, they were not the sum of our beliefs, they were merely the areas of debate. Thus, when people relegate it to merely soteriology they are taking a specific debate and embracing certain debate points without embracing the entire system of theology. While we can have a disagreement on certain areas, I do not think you can consistently hold to certain theologies and to Calvinism.

I have mentioned the differences between Classical Dispensationalism and Calvinism on the issue of the Analogy of Faith. Another key is that Classical Dispensationalism believe that the Church is a parenthesis, but I contend that Calvinism must view the church as God's focal plan all along to fit within their theological system.

Thus, a classical dispensationalist must either compromise Calvinism or Dispensationalism.

To relegate Calvinism/Reformed theology to merely 5 points is an abuse to the Dordt, who only meant them to be major points of contention against one system.
Click to expand...

again, you taking the "presby" view of what calvinism entails, as you would buy into the entire package that it comes with, taking all aspects of it, while those of us who take the "Baptist" view would see DoG as way to outline Grace, but would be refusing all the rest of the "stuff" that would come with it!

A "strict" cal would not be even reformed Baptist, as would be taking covenant view of infant baptism!

Jerome · Nov 23, 2011

Come on JF, if someone had forsaken the Baptist church for Presbyterianism or Independency they wouldn't be posting in this Baptist-Only forum, now would they?

JesusFan · Nov 23, 2011

Jerome said: ↑

Come on JF, if someone had forsaken the Baptist church for Presbyterianism or Independency they wouldn't be posting in this Baptist-Only forum, now would they?
Click to expand...

NOT saying that he is not a baptist, just was disagreeing with the assertion that its either "accept ALL tenants " held by system of Calvinism, not just DoG, or take not of it!

glfredrick · Nov 23, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

Agreed, as one can hold to JUST DoG as regarding to Sotierology, and still hold to pre trib pre mil amil post mil etc as that would be refusing to accept the Coventant theology of the entire calvinism system!
Click to expand...

There is no Covenent theology of the entire calvinism system.

Calvinism is specific to soteriology. You are mistaking it for a worldview or something.

After all the debate, information shared, etc., that this error is still made is unconscionable. At least if you are going to argue the point, learn what it is...

Let's start with the ordo salutis:

Ordo salutis From Theopedia.com. (Freely redistributable under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.)

Ordo Salutis is Latin for “the order of salvation” which deals with the logical sequence of steps or stages involved in the salvation of a believer (e.g. election, foreknowledge, predestination, redemption, regeneration, justification, sanctification, glorification - see especially Romans 8:29–30). There is disagreement within the Church concerning this order, and about the causal connections between them. Discussion of the ordo salutis necessarily involves specific terms which are listed below with brief definitions:

Foreknowledge: God’s knowing (in this sense) prior to salvation those who would be saved. Predestination: God’s choosing before time all who would be saved.

Election: God’s choosing of all who would be saved. Regeneration: God’s renewing of one’s life (not physically - but as opposed to the spiritual death caused by sin).

Evangelism: The communication of the Gospel by which one can be saved.

Faith: Belief and trust in the message of the Gospel.

Conversion: One’s turning to God based on the Gospel.

Perseverance: One’s continued true belief - remaining in the state of salvation.

Repentance: One’s turning from sin to God.

Justification: God’s freeing of one from the penalty of sin - the pronouncement of “not guilty” on a sinner.

Sanctification: God’s separation of one from the lure of sin. Glorification: God’s final removal of all sin from the life and presence of one (in the eternal state).

The debate over “ordo salutis” is most keenly evident between the Reformed and Arminian systems. For the Reformed tradition the “ordo salutis” is: election / predestination, followed by evangelism, regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and glorification. For the Arminian view, the “ordo salutis” is: evangelism, followed by faith / election, repentance, regeneration, justification, perseverance, and glorification. These stages may have various distinctions that are not represented here, but serve to show the basic differences between the two systems. It should be noted that these need not be conceived as chronological steps - many of these stages are seen as distinctions within a single process that all (in one way or another) depend upon the work of God.

