Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[ReverendRV]

Chapter 1 states:
nature is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary for salvation,
scripture is necessary for knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary for salvation,
scripture is infallible truth,
mans salvation, faith and life is set down in Scripture, to which nothing is to be added,
in all controversies of religion the scriptures are to be appealed to,
the supreme Judge by which all doctrines of men are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, is only the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures.

I see you as in disagreement with the above from the WCF chapter 1.

In what way Sister?

Otherwise, it's just a claim; right?

 

[Eleanor]

Sola Scriptura is my Authority too Elanor...

Sola Scriptura is "only Scripture" is your authority, which excludes all that is not presented in Scripture.

Do you hold to Covenant Theology?

Is it presented in Scripture?

Do you believe in the existence of the Edenic Covenant?

Is it presented in Scripture?

I hold only to what is presented in Scripture; i.e, sola Scriptura, as does the WCF.

 

[Eleanor]

In what way Sister?
Otherwise, it's just a claim; right?

Do you not present doctrine which is not in Scripture?
Is that in keeping with Sola Scriptura, which is only Scripture; i. e., nothing else?

Did you see the blue text of post #80, which is the way in which you are in disagreement with the WCF?

 

[ReverendRV]

Sola Scriptura is "only Scripture" is your authority, which excludes all that is not presented in Scripture.

Is it presented in Scripture?

Is it presented in Scripture?

I hold only to what is presented in Scripture; i.e, sola Scriptura

I'm only asking if you believe Covenant Theology. The truth is, most Posters here believe Covenant Theology; and in Sola Scriptura. Those who are putting Likes on your Post, believe in Covenant Theology. If you're Reformed Sister, you most likely hold to Covenant Theology; right?

It's just a question, one I will answer; I hold to Covenant Theology. Sure; it's a leading question. One reason people won't answer a Leading Question, is because they know where they are being led. I plan to lead you, by getting you to agree that because you hold to Covenant Theology; Covenant Theology is Biblical and therefore supported by Sola Scriptura...

I don't Mind asking one more time. If you don't want to answer, that's fine; I don't twist arms...

You are my Sister in Christ. You wouldn't believe how many times I have to tell someone I meet who disagrees with me, that as time passes; they will like me a lot. Because they will see me say several good things about Calvinism they agree with...

 

[ReverendRV]

Do you not present doctrine which is not in Scripture?
Is that in keeping with Sola Scriptura, which is only Scripture; i. e., nothing else?

Did you see the blue text of post #80, which is the way in which you are in disagreement with the WCF?

I saw it. I just asked why what I said disagrees with Scripture. I know you think it does...

 

[Eleanor]

I'm only asking if you believe Covenant Theology. The truth is, most Posters here believe Covenant Theology, and Sola Scriptura. Those who are putting Likes on your Post, believe in Covenant Theology. If you're Reformed Sister, you most likely hold to Covenant Theology; right?

It's just a question, one I will answer; I hold to Covenant Theology. Sure; it's a leading question. One reason people won't answer a Leading Question, is because they know where they are being led. I plan to lead you, by getting you to agree that because you hold to Covenant Theology; Covenant Theology is Biblical and therefore supported by Sola Scriptura..
I don't Mind asking one more time. If you don't want to answer, that's fine; I don't twist arms...

In light of your Edenic Covenant, I need a statement of Covenant theology to answer your question.
At present, I do not believe in Covenant Theology.
However, if it is presented in Scripture, I will believe it.

You are my Sister in Christ. You wouldn't believe how many times I have to tell someone I meet who disagrees with me, that as time passes; they will like me a lot. Because they will see me say several good things about Calvinism they agree with...

I by no means dislike you, don't confuse my Biblical presentation with any disfavor.

 

[ReverendRV]

Actually, I need a statement of Covenant theology to answer your question.
However, I can state ahead of time, that if it is presented in Scripture, I believe it.

BRB

The Edenic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant are the one Covenant of Works; perhaps there were Ten Apples on the Tree if Knowledge to break. Jesus Kept the Edenic Covenant by keeping the Mosaic Covenant...

