Physical Kingdom Problems
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.Yes, the point is while many of the Reformers held to Covenental Theology, it is not the same or even a part of Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology centers on the Doctrines of Grace.
Dave it seems to me that you are very confused on just about every theological topic. You do not accurately portray Reformed Theology, you do not accurately portray Dispensational Theology. I don't know where you come up with your beliefs or your beliefs about other theological positions but really until you do some study and understand what you are talking about you should stop speaking so authoritatively because you come across as a "Know It All" but end up looking utterly foolish.
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.Yes, the point is while many of the Reformers held to Covenental Theology, it is not the same or even a part of Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology centers on the Doctrines of Grace.
Dave it seems to me that you are very confused on just about every theological topic. You do not accurately portray Reformed Theology, you do not accurately portray Dispensational Theology. I don't know where you come up with your beliefs or your beliefs about other theological positions but really until you do some study and understand what you are talking about you should stop speaking so authoritatively because you come across as a "Know It All" but end up looking utterly foolish.
Reformed, you are not Reformed in the least. You are a Dispensationalist borrowing from the Reformed just as the Baptists did.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.Yes, the point is while many of the Reformers held to Covenental Theology, it is not the same or even a part of Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology centers on the Doctrines of Grace.
Dave it seems to me that you are very confused on just about every theological topic. You do not accurately portray Reformed Theology, you do not accurately portray Dispensational Theology. I don't know where you come up with your beliefs or your beliefs about other theological positions but really until you do some study and understand what you are talking about you should stop speaking so authoritatively because you come across as a "Know It All" but end up looking utterly foolish.
Reformed, you are not Reformed in the least. You are a Dispensationalist borrowing from the Reformed just as the Baptists did.
You clearly don't know terms. Nobody can reason with you, I don't even know why you bother coming around here. You just want to say your stuff and not have an intelligent conversation.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.Yes, the point is while many of the Reformers held to Covenental Theology, it is not the same or even a part of Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology centers on the Doctrines of Grace.
Dave it seems to me that you are very confused on just about every theological topic. You do not accurately portray Reformed Theology, you do not accurately portray Dispensational Theology. I don't know where you come up with your beliefs or your beliefs about other theological positions but really until you do some study and understand what you are talking about you should stop speaking so authoritatively because you come across as a "Know It All" but end up looking utterly foolish.
Reformed, you are not Reformed in the least. You are a Dispensationalist borrowing from the Reformed just as the Baptists did.
You clearly don't know terms. Nobody can reason with you, I don't even know why you bother coming around here. You just want to say your stuff and not have an intelligent conversation.
You believe nothing like the Reformed Creeds. You might borrow a thing or two from them but it is scant.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
Information to aid a healthy conversation. Here is a snapshot of Reformed Theology contrasted with Covenant Theology (a.k.a Federal Theology) as mentioned above. Since we're going off topic, let's be informed. CM
Reformed theology focuses foundationally on God’s glory and often emphasizes divine sovereignty as a crucial beginning point for theological reflection. In the development of Reformed theology, especially in John Calvin (1509-1564), the idea of the covenant of grace played a prominent role. Vos states: " The German Reformed tradition saved the old Protestant truth from the hands of deteriorated Lutheranism. Thus, the doctrine of the covenant is sup posed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Or rather . . . Melanchton, not Calvin, would be the one who took the lead." (See Vos).
The Covenant of Works is that which God made with Adam as the representative of the whole human race before the Fall. The doctrine of the covenant of works was more extensively unfolded in the classic Reformed theology of the 17th century. The elements of this covenant are:
- (1) Two contracting parties— the triune God and Adam.
- (2) The promise — life in the highest sense.
- (3) The condition— absolute obedience.
- (4) The penalty— death.
Biblical support is to be found in Rom 5:12-21; 9:4; Hos 6:7; Gen 2:17; Gal 4:24.
The Reformed theology sees "man not as being placed in eternal bliss from the beginning, but as being placed in such a way that he might attain to eternal bliss ...He has to develop the divinely given good that lies within him... the meaning of obtaining it is the covenant of works... "The covenant of works," for the Reformed theology...is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man" (See Vos. 243-244).
In sum, Reformed theology attempted to establish the doctrine of the covenant of works in the first relationship between the Creator and the creature and regarded the Mosaic covenant as a repetition, in some sense, of the features of the first covenant of works.