It is important to realize that the differences are much more than mere labels. One’s “ordo salutis” has as much to do with salvation stages as it does with the cause(s) of salvation itself. For example, the reformed position has faith as an effect of election rather than a cause of it (as the Arminians have it). Thus, there is a sense in which a person is saved in order to have faith. Where, then, should blame be laid if a person does not believe? The Arminian position has the believer responsible for whether or not God saves them, and thus a person must persevere to the end before they can be assured of salvation. What does this say about a believer’s security? These and many other questions are dependent upon the “ordo salutis” for their answers, and it is thus important that a believer understands from which perspective those answers are given.[1]

Footnote #1 =http://www.gotquestions.org/ordo-salutis.html
Click to expand...

(SEE NEXT)

glfredrick · Nov 23, 2011

And another article from the same source on the Order of God's Decrees:

Order of Gods Decrees From Theopedia.com. (Freely redistributable under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.)
Part of the series on the Sovereignty of God - Calvinism - TULIP - Arminianism - Molonism - Romans 9 - Predestination - Election - Providence of God

•Foreknowledge of God
•Decrees of God
•Order of God’s decrees

The order of God’s decrees, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is “…His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.” In discussing the order of decrees, we are referring to the logical relationship of the various aspects of God’s one eternal purpose regarding the creation, predestination and salvation of man. The primary interest in the decrees of God usually relates to the understanding of divine predestination or divine election and its place in God’s plan of redemption.

A discussion of the logical relation of divine decrees is valuable because it helps clarify and distinguish various theological positions regarding God’s plan of redemption. It is especially helpful in understanding the differences between Calvinism, Arminianism, and Pelagianism, as well as the variations thereof.

First, it should be emphasized that the decrees of God are understood as one single eternal intention; not an order of succession in His plan either in time or deliberation. As A. A. Hodge has stated, “The question as to the Order of Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sustained by the several parts of the system which He decrees to one another,” (Outlines, p. 230). In other words, it has to do with the logical relationship between creation, predestination, and redemption established by the eternal purpose of God?

The chart below presents five selected schemes and their respective differences regarding the order of decrees, (adapted from Plan, p. 23). The subsequent discussion will proceed from right to left, beginning with the Pelagian view.

The Order of Decrees
Supralapsarian
Infralapsarian
Amyraldian
Arminian
Semi-Pelagian
Pelagian

To create mankind To elect some to eternal life and the rest to eternal separation To permit the fall of man To permit the fall of man - physical and moral deterioration Gift of free will whereby each may do all that is required of him To permit the fall of man To elect some to eternal life, leaving the rest to their just deserts The atonement of Christ - where all men are made savable, with salvation conditioned on individual faith. The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for all men and all are given sufficient grace to believe, if they will The atonement of Christ - to make possible the gift of sufficient grace and give this grace to all Gift of the law and gospel to illuminate the way and persuade men to walk in it. The atonement of Christ - where satisfaction is made for the elect thus securing their redemption To elect some to receive moral ability and the necessary grace to believe To predestine to eternal life those whom He foresaw would believe of their own free will Salvation of all who freely cooperate with this grace Gift of Christ to (expiate past sin and) set a good example The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify the redeemed The gift of the Holy Spirit to sanctify believers Sanctification of all who cooperate with the sufficient grace Sanctification by cooperation with God’s grace Acceptance of all who walk in the right way.

Pelagian view
This view is basically a naturalistic view of salvation as opposed to a supernaturalistic view. The primary issue between the naturalist and the supernaturalist may be summed up in one question: Does man save himself or does God save him? In its purity, Pelagianism affirms that all the power exerted in saving man is native to man himself. It is basically a salvation by works mentality that continues to show up in various forms today.

Pelagianism denies that human nature has been corrupted by sin, and hence maintains that every infant comes into the world in the same condition as Adam before the Fall. Man thus has a free will and the ability to justify himself before God. St. Augustine was successful in having Pelagianism condemned by the church at the council of Ephesus in the year 431.

Semi-Pelagian view
Semi-Pelagianism is only a mild improvement over blatant Pelagianism. Like Pelagianism, it is a naturalistic view of salvation that has man saving himself with God’s help. According to this view, man is not by nature totally depraved, but does suffer a physical and moral deterioration resulting from the Fall. In this view, man has retained his natural free will and the ability to improve on the grace God has provided to all.

