Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Arial]

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

That is what I figured and why I worded the question the way I did, having not read all your posts here for myself.

 

[ReverendRV]

That is what I figured and why I worded the question the way I did, having not read all your posts here for myself.

I just defend Calvinism in a way Calvinists aren't used to...

A Calvinist will say, 2+2=4...
I say, 1+2+1=4...

And they will say, "What in the world are you talking about Heritic?!"

 

[makesends]

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?

Maybe Covenant Theology is presented as if it is Divine Truth, but to my mind, as with all Theology, it cannot be that unless it is the very words of God. I have never considered anyone's theology, formal or otherwise, to be itself Divine Truth, but only a human attempt to reconcile man's thinking with fact —in our case, with Scripture. Hence, part of my distaste for the RCC and others who consider some humans above others, and the 'church' to be an authority over conscience.

 

[Arial]

I just defend Calvinism in a way Calvinists aren't used to...

A Calvinist will say, 2+2=4...
I say, 1+2+1=4...

And they will say, "What in the world are you talking about Heritic?!"

People! Right? It is truly amazing God puts up with us. What manner of love is that!?

 

[Eleanor]

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

It made no intentional reference to you.

 

[makesends]

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.

I love @Eleanor and am impressed with her ability to hold many 'subset' thoughts in mind, to deal with and argue before expressing a conclusion. Sometimes, though, like with any of us, her plans are derailed or distracted. The point of the op wanders about in search of a listening voice.

So I realize that (like all of us) some of her statements are within a larger context. I too have posted a short answer as the entire post that I assumed would be taken rhetorically, without the need for a disclaimer on my part.

 

[ReverendRV]

People! Right? It is truly amazing God puts up with us. What manner of love is that!?

You ought to hear what they say when I say, (-1)+5=4

They say, "Get behind me Satan!"

 

[Eleanor]

I love @Eleanor and am impressed with her ability to hold many 'subset' thoughts in mind, to deal with and argue before expressing a conclusion. Sometimes, though, like with any of us, her plans are derailed or distracted. The point of the op wanders about in search of a listening voice.

So I realize that (like all of us) some of her statements are within a larger context. I too have posted a short answer as the entire post that I assumed would be taken rhetorically, without the need for a disclaimer on my part.

Gotta' run. . .will return shortly.

 

[Deleted member 5]

You ought to hear what they say when I say, (-1)+5=4

They say, "Get behind me satan!"

Thou dost protest too much.

 

[makesends]

Gotta' run. . .will return shortly.

Me too. Thanks for afflicting my conscience about it. ...Again.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Maybe Covenant Theology is presented as if it is Divine Truth, but to my mind, as with all Theology, it cannot be that unless it is the very words of God.

What about exegetical, expositional teaching/preaching? God endorses the method, does He not?

I have never considered anyone's theology, formal or otherwise, to be itself Divine Truth, but only a human attempt to reconcile man's thinking with fact —in our case, with Scripture.

If a person is trying to "in a human attempt" reconcile their thinking with Scripture apparently they have the cart before the horse. Or, at the least, your example comes across that way. I believe prayer, illumination of the Spirit, exegesis, hermeneutics &c are invaluable in conveying divine truth to others from Scripture. This is why we preach, to give the sense of the passage. Nehemiah 8:8 is one example of what I am speaking of. Luke 24:45 is also important. We can see Peter "giving the sense" of the Scriptures in Acts 2 &c.

I believe we should be careful in mitigating preaching, teaching, or conveying to others what the Scriptures mean. We need more than what they say, many know what they say. We need what they mean, and that comes through study, and those studies, exegeting, preaching, teachings end in conveying Divine Truth to others. Ephesians 4:11ff express this important truth.

Brian McClaren and Rob Bell have gone down a road concluding we cannot know what Scripture means. I recall the former ridiculing a preacher on radio to his wife by poking fun at him for coming across as if he knew what Scripture meant. The ironic thing is McClaren goes on to teach others what Scripture means (and I do not endorse anything he says.)

Hence, part of my distaste for the RCC and others who consider some humans above others, and the 'church' to be an authority over conscience.

Yes, in that sense, I get your point. Other than that I am trying to draw out more nuances on this subject. Some lurkers may get the idea we are undermining the method God has granted to convey His truths via the preaching of the Gospel.

 

[ReverendRV]

What about exegetical, expositional teaching/preaching? God endorses the method, does He not?

If a person is trying to "in a human attempt" reconcile their thinking with Scripture apparently they have the cart before the horse. Or, at the least, your example comes across that way. I believe prayer, illumination of the Spirit, exegesis, hermeneutics &c are invaluable in conveying divine truth to others from Scripture. This is why we preach, to give the sense of the passage. Nehemiah 8:8 is one example of what I am speaking of. Luke 24:45 is also important. We can see Peter "giving the sense" of the Scriptures in Acts 2 &c.