SOURCES:
-- Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980., 235
-- Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941., pp 211-217; 298
..................................... VS ..............................
Covenant Theology is sometimes called Federal Theology. This system describes the relationship between God and man in form of covenants. It appeared in the writings of Zwingli, Bullinger, Olevianus, and Calvin and played a dominant role in Reformed theology of the seven teenth century, especially among the Puritans. Johannes Coccejus (1603-1669) [not the inventor of covenant theology], but is regarded as "the most eminent theologian of federal theology" (See McCoy).
Covenant theology was the predominant type of theology underlying most of seventeenth-century Puritan and congregational theology. It sees "_the relation of God to mankind as a compact which God established as a reflection of the relationship existing between the three persons of the Holy Trinity_."
Osterhaven explains three essential covenants— the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace— in covenant theology. Charles Fred Lincoln considers the covenant theory of the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works before Adam's fall is an assumed theological principle, not an exposition of distinct portions of Scripture, in his article. Its origin can be traced back to the Reformation era. Regarding a historical survey of the covenant idea, see Vos above.
The concept of covenant theology as an undeveloped form appeared in the writings of Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) and Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). It should be noted that Zwingli concept of the covenant was not prominent because of his defense for infant baptism.
I hope all will be able to share with better understanding. CM
SOURCES:
-- S.J. Grenz, D. Gurentzki & C.F. Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, ILL: InterVarsity Press, 1999: 101.
-- Charles S. McCoy, "Johannes Cocceius: Federal Theologian," SJT 16 (1963): 352.
-- M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Covenant Theology," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 279.
-- Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Biblical Covenants." Biblio theca Sacra 100 (April-June 1943): 309-323; (July- September 1943): 442-449; (October-December 1943): 565-573.
-- J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger, and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), xxv.Yes, the point is while many of the Reformers held to Covenental Theology, it is not the same or even a part of Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology centers on the Doctrines of Grace.
Dave it seems to me that you are very confused on just about every theological topic. You do not accurately portray Reformed Theology, you do not accurately portray Dispensational Theology. I don't know where you come up with your beliefs or your beliefs about other theological positions but really until you do some study and understand what you are talking about you should stop speaking so authoritatively because you come across as a "Know It All" but end up looking utterly foolish.
Reformed, you are not Reformed in the least. You are a Dispensationalist borrowing from the Reformed just as the Baptists did.
You clearly don't know terms. Nobody can reason with you, I don't even know why you bother coming around here. You just want to say your stuff and not have an intelligent conversation.
You believe nothing like the Reformed Creeds. You might borrow a thing or two from them but it is scant.
Name one
-
How about the three forms of unity for starters.
-
@Dave_L said:
How about the three forms of unity for starters.I said name one.
-
Any Reformed folk know about these.
-
Yes, and they also know those are three separate creeds and confessions, not one. Apparently you didn't.
-
Three forms of unity = three creeds you had to google.
-
I asked you for one creed, you then listed something that isn't even actually a creed but is a reference to three. Then you falsely assume that I did not know those were three creeds and had to google it. How do you know I didn't know that information already? That is absurd Dave. Still waiting to know which of the three you would like to tackle first and show me something outside of Infant Baptism, which is found nowhere in Scripture, and the 1,000 year reign, that I disagree with on the creeds. Since, as you said, I only adhere to a thing or two from each.
-
??? unpack. CM
-
@Dave_L said:
If you familiarize yourself with any Lutheran, Reformed, or English Baptist view of Amillennialism, you will read the same works I read.Dave, please could you list (or quote) at three resources that specifically address Romans 11:28 with the interpretation that you hold to.
-
There's nothing to unpack, he doesn't know what he is talking about.
-
"Ya cain't unpack an empty mule" --Confucious (Just kidding! Confucious didn't say that. Hope Bill doesn't think that is a lie). You know, we have a lot of cool people on here. You gotta love 'em.
-
@Dave_L said:
How about the three forms of unity for starters.Sucessfully derailed this threat to entirely different topic(s) ...
-
Unfortunately, it's happening elsewhere as we speak (type) with little regards, even with a gentle reminder. One is subject to be called a forum "mother" to continue one's lack of community (forum) cooperation. Disappointed.
CM -
The Reformed position (Amillennial) supports this thread. I didn't grab it out of thin air.
-
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.