Like Pelagianism before it, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529 in favor of a moderate Augustinian view. Even though the sovereignty of God’s grace in salvation was upheld by Augustinianism to this point, compromises made at the Synod of Orange left an incipient semi-Pelagianism which was eventually revived and accepted by the church at large during the middle ages.

Arminian view
Biblical Christianity was revived in the 16th century Protestant Reformation. However, it didn’t take long after the Reformation for some of the same theological issues that Augustine faced to resurface, e.g. the sovereign grace of God versus the free will of man. This is not surprising since variations of free will Semi-Pelagianism had become the accepted position of both the Eastern and Roman churches.

At the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619, the Reformed churches of the day officially condemned what was perceived as the revived Semi-Pelagianism of the Dutch Remonstrants in favor of a strict Calvinistic position as expressed in the Belgic and Helvetic Confessions. Although officially rejected, this view continued to exist and grow in the Protestant churches under the name of Arminianism from Jacob Arminius, 1560–1609, whose teaching formed the basis of the Remonstrants’ position.

Arminianism sees itself as a fundamental improvement over the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian views in that it is supernaturalistic, attributing the primary work of salvation to God at all points. However, it maintains that by virtue of God’s universal prevenient grace all men have a free will and the ability to savingly respond to God. It also maintains that predestination is based on God’s divine foreknowledge, where foreknowledge is erroneously equated with foresight.

Arminianism is “universalistic” since in its view God does no more for any man than He does for all. This reduces to the point where the deciding factor in salvation is in man himself, which thus approaches Semi-Pelagianism where man saves himself with God’s help. Reformed theologians therefore see a rather gray line that distinguishes Arminianism from Semi-Pelagianism.

Amyraldian view
Amyraldism developed historically following the Synod of Dort as a compromise between Calvinism and the early Arminianism by giving up what was perceived as some of the harshness of Calvinism. The Amyraldian view, named after French Theologian Moses Amyraut, 1569–1664, is associated with Calvinism because it retains a particularistic element by acknowledging God’s distinguishing grace in the election of individuals.

The logic the of Amyraldians, however, places divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, “it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism,” (Plan, p. 98).

This view maintains that Christ died for all men alike, making all men savable, with actual salvation conditioned on individual faith. Then God, seeing that no one would respond because of their depravity, chose (or elected) some to receive the grace to believe. Some see this as inconsistent, for how is it possible to contend that God gave His Son to die for all men alike and equally, and at the same time to declare that when He gave His Son to die, He already fully intended that His death should not avail for all men equally, but only for some which He would select.

Looking now at the chart, the primary characteristic of the Amyraldian scheme is the placement of election after the atonement. However, opponents contend that Scripture indicates Christ came in order to execute the purpose of election. He came to die for and give eternal life to as many as the Father had given Him. See John 10:15 and 17:2, 9. If this point is true, then the decree to elect some of mankind should necessarily precede the decree to provide an atonement. The Amyraldian scheme assumes the reverse to be true.
Click to expand...

(SEE NEXT)

glfredrick · Nov 23, 2011

Infralapsarian view
This term comes from the Latin. Infra means ‘subsequent to’ or ‘below’ and lapsus means ‘fall’. This pertains to the placement of divine election in the order of decrees with respect to the Fall of man. In the case of Infralapsarianism, election is logically after the Fall.

Infralapsarianism recognizes that election has to do specifically with salvation. It maintains that the principle of particularism, in the sense of distinguishing grace, belongs to the sphere of God’s plan of redemption. Therefore, Infralapsarians place election at the head of those decrees that look to salvation and subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall. In the order of thought, election falls subsequent to the decrees of creation and the Fall because these refer to all men alike, since all men are certainly created and all men have certainly fallen. Likewise, election falls prior to the decrees of redemption and its application because it is just as certain that all men are not redeemed and all men are not saved.

The Infralapsarian view is that of historic Calvinism (the heart of Reformed Theology). According to Warfield, this is the only view that is self consistent and consistent with the facts of Scripture.

