Jump to content
Online Baptist
Please Login or Register for free to remove these ads.
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

LindaR

Reformed Theology Is Replacement Theology

Recommended Posts

Spurgeon's quote has to do with anger.  The Bible specifically says, "be angry and sin not."  My anger is in hopes to get this site back to where it once was, years ago, when I used to learn a lot.  Other's use sarcasm, like yourself, which belittles people.  I ask, what's the difference?

"A vigorous temper is not altogether an evil. Men who are easy as an old shoe are generally of little worth." ~ Charles Spurgeon 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please Login or Register for free to remove these ads.

Well, if they are gracious to keep me on OB, then they are keeping others on OB who whine as well.  And, those who are sarcastic to the point of belittling people, daily.

Dr. Ach is a Jew like myself.  My ancestral roots have been proven.  I am also Black Irish (which is Hispanic Irish).  I may not use sarcasm like you do, Al.  I just get to the point.  I have never been know to beat around the bush.   Having a temper, from now and then is not a bad thing at all.  It is better than people who sit like bumps on a log, and do nothing.  I believe Charles Spurgeon said something to this effect.  Let me see if I can find his quote.

 

Well I don't know who you're talking about when you say they are gracious to those who are sarcastic to the point of belittling people daily, because you beat around the bush by not naming names. If you're referring to me, my response is that I don't think I was sarcastic toward you at all in that post I just wrote, and as for belittling people daily I do tend to criticise TGL for his behaviour towards me and others, though not frequently, so fair comment I guess.

 

You telling me you are a Jew--sorry don't see the relevance to what is effectively a discussion about good manners. Good for you if you know your roots; I don't know mine.

 

And whining and having a bad temper (your word--I've not noticed it) is not the same as doing something. HC and Salyan and the other mods are the ones who are doing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 My anger is in hopes to get this site back to where it once was, years ago

 

I know and I addressed that point in my first response to you. I don't think publicly slating the mods and the whole site again and again and again while never expressing gratitude and moreover supporting those who say they want the mods and site owner booted will help the site at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't know who you're talking about when you say they are gracious to those who are sarcastic to the point of belittling people daily, because you beat around the bush by not naming names. If you're referring to me, my response is that I don't think I was sarcastic toward you at all in that post I just wrote, and as for belittling people daily I do tend to criticise TGL for his behaviour towards me and others, though not frequently, so fair comment I guess.

 

You telling me you are a Jew--sorry don't see the relevance to what is effectively a discussion about good manners. Good for you if you know your roots; I don't know mine.

 

And whining and having a bad temper (your word--I've not noticed it) is not the same as doing something. HC and Salyan and the other mods are the ones who are doing something.

Two members on this site, including you, belittle people with sarcastic comments. Yes, I am talking about your personally sarcastic posts to TGL.  

You don't see the relevance of being being a Jew by blood?  Did you read what the OP said?  It cuts me to the core of my soul to see people, on this site, talk about what the OP stated.  You seriously can't get that?  Not being a Jew, I suppose you wouldn't though.

I will repeat Spurgeon's quote, as you conveniently looked it over.

 "A vigorous temper is not altogether an evil. Men who are easy as an old shoe are generally of little worth." ~ Charles Spurgeon 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know and I addressed that point in my first response to you. I don't think publicly slating the mods and the whole site again and again and again while never expressing gratitude and moreover supporting those who say they want the mods and site owner booted will help the site at all.

 

You have no clue as to the gratitude I have expressed to LuAnne in our private messages.  End of story!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't see the relevance of being being a Jew by blood?  Did you read what the OP said?  It cuts me to the core of my soul to see people, on this site, talk about what the OP stated.  You seriously can't get that?  Not being a Jew, I suppose you wouldn't though.

 
I'll let the rest slide because Salyan's asked us to, but gotta respond to this bit. I wasn't talking about the OP when I said I don't see the relevance of you being a Jew, I was talking about the conservation you and me have just been having. Here's what I said again:
 

You telling me you are a Jew--sorry don't see the relevance to what is effectively a discussion about good manners.

 

Edited by Alimantado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue with Linda's post was her allegory/ literal translation of Scripture. I have never heard it read in Covenant theology that the church was visible or in anyway in the OT. If anyone believes that they are wrong.