I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so. -
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
Then why the $20 per hour comment? If your goal is to truly share what God has blessed you with then share it. Don't keep dodging and deflecting or completely changing the topic. People are wanting to learn from you but you need to actually give them what they ask for so that they can.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
Then why the $20 per hour comment? If your goal is to truly share what God has blessed you with then share it. Don't keep dodging and deflecting or completely changing the topic. People are wanting to learn from you but you need to actually give them what they ask for so that they can.
I provided the source and the topic for personal study. The Reformed view of the Church and Israel supports all that I say as the OP of this thread.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
Then why the $20 per hour comment? If your goal is to truly share what God has blessed you with then share it. Don't keep dodging and deflecting or completely changing the topic. People are wanting to learn from you but you need to actually give them what they ask for so that they can.
I provided the source and the topic for personal study. The Reformed view of the Church and Israel supports all that I say as the OP of this thread.
See, that contradicts what you said about wanting to share. You don't really because you don't share. THey have asked you for a specific resource and a specific quote. You just keep giving generalities. This site is not for pointing people to personal study. That will be a result, but this site is for discussion, that means you bring the study here. You give the resources, you give the quotes, you make your case.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
Then why the $20 per hour comment? If your goal is to truly share what God has blessed you with then share it. Don't keep dodging and deflecting or completely changing the topic. People are wanting to learn from you but you need to actually give them what they ask for so that they can.
I provided the source and the topic for personal study. The Reformed view of the Church and Israel supports all that I say as the OP of this thread.
See, that contradicts what you said about wanting to share. You don't really because you don't share. THey have asked you for a specific resource and a specific quote. You just keep giving generalities. This site is not for pointing people to personal study. That will be a result, but this site is for discussion, that means you bring the study here. You give the resources, you give the quotes, you make your case.
I think you will gain more if you look into the Reformed Creeds and read them for yourself. I can give you more of my blessings this way than if I do your work for you.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@Mitchell said:
Dave, could you please list the titles of (or quote) at three resources (Commentaries/Articles) that specifically comment on Romans 11:28 and illustrate clearly for a layman the interpretation that you hold to concerning Romans 11:28.I quoted few the resources I have in my library concerning Romans 11:28 on October the 20th See: link
And, you dismissed missed them with the following:
@Dave_L said:
These are interesting but the Reformed, and Dispensationalists depend on a skewed interpretation of the law and institutional religion. They shoot their own feet out from under them if they fully take Paul at his word.So, now please inform me of the better commentaries, articles, and exegesis on Romans 11:28 in your opinion. I ask only for the titles or quotes from of them that you accept and that clearly explain your position on Romans 11:28.
If, you do not have any that is okay, but please say so.
If, you do not want to share that is also okay but please say so.
If, your point of view is original to you that is also okay, but please say so.The Reformed Creeds teach that the Church is Israel. And those who reject Christ are not. So if you understand this, Romans 11 supports this.
He asked for a SPECIFIC title or a SPECIFIC quote. Why is it so hard for you to produce that?
$20 per hour?
Dave let me ask you this. What is your purpose for being a participant on this site? What are your goals? What do you want to get out of this?
I share what God has blessed me with. Nothing more. I also learn from those who develop articles.
Then why the $20 per hour comment? If your goal is to truly share what God has blessed you with then share it. Don't keep dodging and deflecting or completely changing the topic. People are wanting to learn from you but you need to actually give them what they ask for so that they can.
I provided the source and the topic for personal study. The Reformed view of the Church and Israel supports all that I say as the OP of this thread.
See, that contradicts what you said about wanting to share. You don't really because you don't share. THey have asked you for a specific resource and a specific quote. You just keep giving generalities. This site is not for pointing people to personal study. That will be a result, but this site is for discussion, that means you bring the study here. You give the resources, you give the quotes, you make your case.
I think you will gain more if you look into the Reformed Creeds and read them for yourself. I can give you more of my blessings this way than if I do your work for you.
That is your opinion and we have requested otherwise. If you are always just going to say go look for yourself, this probably isn't a good community for you.
-
Some folks are simply unable to have a proper conversation or discussion ... they live in their own world and act in their own world. Even though they engage with others not in their world, any discourse is totally one-sided and fruitless.
The same result as if I just wrote posts and answered others' posts in German ... not really caring whether others even spoke German and could understand what I write. Eh, it wouldn't be my fault that many of you do't speak German ! What's wrong with you and how come you do't speak German? Don't say I would have a problem, because I don't, since I do speak German ....
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)