John Calvin said in the final edition of the his Institutes, “No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it in numerous petty objections. We indeed, place both doctrines in God, but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd.” Institutes III.21.5 (Translation Battles & McNeill)

Supralapsarian view
Supra basically means ‘prior to’ or ‘above’. Supralapsarianism thus puts God’s decree to elect some to eternal life prior to His decree to permit the Fall. This view is usually associated with High Calvinism and is sometimes improperly called Hyper-Calvinism. A variation of Supralapsarianism places the decree to elect prior even to the decree to create man. This view thus holds that God’s distinguishing grace is the primary means by which He brings glory to Himself, and therefore makes it His foremost concern.

The question raised between the Supra- and Infra-lapsarian views boils down to this: Does God discriminate between men in order to save some, or does He save some in order to discriminate between men? Or, as Warfield phrased it: “Is God’s motive an abstract desire for discrimination so that He may have some variety in His dealings with men?… Or, is the motive that moves Him an unwillingness that all men should perish in their sins?” (Plan, p.19).

While there have been logical arguments articulated for the Supra-views, opponents contend there is little scriptural support. They argue that the language of Scripture indicates the elect are chosen from a mass of fallen, sinful humanity, not an innocent (or uncreated) mass. Therefore, election should be viewed as logically subsequent to the Fall. See also John 15:19 and Romans 11:5–7. Scripture also declares that the elect are chosen unto sanctification and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded as guilty and defiled by sin when they were chosen. See 1 Pet. 1:2, and Eph. 1:4–6.

Summary
Calvinists give a predominate place to God’s predestination and election as applied to individual men. Consequently, the doctrine of unconditional election, which is typically seen as the trademark of Calvinism, shows up in the first three columns of the chart. Although the Amyraldian view is considered a hybrid, nevertheless it is considered a brand of Calvinism because it does hold to an “unconditional” election.

In looking at the chart as a whole and tracking the doctrine of unconditional election, it is noted that the placement of election finds it’s highest point in the first column with the Supralapsarian view, notably prior to the Fall of man. In the second column we have Infralapsarianism, representing a low or common Calvinist position, where election has moved down a level so that it now follows the decree to permit the Fall. As explained earlier, this seems to be the most biblical view. In the third column, Amyraldianism has moved election down another position so that it now comes after the decree to provide an atonement.

In the next column we see Arminianism, where God’s unconditional election has been replaced with a predestination where God chose unto salvation those whom He foresaw would believe of their own free will. Here the salvation of men is no longer dependent on God but dependent on man himself. God has done His part, now man must do his part by believing in Christ of his own free will. Arminianism is perhaps the most popular scheme in professing Christianity today.

The last two columns represent naturalistic views which were historic predecessors of Arminianism. Here we see no hint of divine election at all, rather we see God providing salvation to those who merit it through their own works. Once you leave Amyraldianism, which still has its own inherent weaknesses, you have God doing no more for any man than He does for all men. What this means is that nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it. According to these views, the determining factor in salvation is man himself, which is contrary to Calvinism and the Reformed tradition.
Click to expand...

No charge for the theology lesson. Test will be on Friday. :love2:

JesusFan · Nov 23, 2011

glfredrick said: ↑

There is no Covenent theology of the entire calvinism system.

Calvinism is specific to soteriology. You are mistaking it for a worldview or something.

After all the debate, information shared, etc., that this error is still made is unconscionable. At least if you are going to argue the point, learn what it is...

Let's start with the ordo salutis:

(SEE NEXT)
Click to expand...

i was the one that was argueing for calvinism being the 'stricter" view, of it just referring primarily to the DoG, of Sotierology proper...
Ruiz was bringing into the discussion idea that a "real cal" would be accepting all aspects/tenants of it, which I don't see any other aspects to it to believe in!

Ruiz · Nov 23, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

again, you taking the "presby" view of what calvinism entails, as you would buy into the entire package that it comes with, taking all aspects of it, while those of us who take the "Baptist" view would see DoG as way to outline Grace, but would be refusing all the rest of the "stuff" that would come with it!

A "strict" cal would not be even reformed Baptist, as would be taking covenant view of infant baptism!
Click to expand...

