What is God's theology?Calvinist/arminean

Everybody thinks the Bible is clear to themselves. But it proves to be less clear then we think as evidenced by are drastically different conclusions. Check out this board. Check out your disagreements with Daniel David. Are you reading the same clear Bible?

Refering to commentaries, or listening to understandings of those who have studied that languges more, etc, is simply adding more imput to your own understanding of the Bible. It is the same as listening to your Pastor exbound the Bible. I find it interesting when people feel that reading a commentary is listening to man and not God. Is listening to your pastor exbound the Bible, man and not God? Perhaps it is just because it is in written form. Well you best not take notes, lest your read them later and listen to man and not God

Finnally, I got to include with a qoute from a preacher of old, "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little
of what he has revealed to others."

 

Pete, no, not everybody thinks the Bible is clear to themselves. You can look at this board or any other board on the net or any church anywhere and see evidence of that.

The second point is, most people have not read the Bible cover to cover. And most of those who have, have not read it cover to cover more than once.

So the first thing to note is that extremely few people actually know the Bible at all well.

When I was teaching, I took for granted that the science texts I was using were presenting researched material. But you know something? I found out later that textbooks are written off preceding textbooks and the same errors get perpetuated year after year!

It seems to me that is the way a lot of Christian teaching is, too. Very few actually reference more than snippets they have learned to reference from the Bible. Instead, you hear them referencing this or that other theologian or writer! It's not that this or that other theologian or writer is right or wrong on any one issue, but that the referencing about the Bible really should be to the Bible primarily!

When I look at a number of the questions that get asked on this board, it is very evident to me that most the people here have not bothered actually reading the Bible. They have not gone to the source. Thus, they have no idea whether or not they are getting accurate responses! But if it sounds good....

What I have found in my 'off screen' life is that when Barry and I get into a discussion with anyone who has actually read the Bible several times and knows what it says, we have VERY few points of disagreement, or possible disagreement.

 

Yep, When I talk to people who know the Scriptures really well, and are committed to teaching Biblical truth without a bunch of man made nonsense tacked on, I usually agree as well.

Since we are studying the scriptures, I guess it goes without saying that we hold to unconditional election

 

Couldn't disagree more. But just to start things off, I have read the Bible cover to cover for many years in quite a few translations and it seems quite clear to me that I only trust in Jesus Christ because I was chosen by God to do so. I have never read more then about six pages of John Calvin (in a class in graduate school), yet within trying to push in a systematic way all five points of calvinism I do not mind indentify myself as such which to me simply means I read the Bible and take it for what it plainly says. (A Biblisit if you will ) So there, we have quite a large disagreement. Furthmore, I am well aware that Daniel David has read his Bible cover to cover many many times. Yet you two seem to disagree with about everything.

So since the theology of the following people is quite different in many areas, please indentify which ones didn't read thier Bibles. Actually, you should only pick one who did read his Bible since they all disagreed.

Martin Luther
John Calvin
John Bunyon
John Owen
John Edwards
Charles Spurgeon
John MacArthur
John Piper
Daniel David
Your Pastor
Helen

 

Alright, I understand what you mean.

Does Revelation 19:8 saying, "...for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." refer to good works? Yes or no?

 

Helen,

Pete makes a great point. It is not as easy as you suggest. You and I will never have the wealth of knowledge that any of the Reformers had. They read straight from the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. They had no concordance. It was all in their minds. They read the Bible "cover to cover" many more times than we do and they spent 24-7 reading, writing, critiquing, and positing. They knew the Bible inside and out and they confronted a Catholic church that did as well. Erasmus was no lightweight in the theological realm when Luther took him on. Remember his 3rd edition of the GNT is the TR and he went on to do 2 more editions! Erasmus knew the Bible and yet he defended horrid interpretations.

I think to downplay the historic interpretations of Scipture in light of one's own is a dangerous thing. Augustine didn't and neither did Calvin and Luther. In fact all of the great preachers and leaders of the church for 2000 years cite others in their work. They understand the need to live in community and to seek truth with one another. Paul rebuked Peter. He called Timothy and Titus to rebuke others. You CANNOT live in a theological bubble. And it is ridiculous to assume that those who differ with your beliefs don't know the Bible very well.

Helen, your own post indicts you of trying to do theology outside of the larger community of believers. You reject reading and studying the works of the men who you must believe were used powerfully by God to free us all from the heresy of the Roman Catholic Church. Without these men we would be all still be Catholics. And (though not in any way a comparison to the above) without God's eternal election, Christ's work, and the Holy Spirit's effectual calling and subsequent regeneration and giving of faith we (the elect) would all be cast into Hell to pay the penalty for our sins for eternity.

D.R.

 

amen dr396

Its not blind acceptance of anything written by someone, but a recognition that they in most cases came up with their teaching by long hours of study, and using training that I do not at this point have.

PR 15:22 "Plans fail for lack of counsel,
but with many advisers they succeed."

When I am trying to apply a passage of scripture, I like to get as much affirmation from the study and knowlege of others as possible to be certain that my own study and interpretation does not have a fault that I am blind to. After all, I am merely human, whether my name is superdave or not!

 

The Reformers cited the Fathers (primarily Augustine out of context) when they agreed with their own views and ignored them otherwise. The Reformers even disagreed with each other on key issues and called each other uncharitable names. I say this because some here seem to idealize the Reformers and treat the Reformation as a monolithic movement. (And I am certainly not an apologist for Roman errors or abuses...).

 

That's very interesting. Helen, I would like to ask you question on one verse. Please use your biblical theology on this verse.

Revelation 19:8 (KJV) -- "...for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

What does this verse mean? </font>[/QUOTE]I assume you are making Helen have to go to her Bible, because this is a great example of "out of context". You are not even including the entire verse. I make this statement, knowing that Helen has no problems doing this, but you are being quite secretive on this post. Why do I have a feeling you are going to compare it with something else?

 

That's very interesting. Helen, I would like to ask you question on one verse. Please use your biblical theology on this verse.

Revelation 19:8 (KJV) -- "...for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

What does this verse mean? </font>[/QUOTE]I assume you are making Helen have to go to her Bible, because this is a great example of "out of context". You are not even including the entire verse. I make this statement, knowing that Helen has no problems doing this, but you are being quite secretive on this post. Why do I have a feeling you are going to compare it with something else? </font>[/QUOTE]I asked her 2 questions. She answered them. I asked her my last question, but she did not answer it because this question is "pro" and "con." Which one will she answer -- yes or no? She needs to answer my last question because I want to know if she knows or not.

 

D.T.,

I would say that Calvin, Zwingli, Luther, Knox, Huss, and others generally agreed with one another. The Anabaptists were a different story however, but I don't consider them Reformers because they came along as a result of Luther. I don't think they are idolized or even idealized, but they should be considered very important in our studies because of their impact and the views of Protestantism adopted because of their teachings. And they were students of the Patristics (Calvin more so than the others). In fact, Sola Scriptura was qualified in their minds not to mean Scripture without anything else, but Scripture ABOVE all else (something the Catholics did not and still do not do).

D.R.