There are two Heads of the Covenant of Works; the Edenic and Mosaic Covenants, as seen in Romans 5. Adam is the Head of the Covenant of Works, and Jesus is the other Head of the Covenant of Works; only one Covenant of Works, with two Heads. A good example for this are the famous three rivers. There's the Allegheny, the Monongahela, and the two rivers meet to form the one Ohio River. Something similar happens with the Covenant of Works. Without the Allegheny meeting the Monongahela, there would be no Ohio; the Monongahela would be flowing where the Ohio River basin is. Therefore, without Christ Keeping the Mosaic Covenant of Works, the Edenic Covenant of Works would flow through the Sea of All Mankind. But since Jesus Kept the 'Limited to Israel' Covenant of Moses, and there's only one Covenant of Works; he Kept the Edenic Covenant too, and thus is the Second Adam of the Edenic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant had no Atonement in it; the first Commandment with a positive Promise, came in the Middle of the Mosaic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant only had a negative Promise; that Adam/Man SHALL die. As the Second Adam, he is the Propitiation for the World. As a Prophet like Moses, he is the Savior of Israel. As a Gentile can enter into the Covenant of Moses, anyone in the Edenic Covenant can enter into the New Covenant that Jesus ratified in the Heavenly Holy of Hollies with his Blood...

 

[Eleanor]

Covenant Theology teaches there are basically three Covenants; the Covenant of Redemption in Eternity made between the Godhead, the Covenant of Works God made with Adam then Israel, and the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace is revealed through the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant; and the New Covenant...

There are three basic types of covenants.
I would refer to the covenants of works (Adamic and Mosaic) as covenants of Law,"Thou shalt not."

And I would refer to the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants as types of the New Covenant of Grace.

 

[ReverendRV]

There are three basic types of covenants.
I would refer to the covenants of works as covenants of law,"Thou shalt not."

And I would refer to the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants as types of the New Covenant of Grace.

Amen...

So my point would be that Covenant Theology passes the test of Sola Scriptura. This means the existence of the Edenic Covenant passes Sola Scriptura too...

Therefore, Theology should be depended on as Truth. When a Biblical Truth is not literally iterated in a Verbatim Verse of Scripture, it is not eliminated from the Scope of Biblical truth...

Since the Edenic Covenant is True, does the Covenant of Works have two Federal Heads?

 

[Eleanor]

Amen...

So my point would be that Covenant Theology passes the test of Sola Scriptura.

Not necessarily. . .I'm sure there is more to covenant theology than, "there are basically three covenants. . ."
The devil is in the details.

This means the existence of the Edenic Covenant passes Sola Scriptura too...

I failed to realize that by Edenic Covenant you meant Ge 2:16-17, which I call the Adamic covenant.
I thought you had some other schemata in mind.

Therefore, Theology should be depended on as Truth.

Absolutely not. . .JW theology is not truth, Mormon theology is not truth.

When a Biblical Truth is not literally iterated in a Verbatim Verse of Scripture, it is not eliminated from the Scope of Biblical truth...

It doesn't have to be iterated, but it does have to be presented.
The Trinity is not iterated, but it is presented.

Since the Edenic Covenant is True, does the Covenant of Works have two Federal Heads?

I don't find federal heads in Scripture, I find two Adam's.

 

[ReverendRV]

I failed to realize that by Edenic Covenant you meant Ge 2:16-17, which I call the Adamic covenant.
I thought you had some other schemata in mind.

I forgot to say that Covenant Theology divides the Edenic Covenant from the Adamic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant is Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Covenant of Works. The Adamic Covenant is a Covenant of Grace; thou shall have a son, he will be bitten on the heel but he will crush the Serpents head. The Proto Evangelium. God covered Adam and Eve with skins of a Sacrifice; which probably was a Spotless Lamb...

 

[ReverendRV]

Absolutely not. . .JW theology is not truth, Mormon theology is not truth.

It doesn't have to be iterated, but it does have to be presented.
The Trinity is not iterated, but it is presented.

I don't find federal heads in Scripture, I find two Adam's.

Not all Theology Sister, just Biblical Theology is true. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your not trying hard enough. It will take you a while to trust that I am reasonable. For instance, it's taken time for you to accept that I'm being reasonable about Covenant Theology passing the test of Sola Scriptura. Jehovah's Witness theology doesn't pass the test of Sola Scriptura...

It's not just you. Every time I meet a Calvinist for the first time, they worry about me. Maybe we should take a break, and you can watch me for a while, to see me reasonably defend Calvinism...

