Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Eleanor]

Theology as a discipline is the study of God. Where else would we study God but from the scriptures, and where else would our doctrines come from but from this study of who God is? I don't know why it is you equate this distinction between theology and doctrine as not being sola scriptura? Theology does not claim itself to be the source of any divine truth. It claims the Bible as the source of all truth. That is its very starting point. It is how divine truth is ascertained or apprehended. Everyone is doing a form of theology in their mind with every word of scripture they read.

Your OP in your thread on doctrine and theology states that doctrine comes out of theology. That is backwards.
The doctrines of Scripture are the source of theology, as in the Scriptural doctrines of:

Salvation by faith alone.
Justification by faith alone.
Atoning death of Jesus Christ.
Obedience in sanctification.
Resurrection.
Rapture of the church.
Christ's return.
Final judgment.

 

[Eleanor]

That is your post so I am a bit confused. What is the error? And why does covenant theology need some work biblically? Statements like this, for me anyway, need to be clarified---made specific, in order for any sort of conversation to be possible.

Yes, that was in reference to post #375, which was in response to someone else.

 

[Eleanor]

Then what about those of the OT who are included in that great cloud of saints that surround us mentioned in Hebrews. They all died pre incarnate Christ?

The OT saints were forgiven in anticipation of the coming atonement (Ro 3:25).

Before the ransom was paid.
What is this aspect of faith that has always given eternal life that might be being missed?

You are unaware of what is meant in his concept of two ransoms.

 

[Arial]

Your OP in your thread on doctrine and theology states that doctrine comes out of theology. That is backwards.
The doctrines of Scripture are the source of theology, as in the Scriptural doctrines of:

Those doctrines in the epistles----and they are stated as doctrines of the church, its foundation and boundary----themselves are a product of the whole counsel of God. They are a revealing of the entire theology (God, who He is, what He says)that is in the OT but not yet fully revealed. They are revealed by Jesus in His incarnation and given as doctrine by Him to His church through the apostles. The God of the NT is the same God of the OT. When Paul encountered the diligence of the Berans in searching the scriptures to see if what was being taught were true, the scriptures they were searching was the OT.

IOW we can go to places in the OT to verify or understand everything that we have in the OT from what the NT says about it. The OT is constantly quoted and referred back to in the NT. The OT were the scriptures that they had. It was from the theology in the OT (God revealed; sola scriptura)that the doctrines of the church, given as doctrines, come.

If you do not want to see this, and as I see no harm in you not seeing it, there is no point to argueing the matter.

 

[Arial]

The OT saints were forgiven in anticipation of the coming atonement (Ro 3:25).

It is possible that "passed over" means He didn't punish their sins by extinction and total destruction of humanity, then and there as was certainly deserved, because true righteousness was coming. Redemption of mankind and creation iow. What it does not explicitly say is that their sins were forgiven.

And what you say does not explain how anticipation of the coming atonement equals the atonement applied to people before it occurs. It just kicks the can down the road.

 

[Eleanor]

Those doctrines in the epistles----and they are stated as doctrines of the church, its foundation and boundary----themselves are a product of the whole counsel of God. They are a revealing of the entire theology (God, who He is, what He says)that is in the OT but not yet fully revealed. They are revealed by Jesus in His incarnation and given as doctrine by Him to His church through the apostles. The God of the NT is the same God of the OT. When Paul encountered the diligence of the Berans in searching the scriptures to see if what was being taught were true, the scriptures they were searching was the OT.

IOW we can go to places in the OT to verify or understand everything that we have in the OT from what the NT says about it. The OT is constantly quoted and referred back to in the NT. The OT were the scriptures that they had. It was from the theology in the OT (God revealed; sola scriptura)that the doctrines of the church, given as doctrines, come.

If you do not want to see this, and as I see no harm in you not seeing it, there is no point to argueing the matter.

Scriptures does not present theology (systematized doctrine) as such.
Theology is a systemization by man of doctrine presented in Scripture.

The doctrines stated in the NT stand on their own revelation in the NT.
They do not originate in man's theology; e.g.,

Salvation by faith alone.
Justification by faith alone.
Atoning death of Jesus Christ.
Obedience in sanctification.
Resurrection.
Rapture of the church.
Christ's return.
Final judgment.

 

[Arial]

You are unaware of what is meant in his concept of two ransoms.

It is true that I have not had a chance to read all the posts, and will when I have time, I have some of his posts to respond to in another thread that I keep getting sidetracked from by new alerts, (will get to them @ReverendRV) are two ransoms ever actually mentioned?

 

[makesends]

It's not about you personally, you're a nice guy, it is about your Biblically uwarranted theology.
It seems that among some here, theology is the source of doctrine, that is backwards.
Theology is not the source of any divine truth, rather divine truth is the source of theology, for Christian theology is the systemization of Biblical truth.

Seems to me you are looking at "should be" as "is", here. Everybody has theology, from which they DO derive their doctrines, both of which are usually in error —at least to some degree, though there may be elements of truth.

Your last sentence above is in the first phrase exactly right, but the rest of it defines what Christian theology SHOULD be. As you demonstrate here, the first phrase is doctrine derived from truth, the second is moral and logical principle, the third mere definition of what should be. The closest any of it comes to divine truth, however, is whatever God has said, and here, at best, it seems to me, paraphrase and combination of Biblical principle.

