Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Reformed Theology Is Replacement Theology


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...