Jesus,

You make allegations without any supporting material; you do not even pretend to support your argument with any evidence. So, let me ask you this question, how is the Analogy of Faith distinctly Presbyterian? This is the issue I brought up, but you seem to believe it is Presbyterian and not Baptistic. I would like to know how this is Presbyterian. If you like, I can provide a number of Baptist theologians in history who uphold the Analogy of Faith.

Finally, as a person who holds to the viewpoint and having studied personally and by reading our writing, I suspect I know our belief much more than you. This has been a great part of my life and the well from which I drink. While there may be an intramural debate on these issues, the theologians I know support my viewpoint, both Baptist and other theologians.

Ruiz · Nov 23, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

i was the one that was argueing for calvinism being the 'stricter" view, of it just referring primarily to the DoG, of Sotierology proper...
Ruiz was bringing into the discussion idea that a "real cal" would be accepting all aspects/tenants of it, which I don't see any other aspects to it to believe in!
Click to expand...

I think this quote hits the nail on the head. Your misunderstanding of the system and lack of understanding of the entirety gives you a warped view of the system. I can reference several books for you to read so to understand that reformed theology is much more than 5 points of soteriology. Believe it or not, only since the 20th Century has TULIP been used as a measuring stick for those who are and are not Reformed. This recent occurrence has been condemned by a number of theologians who, while they agree with the five points, see them as inadequate.

If you don't see the system, you are not alone; however, you also don't completely understand the system.

JesusFan · Nov 23, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

I think this quote hits the nail on the head. Your misunderstanding of the system and lack of understanding of the entirety gives you a warped view of the system. I can reference several books for you to read so to understand that reformed theology is much more than 5 points of soteriology. Believe it or not, only since the 20th Century has TULIP been used as a measuring stick for those who are and are not Reformed. This recent occurrence has been condemned by a number of theologians who, while they agree with the five points, see them as inadequate.

If you don't see the system, you are not alone; however, you also don't completely understand the system.
Click to expand...

The 'system" though is about how /why/how God saves any of us, how the Bible addresses Sotierology...

ANYTHING else being considered would mean one is reformed cal, while I would be one who takes DoG as my "model" to explain salvation..No More, No less!

Ruiz · Nov 23, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

The 'system" though is about how /why/how God saves any of us, how the Bible addresses Sotierology...

ANYTHING else being considered would mean one is reformed cal, while I would be one who takes DoG as my "model" to explain salvation..No More, No less!
Click to expand...

The system is not about how and why God saves us. Would you deny that the 5 Solas of the Reformation are any less Reformed? While much of it deals with soteriology, a historic study shows the 5 Solas are much more than soteriology. As well, as noted before, the Analogy of Faith is not dealing directly with Soteriology, but it has been an acceptable and intrinsic part to understanding Calvinism since day 1.

JesusFan · Nov 25, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

The system is not about how and why God saves us. Would you deny that the 5 Solas of the Reformation are any less Reformed? While much of it deals with soteriology, a historic study shows the 5 Solas are much more than soteriology. As well, as noted before, the Analogy of Faith is not dealing directly with Soteriology, but it has been an acceptable and intrinsic part to understanding Calvinism since day 1.
Click to expand...

Still not understanding just WHY one would have to accept all the tenants of calvinism, as the DoG explains from the biblical model means/method God uses to save any of us, and aren't there those holding to that who are "Not reformed" as reagrding rest of their doctrinal beliefs!

Ruiz · Nov 25, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

Still not understanding just WHY one would have to accept all the tenants of calvinism, as the DoG explains from the biblical model means/method God uses to save any of us, and aren't there those holding to that who are "Not reformed" as reagrding rest of their doctrinal beliefs!
Click to expand...

I have given an example that differentiates between the dispensational and non-dispensational viewpoints as being the Analogy of Faith. Essentially, there are presuppositional beliefs to soteriology like the the Analogy of Faith, that is mandated to get to the Soteriological viewpoint.. The Five Solas of the Reformation are additional issues, specifically Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria. These help us get to the Soteriology, not the other way around. Another would be God's complete Sovereignty in all issues, without this presupposition you cannot have Reformed Theology. Classical Dispensationalists must necessarily deny this view as well. Thus, as I pointed out before, how can the cross have been both an accident and God be completely Sovereign? Those are contradictory.