I would have to say that either you have not read any of the Systematic Theology books of any Covenant theologians or if you have read any of them, you believe these Covenant theologians to be incorrect.

 

Here's a cuple of quotes from Covenant theologian Louis Berkhof in his book, Systematic Theology (second revised and enlarged edition; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941), p. 293, 571:

 

"The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church". 

"The Church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both."

 

Covenant theologian Charles Hodge also believed that the Church existed in the OT:

 

"The Church under the New Dispensation is identical with that under the Old.  It is not a new Church but one and the same.  It is the same olive olive tree (Rom. 11:16-17).  It is founded on the same covenant made with Abraham." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, 3:549).

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to say that either you have not read any of the Systematic Theology books of any Covenant theologians or if you have read any of them, you believe these Covenant theologians to be incorrect.
 
Here's a cuple of quotes from Covenant theologian Louis Berkhof in his book, Systematic Theology (second revised and enlarged edition; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941), p. 293, 571:
 
"The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church". 
"The Church existed in the old dispensation as well as in the new, and was essentially the same in both."
 
Covenant theologian Charles Hodge also believed that the Church existed in the OT:
 
"The Church under the New Dispensation is identical with that under the Old.  It is not a new Church but one and the same.  It is the same olive olive tree (Rom. 11:16-17).  It is founded on the same covenant made with Abraham." (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968, 3:549).


Thanks for the info: I still don't agree with that! The OT believers were "saved" because of their belief of the promise and are part if the body of Christ with all other believers, but I don't believe the church wasn't instituted until the NT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously going to follow him down his rabbit trail and away from the OP?

He doesn't like the subject and is trying to lead it away.

Go right ahead and feast at his table - but it is a red herring and I just don't like his oily fish........

Not following them, in fact, just the opposite, trying to sqelch the argument before it gets further from the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info: I still don't agree with that! The OT believers were "saved" because of their belief of the promise and are part if the body of Christ with all other believers, but I don't believe the church wasn't instituted until the NT

The OT believers are not part of the Church if they died before Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Church began.  If you don't believe what those Covenant/Reformed theologians (Berkhof and Hodge), then why do you believe the teachings of Calvinism---because Calvinism teaches Covenant/Reformed Theology.

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvinism is a very insidious doctrine. I think bits and pieces of it get so 'normalized' within solid Christian circles that people can adopt parts of it without even realizing it. (not applying this to anyone in particular, just saying.) It's like those people you meet that think they're '2-point Calvinists' without realizing that Calvinism so entwines and defines itself that you cannot be accept a single point of their doctrine without embracing the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OT believers are not part of the Church if they died before Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Church began.  If you don't believe what those Covenant/Reformed theologians (Berkhof and Hodge), then why do you believe the teachings of Calvinism---because Calvinism teaches Covenant/Reformed Theology.


I am reading Calvin because I wanted to read him for myself and draw my own conclusions. Not read articles from other writers and Internet forums and read their conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calvinism is a very insidious doctrine. I think bits and pieces of it get so 'normalized' within solid Christian circles that people can adopt parts of it without even realizing it. (not applying this to anyone in particular, just saying.) It's like those people you meet that think they're '2-point Calvinists' without realizing that Calvinism so entwines and defines itself that you cannot be accept a single point of their doctrine without embracing the whole.

What exactly don't you like or think is wrong with TULIP? The reason I ask, is that Calvin was more than the TULIP, the first section of Institutes deals primarily of who God is and lays the best argument ever against Atheism.
Most people think Calvin was all about the 5 points, that's why I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered this before once. See: .
I'm glad to share my opinion, but let's try to avoid any promotion or defense of Calvinism, eh?

Ok no prOBlem, but Linda did bring it up, so I was just responding, that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reading Calvin because I wanted to read him for myself and draw my own conclusions. Not read articles from other writers and Internet forums and read their conclusions.

 

So who's edition are you reading? The French, or the English, I believe Henry Beveridge. I do own a two volume edition, and I have read a very small amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opening post is nonesense.  I know some reformed Baptists who are dispensationalists, quite a number actually.  

No invicta, my OP is not nonsense.  It is an accurate description of what Calvinism believes and teaches---Covenant/Reformed Theology, which is actually Replacement Theology.  Laurence Vance wrote an excellent book on Calvinism, "The Other Side of Calvinism" and I have found a portion of that 800 page book online.  That portion is called "Calvinism and the Baptists".

 

An excerpt from Laurence Vance’s book, “The Other Side of Calvinism”: Calvinism and the Baptists 

 

“Although Kenneth Good maintains that Baptists can be Calvinists (his book Are Baptists Calvinists?) without being Reformed (his book Are Baptists Reformed?), those of the Reformed persuasion disagree:

 

“It is our contention that a Reformed Baptist is really an impossibility. The Baptist who defends free will, man's initiative in the work of salvation, resistible grace, the altar call, the free and well-meaning offer of the gospel, etc., is the Baptist who is consistent. The Baptist who defends dispensationalism, in whatever form it takes, is the Baptist who consistently maintains his position. The Baptist, on the other hand, who maintains the doctrines of grace and repudiates dispensationalsim is inconsistent in his theology. I do not deny that he may, in his theology, be a Calvinist. I do not deny that he may truly repudiate dispensationalism. But he is guilty of a happy inconsistency for all that.196

 

Those who hold to the truth of infant baptism have generally maintained that the ideas of believers' baptism and sovereign grace are mutually exclusive, and that those who hold to these two positions hold a contradictory view of salvation.197

 

One cannot be a Presbyterian or Reformed without being a Calvinist, but one can certainly be a Baptist. A Calvinistic Baptist should be a misnomer, because, in the words of the Dutch Reformed Herman Hanko: "A Baptist is only inconsistently a Calvinist."198

 

196. Herman Hanko, We and Our Children (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1988), p. 11.

197. Hanko, Covenant of Grace, p. 2.

198. Hanko, We and Our Children, p. 12.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opening post is nonesense. I know some reformed Baptists who are dispensationalists, quite a number actually.

I have known people who call themselves Baptist who are Calvinist and that Calvinism has led them into replacement theology, so by your own reasoning, your post is nonsense.......

Just because you "know some" doesn't make the OP nonsense.

And to Jeff - yes Calvin is far more that tulip - he has all sorts of false doctrines in his commentary series, not just tulip.

And his false teaching has led many to hell. Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And to Jeff - yes Calvin is far more that tulip - he has all sorts of false doctrines in his commentary series, not just tulip.

And his false teaching has led many to hell.

And what are those teachings? please.

Edited by Jeffrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answered this before once. See: .

I'm glad to share my opinion, but let's try to avoid any promotion or defense of Calvinism, eh?

 

 

I have known people who call themselves Baptist who are Calvinist and that Calvinism has led them into replacement theology, so by your own reasoning, your post is nonsense.......

Just because you "know some" doesn't make the OP nonsense.

And to Jeff - yes Calvin is far more that tulip - he has all sorts of false doctrines in his commentary series, not just tulip.

And his false teaching has led many to hell.

 

 

And what are those teachings? please.

 

Trying again to promote Calvin's teachings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what are those teachings? please.

See heading of thread........

But you already know - that's why you are here after all - to promote the doctrines you follow in spite of this being a forum that is not in agreement with those doctrines.

You are not really that stupid, but you seem to think we are......

The overwhelming majority of reformed theologians I have met or known are disingenuous about their motives. Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No invicta, my OP is not nonsense.  It is an accurate description of what Calvinism believes and teaches---Covenant/Reformed Theology, which is actually Replacement Theology.  Laurence Vance wrote an excellent book on Calvinism, "The Other Side of Calvinism" and I have found a portion of that 800 page book online.  That portion is called "Calvinism and the Baptists".

I will now contribute to this thread.

 

The best way to learn about Reformed Baptists is to study the 1689 Baptist confession. 

 

I did submit a question for Herman Hanko to answer. I got a "politicians answer". Thanks for your question. It gives me an opportunity to make MY point..... 

 

The prOBlem on both sides is developing logic from a position - A is true, therefore B is true, Etc.

 

No! Our logic MUST be constrained by Scripture. I am happy to be happily inconsistent as a "Reformed Baptist" taking Scripture as my sole authority. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...