 

[Eleanor]

I forgot to say that Covenant Theology divides the Edenic Covenant from the Adamic Covenant. The Edenic Covenant is Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; a Covenant of Works. The Adamic Covenant is a Covenant of Grace; thou shall have a son, he will be bitten on the heel but he will crush the Serpents head. The Proto Evangelium. God covered Adam and Eve with skins of a Sacrifice; which probably was a Spotless Lamb...

I don't see the proto-evangel as a covenant. I see it as a promise to Satan.

Not all Theology Sister, just Biblical Theology is true.

And dual ransoms by Christ is not Biblical.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your not trying hard enough. It will take you a while to trust that I am reasonable.

Are you presenting a straw man to explain irreconcilability with Scripture?
Reasonable is not the issue, contra-Scriptural is the issue; i.e., Jesus did not, as you assert, make dual ransoms.

For instance, it's taken time for you to accept that I'm being reasonable about Covenant Theology passing the test of Sola Scriptura. Jehovah's Witness theology doesn't pass the test of Sola Scriptura...

Covenant theology is not the issue, the issue is your dual ransoms by Christ.

Nor do I know covenant theology well enough to know if it is Scriptural.
Therefore, not knowing it, I don't know if you are, or are not, being reasonable about covenant theology passing the test of Sola Scriptura.

I understand the covenants: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas, David and New.
I just don't find that meaning of them in Scripture, as in: Adamic Covenant is the promise to Satan (Ge 3:15).
For starters, covenants and promises are not quite the same thing in the OT.

It's not just you. Every time I meet a Calvinist for the first time, they worry about me. Maybe we should take a break, and you can watch me for a while, to see me reasonably defend Calvinism...

Is this a strawman?

The issue is not "Calvinism," I'm a "Paulist." The issue is your dual ransoms by Christ.

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't see the proto-evangel as a covenant. I see it as a promise.

I understand the covenants: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Phinehas, David and New.
I'm just not sure of your meaning of them, as in Adamic Covenant.
I don't see the proto-evangel as a covenant. I see that as a promise.
Covenants and promises are not quite the same thing in the OT.

It has nothing to do with "Calvinism," I'm a "Paulist." At this point it has to do with Adamic Covenant.

Okay. I'm going to take a break

 

[Deleted member 6]

Asking where something like the Edenic Covenant is in Scripture, is to ask the wrong question; that question assumes "Solo" Scriptura, which infers you can't believe any Christian Truth that's not expressly iterated within the Bible. The Edenic Covenant is found in Sound Systematic Theology, and in Sound Covenant Theology. You believe many things that are not Verbatim Verses in the Bible; things such as the Hypostatic Union. Where is the Hypostatic Union in the Bible? That's the wrong question to ask. The best question to ask is, 'does this teaching have the Ring of Truth, while not violating the Bible Fundamentals?'...

The Hypostatic Union is a Creed; not a Verse...

John 1 shoots down your notion that the Hypostatic Union is a creed not a verse.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Who, or what, is "Jolt Cola"?

Me dating myself.

Jolt Cola - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Col 1:18,
And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Gal 3:28,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Col 2:19,
And not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

These are found in scripture. Headship. Although it's named headship in theology.

1 Cor 15
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised.14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we bore witness against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Okay, it just struck me. Jolt Cola must refer to an American brand of Coke and you're using a play on the word "High". My mind was in "Christian" mode (as it should be), so I wasn't expecting the kind of joke that I might hear at work...

You best get used to it with me. I vacillate between reverent too irreverent depending on the need and starch used.

On the flip side there used to be a "chart" that was rather fair on the different "levels" of Calvinism. I was, in truth, invariably lumped in the High Calvinist...lump.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Not to worry, he can't get any anyway, the company went bankrupt.

You underestimate my powers. It has merely changed form...for now.

 

[makesends]

Is God's word in Scripture your only authority for doctrine?
Must a doctrine be presented in Scripture to be God's truth?
Are God's people to believe doctrine that God does not present in Scripture?

Where do we find an Edenic Covenant in Scripture?
Where do we find Christ's Edenic Covenant in Scripture?

This is about heretics who were professing Christians, who in their heresy were actually denying the Lord they claimed to believe in; i.e., "the Lord who bought them."
It's not a statement of Jesus purchasing heretics.

God likeise ordained the slavery of Israel's captives in a just war (of defense) - Dt 20:10-11, 21:10-11, Nu 31:17-19, 25-28, 30, 46-47.

Exactly!