Posted on 01/01/2003 12:24:46 PM PST by Jael
Submitted for discussion, the following statement (and all that can follow from it....
1.) Did God lose his Truth? Or hide it? Or not allow it to be seen or known? (During the period of time in question.)
2.) Why would something that God has promised would continue, need to be "rediscovered"?
3.) Did He allow a period of time to exist where his church did not?
4.) If one holds to the fact that Rome was not the true church, where was the Body before Rome, and during Rome, but before Luther or Calvin?
5.) How does your belief regarding Rome effect your belief about Scripture? Did God give His Word to Rome? If so, why isn't she orthodox according to Scripture?
In an effort to more fully understand my Calvinist friends, I went searching for information. I found that statement on the website for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). I copied it from there, but I believe it probably fits a number of the Calvinistic belief systems. (Different Calvinistic churches.)
In starting this thread, I request that we check our egos at the door. I'd like to discuss this, but I am not interested in people who brag about what they know but never use any Scripture to validate their claims.
Also, this isn't an anti Catholic thread, but I will warn my catholic friends that they will not care for the beliefs many of us have regarding Rome. That doesn't lessen our respect for them as individuals. I invite them to participate here as well, if so desired.
I have friends in other religions who have said (it's a cop out I think, but bear with me) that they could never be __________ (such and such a denomination) because the people who disagree with each other are so rude.
I am not saying I haven't ever been,
(I REPENT!!)
but let's try not to be, ok.?
You never know who is watching and reading, and your testimony matters.
2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
I tend toward the Traducianism position...but I also see an element of federalism in the fall as well
OP and others ..might be worth a go at that topic again..Doc you still have that paper?
IF memory serves, John Calvin did not have a whole lot to say about the matter. Martin Luther was (again if memory serves) an absolutely-convinced Traducian, but I think that Calvin has been claimed by both Traducians and Soul-Creationists. I don't remember any definite and absolute statements from Calvin on the matter, right off the top of my head.
In case you have never read the book of Revelation, I will relate a few elements to arouse your interest in the hope that you will.
The first time I read the book of Revelation was when I went to Seminary. One night I decided to open its pages and begin. As I began reading, I couldn’t stop. The words and prophecies created in me an immediate urgency to continue. “...blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.” (Rev. 1:3)
St. John began to give specific messages to seven Churches that were warnings about abandoning their first love for Christ and the need to repent or their light would be taken away. After giving warnings to the seven churches, John is brought up and shown what would take place next.
From brother Andrew on the web site
http://www.assumptionaz.org/Pastoralletters/revelation.htm
59 posted on 01/01/2003 7:44 PM MST by MarMema
As I read the verses, it is very clear that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ written down by His servent; John.
Re. 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show
his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by
sending his angel to his servant John,
Re. 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw — that is, the word of
God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Re. 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and
blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is
written in it, because the time is near.
chuck <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
Actually, I have repeatedly stipulated that the realistic (traducianism-based) theology of the Fall is not necessarily at odds with the federal position concerning the same.
I have merely pointed out that the realistic position is more fundamental--since we were not even real parties to the putative covenant if we were not in Adam when the covenant was made.
(What really irks me is the fact that some federal theologians try to use their position to argue against the realistic position. That is theologically suicidal.)
Sister, there isn't a one among us who deserved anything BUT Hell.
CDL, do not feel alone if you are intimidated. I always come among these people to learn...and learn. They are so incredibly knowledgeable.
EEP!! Mea maxima culpa. I must have failed to take note, at the time. Begga thousand pardons!!
I have merely pointed out that the realistic position is more fundamental--since we were not even real parties to the putative covenant if we were not in Adam when the covenant was made. (What really irks me is the fact that some federal theologians try to use their position to argue against the realistic position. That is theologically suicidal.)
I totally agree with this. Assuming (as a thought exercise) that federal-covenantal theology is at least basically correct, we might say that God used the rectitude of this doctrinal "walking staff" as a sort of "crutch" (for Hodge, et al) to help keep the doctrine of Universal Original Sin from the potential danger of being crippled by the damage inflicted by the Soul-Creationist error.
But to then use Federal-Covenantal theology to argue against Traducianism (that of Shedd, et al) seems to me the theological equivalent of saying, "Well, now that I have this handy crutch, I might as well break my other leg, too!!"
(The problem is, I can't convincingly argue--i.e., prove [satisfyingly]--that federal theology is involved in the first place. It's not the argument contained in the Book of Romans.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.