First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Pre-Destination
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
If the language that I used is too esoteric or clandestine (hidden verbosity), let me know and I will clarify.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08
Could you elaborate on covenant theology?, rather the concept, and who coined the phrase. *sry on the predistination typo, I googled pre-destination and it came up so i used it lol*. But ya I would like to hear more on the covenant theology, it sparked my interest. The conversation we had intrigued me, I understand the idea of a covenant/pact with God, but to the extent of death, so we cannot fall from this covenant? but falling from the covenant would imply that we were not predestined to begin with, im going in circles.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08
Sure. I only wanted to provide an introduction to Theology Proper, and since Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that we know God by how he acts in history, Covenant Theology proves to be best explanation for Theology Proper, that is, how it is that we know God. And that is important because I am trying to get to the system of predestination. Predestination, however, is not a simple explanation of "foreknowledge" as some say: that God simply knows things ahead of time, having therefore no direct access to the emotions and thoughts of man. Basically, I'm attacking the very notion that man has a free-will. This system, as opposed to mine, is called Molinism. Other views which I think imbue much of the Evangelical world is Open-theology, Socinianism, and Pelagianism. This is the overall assumption of broad evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptists, Methodism, et al. I think the best way to know where ideas come from is to challenge the very assumptions that people presuppose. I guess that's why I favor Presuppositionalism pioneered by Cornelius Van Til, John M. Frame, Greg L. Bahnsen, and a loosely presuppositionalist, Dr. Gordon H. Clark (see his debate with Dr. Hoover available for free on SermonAudio.com). So in short, I am launching a simple outline and introduction to systematic theology. And since Predestination is only a locus in the system, we have to outline the basic outlines as they are found with theologians. I want digress in one point, however. All the theologians that I mention all concede the point that all of Scripture (tota scriptura) and Scripture alone (sola scriptura) are our final authority.

I apologize if my explanation was too long, but I felt it was necessary in order to justify the parameters of what most theologians have done in the past--that loci (subjects) ought to be treated in their proper system.

Question
"The conversation we had intrigued me, I understand the idea of a covenant/pack with God, but to the extent of death, so we cannot fall from this covenant?"

Response:
The nature of covenant is a treaty (also see Meredith Kline of Mid-Eastern Treaties, like Assyrian and Egyptian Treaties. He calls them Hittite Treaties) with commands, rewards, punishments, etc. And these treaties originally meant "to cut" a covenant due to the severity of the covenant. Other scholars which contributed to this definition are McCartney ( Treaty and Covenant) , Kline ( By Oath Consigned ), and John Murry ( The Covenant of Grace). You also have to see each covenant as they have different attachments. Each covenant was built atop another. By the time Christ had come, the New Covenant that God had promised (Jeremiah 31), where God would write his Law on our hearts. Hence we need to look at the diversity and the unity of the covenants. As you can see, this is a very sophisticated system that God had provided man. But the severity of the covenant stresses the importance of a life and death situation, via bond with man. But man constantly breaks covenant with God, and therefore justifying God to cut men off of the blessings that come with it. That is why God provided a new covenant. God himself kept the covenant for us. However, the covenant of Redemption guaranteed our spot in the New Covenant (see the Romans language of "grafting into the tree," Romans 11).
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
Wow. I just found alot of errors in here. I will have to clarify when I get up for Sabbath tomorrow.
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
Ok you clarified it a bit for me, but i think you are going to have to let me borrow some books. If I may impose one more question, can you explain where the idea of Predestination started. And explain possibly, perhaps in short, the misconception of "free-will" or possibly another time we can go into that.
Moderator
5694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
0_0 my brain is spinning after that jmartinez but it was quite informative! Can u put it lame-man's-terms for so it'll be an easier read?
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/22/08

cryolyger wrote:

ESV, I find it to be the most accurate, I have ESV as my reference online, NASB as a study bible, an NIS for quick references, or my favorite, my NKJV, so to answer your question the ESV, but I reference alot of different ones

haha, ya win or lose, whether or not its true or not, should not discourage our mission. But, if it wasn't the case, the bible would be false, for it is foreshadowed throughout.

The New International Version is held to be the most accurate by most serious scholars though the one you mention is far above the KJV.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08

jmartinez83 wrote:

Sure. I only wanted to provide an introduction to Theology Proper, and since Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that we know God by how he acts in history, Covenant Theology proves to be best explanation for Theology Proper, that is, how it is that we know God. And that is important because I am trying to get to the system of predestination. Predestination, however, is not a simple explanation of "foreknowledge" as some say: that God simply knows things ahead of time, having therefore no direct access to the emotions and thoughts of man. Basically, I'm attacking the very notion that man has a free-will. This system, as opposed to mine, is called Molinism. Other views which I think imbue much of the Evangelical world is Open-theology, Socinianism, and Pelagianism. This is the overall assumption of broad evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptists, Methodism, et al. I think the best way to know where ideas come from is to challenge the very assumptions that people presuppose. I guess that's why I favor Presuppositionalism pioneered by Cornelius Van Til, John M. Frame, Greg L. Bahnsen, and a loosely presuppositionalist, Dr. Gordon H. Clark (see his debate with Dr. Hoover available for free on SermonAudio.com).
Van Til stole his ideas and does not belong in that company in my honest opinion. He did apply the basic theory somewhat interestingly perhaps but really not a great theologian.




So in short, I am launching a simple outline and introduction to systematic theology. And since Predestination is only a locus in the system, we have to outline the basic outlines as they are found with theologians. I want digress in one point, however. All the theologians that I mention all concede the point that all of Scripture (tota scriptura) and Scripture alone (sola scriptura) are our final authority.

I apologize if my explanation was too long, but I felt it was necessary in order to justify the parameters of what most theologians have done in the past--that loci (subjects) ought to be treated in their proper system.

Question
"The conversation we had intrigued me, I understand the idea of a covenant/pack with God, but to the extent of death, so we cannot fall from this covenant?"

Response:
The nature of covenant is a treaty (also see Meredith Kline of Mid-Eastern Treaties, like Assyrian and Egyptian Treaties. He calls them Hittite Treaties) with commands, rewards, punishments, etc. And these treaties originally meant "to cut" a covenant due to the severity of the covenant. Other scholars which contributed to this definition are McCartney ( Treaty and Covenant) , Kline ( By Oath Consigned ), and John Murry ( The Covenant of Grace). You also have to see each covenant as they have different attachments. Each covenant was built atop another. By the time Christ had come, the New Covenant that God had promised (Jeremiah 31), where God would write his Law on our hearts. Hence we need to look at the diversity and the unity of the covenants. As you can see, this is a very sophisticated system that God had provided man. But the severity of the covenant stresses the importance of a life and death situation, via bond with man. But man constantly breaks covenant with God, and therefore justifying God to cut men off of the blessings that come with it. That is why God provided a new covenant. God himself kept the covenant for us. However, the covenant of Redemption guaranteed our spot in the New Covenant (see the Romans language of "grafting into the tree," Romans 11).



I want to ask you why the doctrines that you espouse do not bother you. I myself used to be a Calvinist but was always bothered by the notion god chose some to save and some to send to an eternity of torture. Does this not disturb you at all? Do you not care for the souls of such people? Do you not question the morality of such a god? It becomes easy to discuss this all from an intellectual standpoint. Let us not forget we are discussing the notion of hell-of people being tortured FOREVER. I really don't think anyone who is not sickened by the Calvinist doctrine deserves to claim they are compassionate.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08
I am not Calvinist. We should have compassion on the souls of the lost, if we don't then we aren't living how Christ wants us to live. As Christians we are to spread the Gospel, so all may be saved!
Moderator
3852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / southern california
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
I do not believe God can be held accountable to our standards. To compare Him to a mere mortal is insulting. I question only what I lack faith in, I am distressed that so many shall have to fall, however I find it hard to believe you think some people do not deserve hell. It is not my place to say whom, but the general idea everyone is good?. Man will always fall short of their potential.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/22/08

cryolyger wrote:

I do not believe God can be held accountable to our standards. To compare Him to a mere mortal is insulting. I question only what I lack faith in, I am distressed that so many shall have to fall, however I find it hard to believe you think some people do not deserve hell.

A quick elimination of a soul is more merciful and serves quite well as a punishment. Would you not agree?


It is not my place to say whom, but the general idea everyone is good?. Man will always fall short of their potential.
A list of people who I think surely do not deserve to be in hell:
Oscar Wilde
Ghandi (Hindu)
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Albert Einstein
Voltaire

This list could be a lot longer. A lot longer.


Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
Sure. I'm working on another paper which I think can best describe my view.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08

YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

Sure. I only wanted to provide an introduction to Theology Proper, and since Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that we know God by how he acts in history, Covenant Theology proves to be best explanation for Theology Proper, that is, how it is that we know God. And that is important because I am trying to get to the system of predestination. Predestination, however, is not a simple explanation of "foreknowledge" as some say: that God simply knows things ahead of time, having therefore no direct access to the emotions and thoughts of man. Basically, I'm attacking the very notion that man has a free-will. This system, as opposed to mine, is called Molinism. Other views which I think imbue much of the Evangelical world is Open-theology, Socinianism, and Pelagianism. This is the overall assumption of broad evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptists, Methodism, et al. I think the best way to know where ideas come from is to challenge the very assumptions that people presuppose. I guess that's why I favor Presuppositionalism pioneered by Cornelius Van Til, John M. Frame, Greg L. Bahnsen, and a loosely presuppositionalist, Dr. Gordon H. Clark (see his debate with Dr. Hoover available for free on SermonAudio.com).
Van Til stole his ideas and does not belong in that company in my honest opinion. He did apply the basic theory somewhat interestingly perhaps but really not a great theologian.




So in short, I am launching a simple outline and introduction to systematic theology. And since Predestination is only a locus in the system, we have to outline the basic outlines as they are found with theologians. I want digress in one point, however. All the theologians that I mention all concede the point that all of Scripture (tota scriptura) and Scripture alone (sola scriptura) are our final authority.

I apologize if my explanation was too long, but I felt it was necessary in order to justify the parameters of what most theologians have done in the past--that loci (subjects) ought to be treated in their proper system.

Question
"The conversation we had intrigued me, I understand the idea of a covenant/pack with God, but to the extent of death, so we cannot fall from this covenant?"

Response:
The nature of covenant is a treaty (also see Meredith Kline of Mid-Eastern Treaties, like Assyrian and Egyptian Treaties. He calls them Hittite Treaties) with commands, rewards, punishments, etc. And these treaties originally meant "to cut" a covenant due to the severity of the covenant. Other scholars which contributed to this definition are McCartney ( Treaty and Covenant) , Kline ( By Oath Consigned ), and John Murry ( The Covenant of Grace). You also have to see each covenant as they have different attachments. Each covenant was built atop another. By the time Christ had come, the New Covenant that God had promised (Jeremiah 31), where God would write his Law on our hearts. Hence we need to look at the diversity and the unity of the covenants. As you can see, this is a very sophisticated system that God had provided man. But the severity of the covenant stresses the importance of a life and death situation, via bond with man. But man constantly breaks covenant with God, and therefore justifying God to cut men off of the blessings that come with it. That is why God provided a new covenant. God himself kept the covenant for us. However, the covenant of Redemption guaranteed our spot in the New Covenant (see the Romans language of "grafting into the tree," Romans 11).



I want to ask you why the doctrines that you espouse do not bother you. I myself used to be a Calvinist but was always bothered by the notion god chose some to save and some to send to an eternity of torture. Does this not disturb you at all? Do you not care for the souls of such people? Do you not question the morality of such a god? It becomes easy to discuss this all from an intellectual standpoint. Let us not forget we are discussing the notion of hell-of people being tortured FOREVER. I really don't think anyone who is not sickened by the Calvinist doctrine deserves to claim they are compassionate.


Buddy, I'm going to be frank. I care about intellectual consistency, not ad hominem attacks of reputable scholars and theologians. Second, I don't care what your personal beliefs are--be that you think this God I write about being immoral for sending people to hell.[1] Give me something worth responding to. Just because you don't like a certain doctrine doesn't mean it is not tenable. And thirdly, most of the Reformed community knows Van Til as an innovative theologian. Ever professor Clark, who was a critic of Van Til in the areas of epistemology, clearly gives Van Til credit for his seminal work in apologetics. And yes I care about people who are going to hell. To suggest the contrary is simply ridiculous; and I find the Calvinistic system thoroughly compatible with God's compassion and love for his creation. Now I'm not going to digress only to deal with you. I am approaching the subject matter of Covenant Theology as it relates predestination. If you wish to read my research, by all means read it. I find that casting my pearls before you are not only a waste of hard work, but I am not being a faithful witness to others who do care about theology. You vitiate the very approach to theology. Provide a tenable question germane to the topic, or stop asking me ridiculous questions.

[1] I suggest you pick up Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen's debate with Edward Tabash, a lawyer who I think shares you sympathies.
Member
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/22/08 , edited 6/22/08

jmartinez83 wrote:


YouAreDumb wrote:


jmartinez83 wrote:

Sure. I only wanted to provide an introduction to Theology Proper, and since Calvin writes in his Institutes of the Christian Religion that we know God by how he acts in history, Covenant Theology proves to be best explanation for Theology Proper, that is, how it is that we know God. And that is important because I am trying to get to the system of predestination. Predestination, however, is not a simple explanation of "foreknowledge" as some say: that God simply knows things ahead of time, having therefore no direct access to the emotions and thoughts of man. Basically, I'm attacking the very notion that man has a free-will. This system, as opposed to mine, is called Molinism. Other views which I think imbue much of the Evangelical world is Open-theology, Socinianism, and Pelagianism. This is the overall assumption of broad evangelical churches like Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptists, Methodism, et al. I think the best way to know where ideas come from is to challenge the very assumptions that people presuppose. I guess that's why I favor Presuppositionalism pioneered by Cornelius Van Til, John M. Frame, Greg L. Bahnsen, and a loosely presuppositionalist, Dr. Gordon H. Clark (see his debate with Dr. Hoover available for free on SermonAudio.com).
Van Til stole his ideas and does not belong in that company in my honest opinion. He did apply the basic theory somewhat interestingly perhaps but really not a great theologian.




So in short, I am launching a simple outline and introduction to systematic theology. And since Predestination is only a locus in the system, we have to outline the basic outlines as they are found with theologians. I want digress in one point, however. All the theologians that I mention all concede the point that all of Scripture (tota scriptura) and Scripture alone (sola scriptura) are our final authority.

I apologize if my explanation was too long, but I felt it was necessary in order to justify the parameters of what most theologians have done in the past--that loci (subjects) ought to be treated in their proper system.

Question
"The conversation we had intrigued me, I understand the idea of a covenant/pack with God, but to the extent of death, so we cannot fall from this covenant?"

Response:
The nature of covenant is a treaty (also see Meredith Kline of Mid-Eastern Treaties, like Assyrian and Egyptian Treaties. He calls them Hittite Treaties) with commands, rewards, punishments, etc. And these treaties originally meant "to cut" a covenant due to the severity of the covenant. Other scholars which contributed to this definition are McCartney ( Treaty and Covenant) , Kline ( By Oath Consigned ), and John Murry ( The Covenant of Grace). You also have to see each covenant as they have different attachments. Each covenant was built atop another. By the time Christ had come, the New Covenant that God had promised (Jeremiah 31), where God would write his Law on our hearts. Hence we need to look at the diversity and the unity of the covenants. As you can see, this is a very sophisticated system that God had provided man. But the severity of the covenant stresses the importance of a life and death situation, via bond with man. But man constantly breaks covenant with God, and therefore justifying God to cut men off of the blessings that come with it. That is why God provided a new covenant. God himself kept the covenant for us. However, the covenant of Redemption guaranteed our spot in the New Covenant (see the Romans language of "grafting into the tree," Romans 11).



I want to ask you why the doctrines that you espouse do not bother you. I myself used to be a Calvinist but was always bothered by the notion god chose some to save and some to send to an eternity of torture. Does this not disturb you at all? Do you not care for the souls of such people? Do you not question the morality of such a god? It becomes easy to discuss this all from an intellectual standpoint. Let us not forget we are discussing the notion of hell-of people being tortured FOREVER. I really don't think anyone who is not sickened by the Calvinist doctrine deserves to claim they are compassionate.


Buddy, I'm going to be frank. I care about intellectual consistency, not ad hominem attacks of reputable scholars and theologians. Second, I don't care what your personal beliefs are--be that you think this God I write about being immoral for sending to hell.[1] Give me something worth responding to. Just because you don't like a certain doctrine doesn't mean it is not tenable. And thirdly, most of the Reformed community knows Van Til as an innovative theologian. Ever professor Clark, who was a critic of Van Til in the areas of epistemology clearly gives Van Til credit for his seminal work in apologetics. And yes I care about people who are going to hell. To suggest the contrary is simply ridiculous;

Yes you worship a being who randomly selected who to save from that fate and who to send to it. Sorry bullshit.





and I find the Calvinistic system thoroughly compatible with God's compassion and love for his creation.



Now I'm not going to digress only to deal with you. I am approaching the subject matter of Covenant Theology as it relates predestination. If you wish to read my research, by all means read it. I find that casting my pearls before you are not only a waste of hard work, but I am not being a faithful witness to others who do care about theology. You vitiate the very approach to theology. Provide a tenable question germane to the topic, or stop asking me ridiculous questions.

[1] I suggest you pick up Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen's debate with Edward Tabash, a lawyer who I think shares you sympathies.

Saw Tabash debate Craig. He beat Craig but was not that impressive from an intellectual standpoint.

I am fairly certain this thread is about predestination and not about covenant theology. By posting here you should have been ready to discusses the subject of the thread itself and not merely a side issue. To claim that something which pretains to the topic of the thread at hand is a digression is ludicirous.
Moderator
252 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Riverside, CA
Offline
Posted 6/22/08
(Last response to the ignorance of YouAreDumb). God does not choose arbitrarily. Second, I said Greg Bahnsen, not W.L. Craig. I don't accept Craig's Classical approach to apologetics, albeit I like some of the stuff he writes concerning philosophy and whatnot. The fact that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology proves to me that you see no connection with Covenant Theology and predestination. Read more. It will help your ignorance on the subject.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.