I wish more people understood, that no matter how good a doctrine or theology, if they are not God's very words, they fall short. The creeds are humans trying to help humans think and understand. This is the weakness of preaching, by which God gets the Gospel across.

 

[Eleanor]

It is possible that "passed over" means He didn't punish their sins by extinction and total destruction of humanity, then and there as was certainly deserved, because true righteousness was coming. Redemption of mankind and creation iow. What it does not explicitly say is that their sins were forgiven.

Agreed.

Rather they were covered by the atoning animal sacrifices until they were actually remitted.

And what you say does not explain how anticipation of the coming atonement equals the atonement applied to people before it occurs. It just kicks the can down the road.

Agreed.

The animal sacrifices covered sin (Heb 10:4, Ro 4:7) until it was remitted by atonement on the cross.

 

[Josheb]

Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

I prefer "monergist," as opposed to Calvinist. Calvin wrote some things with which I disagree. Soteriologically, he believed baptism was salvific. I do not. Most Cals don't, either. It was likely a holdover from His Roman Catholicism. Calvinism has evolved and some matters are not decided. You all may recall a thread I posted in CARM on the diversity within Calvinism to evidence that fact. Remember: it was Luther, not Calvin, who started the Reformation, and it was Luther who first gave us the solas (to be accurate he was working from seeds planted a few centuries earlier by folks like Claudius of Turin in the 9th century and Wycliffe in the 14th), not Calvin. The Westminster Confession was written until Calvin had been dead 100 years, and it was originally an Anglican document (although I doubt it would exist were it not for John Knox).

The one thing on which we "Calvinists" all agree is that God alone saves, and He does so for reasons and purposes of His own by His own work(s) and does not in any way regard anything of the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh to be of any import, relevance, or means of His salvation. This is usually couched specifically in context to regeneration, which Cals/monergists believe is accomplished solely by the Holy Spirit prior to and as a means of salvation. Regeneration is not collaborative, or synergistic. If I may borrow a line from The White Horse Inn (I think Kim Riddlebarger said), the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved. Salvation is monergistic, not synergistic.


I am monergist.

 

[ReverendRV]

It is true that I have not had a chance to read all the posts, and will when I have time, I have some of his posts to respond to in another thread that I keep getting sidetracked from by new alerts, (will get to them @ReverendRV) are two ransoms ever actually mentioned?

I don't teach two Ransoms, though people hear it that way...

 

[Eleanor]

Seems to me you are looking at "should be" as "is", here.

Well, theology in orthodoxy is presented as divine truth, right?

Covenant theology is presented as divine truth, but it has problems when it is measured against Scripture.

What am I messing up here?

Everybody has theology, from which they DO derive their doctrines, both of which are usually in error —at least to some degree, though there may be elements of truth.

Your last sentence above is in the first phrase exactly right, but the rest of it defines what Christian theology SHOULD be. As you demonstrate here, the first phrase is doctrine derived from truth, the second is moral and logical principle, the third mere definition of what should be. The closest any of it comes to divine truth, however, is whatever God has said, and here, at best, it seems to me, paraphrase and combination of Biblical principle.

I wish more people understood, that no matter how good a doctrine or theology, if they are not God's very words, they fall short. The creeds are humans trying to help humans think and understand. This is the weakness of preaching, by which God gets the Gospel across.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't teach two Ransoms, though people hear it that way...

You present a ransom other than the only ransom presented in the NT.

 

[Arial]

It's her Post, but it is a comment about my Post...

I think she wants to talk to me; but I'm just Lurking...

I know it was to you. It made a reference to me without mentioning my name and I butted it. I will butt out.

 

[Josheb]

One more thing: most of the time this sort of inquiry is intended to address or explore soteriology BUT there is an intrinsic relationship between soteriology and eschatology. I mention this because I suspect very few of us monergists/Lutherans/Calvinists agree with Calvin's eschatology (or Luther's). Eschatology wasn't a particularly prominent doctrine until the 1800s when the Dispensationalists turned it into a preeminent doctrine. Calvin appears to have Idealist tendencies, and most of the Reformers consider the Pope the antichrist. Despite their view the Pope was the antichrist, they did not expect the end in their lifetime (beyond the principle of imminence, that is). Soteriologically, many of us may be Cals, but eschatologically, most are not Cals. Try finding a congregation that hermeneutically teaches partial-preterism and officially asserts postmillennialism in its articles of faith. Even among Presbyterian congregations it's comparatively rare.

Calvinism is not monolithic. Monergism covers the outlying terrain .

 

[Josheb]

Other. . .I'm a Paulist.

And who informs your Paulism? Vos? Sanders? Wright? Fredriksen?

 

[ReverendRV]

I know it was to you. It made a reference to me without mentioning my name and I butted it. I will butt out.

I encourage Posting as much, or as little; as you want...

 

[Eleanor]

And who informs your Paulism? Vos? Sanders? Wright? Fredriksen?

Paul, understood in the context of all Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

The "doctrine" of dual ransoms by Christ does not measure up.

Seems to me. . .WOW!

Monkeying with the divine atonement ranks right up there for me with monkeying with the divine Trinity.

 

[makesends]

I suspect the source of the error above (post #375) is covenant theology, which needs some work Biblically.

Some Reformed I have spoken with admit to vehemence in the matter, mostly in proving a better view than, for example, dispensationalism. They don't consider Covenant Theology to be "God's own truth", generally —or so I think. For some, it is not a hill to die on.

To me, it is only a point of view, a way to see things, and not itself the truth.