Thus, if one holds to classical dispensationalism, they cannot hold to the analogy of Faith. The Analogy of Faith cannot be rejected and still hold to the Soteriological Structure, it is a presupposition.

JesusFan · Nov 25, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

I have given an example that differentiates between the dispensational and non-dispensational viewpoints as being the Analogy of Faith. Essentially, there are presuppositional beliefs to soteriology like the the Analogy of Faith, that is mandated to get to the Soteriological viewpoint.. The Five Solas of the Reformation are additional issues, specifically Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria. These help us get to the Soteriology, not the other way around. Another would be God's complete Sovereignty in all issues, without this presupposition you cannot have Reformed Theology. Classical Dispensationalists must necessarily deny this view as well. Thus, as I pointed out before, how can the cross have been both an accident and God be completely Sovereign? Those are contradictory.

Thus, if one holds to classical dispensationalism, they cannot hold to the analogy of Faith. The Analogy of Faith cannot be rejected and still hold to the Soteriological Structure, it is a presupposition.
Click to expand...

James Montgomery Boice did not hold to strictlly cal in all of His scriptual viewpoints did he? Did Dr Grudem/erickson?

Ruiz · Nov 25, 2011

JesusFan said: ↑

James Montgomery Boice did not hold to strictlly cal in all of His scriptual viewpoints did he? Did Dr Grudem/erickson?
Click to expand...

In the issues mentioned, Boice agreed to both the Analogy of Faith and God's Sovereignty as does Grudem. I am not familiar enough with Erickson to note that issue. There can be disagreements on some issues, but the main presuppositional issues must be maintained.

JesusFan · Nov 25, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

In the issues mentioned, Boice agreed to both the Analogy of Faith and God's Sovereignty as does Grudem. I am not familiar enough with Erickson to note that issue. There can be disagreements on some issues, but the main presuppositional issues must be maintained.
Click to expand...

Please reaffirm to me what you exactly mean when you use "analogy of faith/Gods sovereignty"?

Robert Snow · Nov 25, 2011

Ruiz said: ↑

No, they would not. They would be considered classically dispensational, scolfield much moreso. Few today hold to their views on Dispensationalism, the view is so modified that it barely resembles Scolfield's or Ryrie's view. Their theology was very short-lived and thus, even their brand of soteriology will be seen as mostly a cultural development of the 20th Century.
Click to expand...

I believe you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Both Scofield and Ryrie are two of the best! Of course, if someone is against Dispensationalism they have a right to be wrong!

Robert Snow · Nov 25, 2011

glfredrick said: ↑

I am with you on this. Very difficult to balance both classical dispensational doctrines with Calvinism...
Click to expand...

Another reason I despise Calvinism, at least the Calvinism I see espoused by people like Luke2427 or Pinoybaptist!

Rippon · Nov 25, 2011

Robert Snow said: ↑

Another reason I despise Calvinism, at least the Calvinism I see espoused by people like Luke2427 or Pinoybaptist!
Click to expand...

And how would you feel if someone would say the following:

"Another reason I despise semi-Pelagianism,at least the semi-Pelagianism I see espoused by people like Robert Snow,Winman and Van!"

Ruiz · Nov 25, 2011

Robert Snow said: ↑

I believe you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Both Scofield and Ryrie are two of the best! Of course, if someone is against Dispensationalism they have a right to be wrong!
Click to expand...

What don't I have a clue about? I didn't attack their character, rather I merely noted some facts about their system. So, tell me where I am wrong. Did not deny the Analogy of Faith? Did they not hold to a strong dispensational view? Where am I wrong?

Would Both Scofield/Ryrie Been Seen as Calvinist Bibles?

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

JesusFan Well-Known Member

glfredrick New Member

glfredrick New Member

glfredrick New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Robert Snow New Member

Robert Snow New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Ruiz New Member

Useful Searches

Would Both Scofield/Ryrie Been Seen as Calvinist Bibles?

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Jerome Well-Known Member Site Supporter

JesusFan Well-Known Member

glfredrick New Member

glfredrick New Member

glfredrick New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Ruiz New Member

JesusFan Well-Known Member

Robert Snow New Member

Robert Snow New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Ruiz New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter