THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

[Iconoclast]

HankD,

Hello Hank D,

I hear you Iconoclast. However it may not be that simple to just say "semi pelgians who say they are not" or any other of those statements. e.g. I deny that I am a calvinist but I am sure that some of my statements might be interpreted as calvinistic.
i.e. I have often quoted
Matthew 11: 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Sometimes it is "not that simple". Then again sometimes it is.

If I am speaking with you face to face and quote from the book of Nephi it is quite possible you might get a certain impression about who I am, and what I believe.
If I tell you Elohim lived on the planet Kolub you might become curious?

i.e. I have often quoted
Matthew 11: 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him
Which, to simply quote, could get one labeled as a calvinist.

For you to suggest this shows you are familiar with the verses and terminology of that label.
My belief is that every believer is a Calvinist. Some see it very clearly and do not mind the label.
Others believe in major portions of the teaching but have not come to a settled understanding and are working through the implications of the teaching.
Still others think if they believe in the 5 pts they have to sign up for everything taught by the reformers or Calvin himself.
The Baptists here who believe all 5 points show that is not requiredCautious

But each of the semantic details of the acrostic components of TULIP I would take issue with if each was expanded to correspond to The Institutes

.
this is not required...most have not read the Institutes.

I do admit to being a dispensationalist but have often qualified it by saying I am not a "cookie cutter" dispensationalist because some interpretations I just can't accept (e.g. the church is a parenthesis in God's plan of salvation, or - there is a gospel for the Jew another for the Gentile).

Most of us were taught that to begin with. All of us who were there and have moved out of that camp had the same struggle you are speaking of. It sounds like you have one foot out the door

IMO that is why it is dangerous to adopt labels without qualifications both for oneself and others (to keep them from a "rush to judgment").

I do not see it so drastically. In an attempt to avoid labels or having to defend any position...some will make the useless statement.....I am pan-millennial...lets just see what works out...and yet two threads later they present a premill viewRoflmao

 

[HankD]

Thanks for the response iconoclast.

I still try not to pass judgment (although sometimes we must RE: The Mormon doctrines you used as an example) and paste on the labels.

Also I will admit that a label often makes things easier to discuss with a brother/sister.

Yes, we used Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology as our Theology text.
But the parenthesis idea of the church stuck in my craw.

Fortunately our theology Prof allowed us to give answers such as "While Chafer calls the church a parenthesis in the plan of salvation, I personally see it as the end all and fulfillment of the revelation of God concerning the Abrahamic Covenant promise to the gentiles". Though I still do hold redeemed Israel and the Church distinct from one another.

HankD

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for the response iconoclast.

I still try not to pass judgment (although sometimes we must RE: The Mormon doctrines you used as an example) and paste on the labels.

Also I will admit that a label often makes things easier to discuss with a brother/sister.

Yes, we used Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology as our Theology text.
But the parenthesis idea of the church stuck in my craw.

Fortunately our theology Prof allowed us to give answers such as "While Chafer calls the church a parenthesis in the plan of salvation, I personally see it as the end all and fulfillment of the revelation of God concerning the Abrahamic Covenant promise to the gentiles". Though I still do hold redeemed Israel and the Church distinct from one another.

HankD

Hello HankD
Two follow ups.....if we believe there is now one new man In Christ. .....why would you maintain two different men...eph2?

Also......your view on Daniel 9.....is like a watershed issue....do you think it speaks of the Messiah or the antichrist....and if you do not believe in the parenthesis. ...how do you see it fulfilled in Jesus time.....the 70th week of years following the 69th?

 

[HankD]

Hello HankD
Two follow ups.....if we believe there is now one new man In Christ. .....why would you maintain two different men...eph2?

Also......your view on Daniel 9.....is like a watershed issue....do you think it speaks of the Messiah or the antichrist....and if you do not believe in the parenthesis. ...how do you see it fulfilled in Jesus time.....the 70th week of years following the 69th?

It is true that He brought down the wall of partition besides renting the veil into the holy place but in The Revelation we see in Revelation 21:12 - 14.both Israel (redeemed Israel) and the church (born again) represented.
They are distinct from each other but not separate as we have both been made to drink of the water of life Jesus Christ.