I believe we should be careful in mitigating preaching, teaching, or conveying to others what the Scriptures mean. We need more than what they say, many know what they say. We need what they mean, and that comes through study, and those studies, exegeting, preaching, teachings end in conveying Divine Truth to others.

Brian McClaren an Rob Bell have gone down a road concluding we cannot know what Scripture means. I recall the former ridiculing a preacher on radio to his wife by poking fun for coming across as if he knew what Scripture meant. The ironic thing is McClaren goes on to teach others what Scripture means (and I do not endorese anything he says.)

Yes, in that sense, I get your point. Other than that I am trying to draw out more nuances on this subject. Some lurkers may get the idea we are undermining the method God has granted to convey His truths via the preaching of the Gospel.

I learned something important in Marriage Counseling; IE "Talking in Absolutes"...

"You NEVER take out the trash!", or "You ALWAYS leave the seat up!"...

Never allowing for a Biblical Systematic Theology, is the Absolute of Solo Scriptura...

My avoiding some Posters, is like a husband with no car; staying in the Garage all the time...

 

[Deleted member 5]

I learned something important in Marriage Counseling; IE "Talking in Absolutes"...

"You NEVER take out the trash!", or "You ALWAYS leave the seat up!"...

Never allowing for a Biblical Systematic Theology, is the Absolute of Solo Scriptura...

I love the sound effect in the middle of the night when I left the seat up!

The noise afterwards? Not so much.

I made the huge mistake of reading a portion of commentary in teaching, only to have a Solo Scripturist who thought he was Sola give me "what for" over it. It's funny how my personal expounding of it was ok, which is exactly the same methodology of the commentator, which was not OK.

People don't think deeply enough and make silly conclusions like the Solo guy above. There seems to be a bumper crop of buffoons since the leftist commies have been controlling schools and universities.

 

[Eleanor]

Maybe Covenant Theology is presented as if it is Divine Truth, but to my mind, as with all Theology, it cannot be that unless it is the very words of God. I have never considered anyone's theology, formal or otherwise, to be itself Divine Truth, but only a human attempt to reconcile man's thinking with fact —in our case, with Scripture. Hence, part of my distaste for the RCC and others who consider some humans above others, and the 'church' to be an authority over conscience.

Do the Eastern Orthodox churches not do the same?

I was using theology in the sense which they employ it.

 

[Eleanor]

You ought to hear what they say when I say, (-1)+5=4

They say, "Get behind me Satan!"

The problem being that may be allowable in theology, but it is not allowable in regard to Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

What about exegetical, expositional teaching/preaching? God endorses the method, does He not?

If a person is trying to "in a human attempt" reconcile their thinking with Scripture apparently they have the cart before the horse. Or, at the least, your example comes across that way. I believe prayer, illumination of the Spirit, exegesis, hermeneutics &c are invaluable in conveying divine truth to others from Scripture. This is why we preach, to give the sense of the passage. Nehemiah 8:8 is one example of what I am speaking of. Luke 24:45 is also important. We can see Peter "giving the sense" of the Scriptures in Acts 2 &c.

I believe we should be careful in mitigating preaching, teaching, or conveying to others what the Scriptures mean. We need more than what they say, many know what they say. We need what they mean, and that comes through study, and those studies, exegeting, preaching, teachings end in conveying Divine Truth to others. Ephesians 4:11ff express this important truth.

Brian McClaren and Rob Bell have gone down a road concluding we cannot know what Scripture means. I recall the former ridiculing a preacher on radio to his wife by poking fun at him for coming across as if he knew what Scripture meant. The ironic thing is McClaren goes on to teach others what Scripture means (and I do not endorse anything he says.)

Yes, in that sense, I get your point. Other than that I am trying to draw out more nuances on this subject. Some lurkers may get the idea we are undermining the method God has granted to convey His truths via the preaching of the Gospel.

Will not nuances on the subject be presented in Scripture in the context of all Scripture?

 

[Eleanor]

I learned something important in Marriage Counseling; IE "Talking in Absolutes"...

"You NEVER take out the trash!", or "You ALWAYS leave the seat up!"...

Never allowing for a Biblical Systematic Theology, is the Absolute of Solo Scriptura...

My avoiding some Posters, is like a husband with no car; staying in the Garage all the time...

If your concept of theology is that it legitimately goes beyond the bounds of Scripture, that is not and has never been my understanding of theology. It is simply to systemize what is in Scripture, never to add to Scripture.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Will not nuances on the subject be presented in Scripture in the context of all Scripture?

What's your opinion?

 

[Arial]

It made no intentional reference to you.

You made reference to a thread that I started and what I said in it. That is what drew me into a post that was to someone else. It was not a put down, an indictment, or an accusation. It was a statement.

 

[David1701]

And thanks for really wanting to know what I mean, instead of ridiculing me. I'm now able to speak to others who ridicule me, by speaking to them through you...

What I'm saying about Unconditional Election HAS to be true; Calvinists should like it...

I've heard of Muslims and pagan tribesmen who've been saved through dreams and visions that included the basic gospel.