Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd start this thread as kind of an extension of another thread. Most of you have studied Calvin, Witsius, Owen, Bushey (just seeing if you're paying attention) and a host of other theologians. From your studies of the writings of your favorite theologian(s), can you think of anything that they've written that you disagree with?
:book:
Bob

I disagree with Calvin over the 6th chapter of John. And, I'm sure that if I could talk with him about it, it may desolve rather quickly.

I think he was reacting to two sides of the Supper when writing about it. It seems clear that he is trying to show how false trans and consubstantiation are. These are good motives. But I think he goes too far in throwing out both of these with John 6. His own view of the sacraments should have allowed him to say that Christ commanded us to feed upon his flesh and drink his blood, that is, in the words of the WCF and the LBCF, not corporally or carnally, but as spiritual food and drink.

Obviously he said much the same thing in other parts, but his commentary on these verses do not make it clear.

In Christ,

KC

I would disagree with Luther on the eucarist and his Romish thoughts on MAry.

I disagree with Bushey when he says my avatars have been too big.

Not sure I'm quite "down" with Jonathan Edwards' Preparationism, and when he talks about how a Christian feels about God, I agree with him but feel like I did when I confronted the "normal Christian" of my childhood, only the issue with Edwards isn't whether you're carnal/spiritual but if one is even a Christian. Isn't there progressive growth in some of this stuff?

Just venting, I feel better now

Here's where I disagree with Calvin:
One hjis understanding of the 4th commandment - he spiritualizes this commandment and none of the others. (Mistake).

Here's where I disagree with Turretin:
He said that the earth is the center of the solar system and everything revolves around the earth.

Here's where I disagree with Solomon Stoddard:
The halfway covenant.

Here's where I disagree with Charles Spurgeon:
That the Holy Spirit does not hop around in the OT and land in the NT.

Here's where I disagree with Luther:
Consusbstantiation.

Here's where I disagree with Zwingli:
His views on politics.

Here's where I disagree with Richard Baxter:
His views on justification and the atonement.

Here's where I disagree with Dabney:
His thought processes on the wills of God and the salvation of men.

Here's where I disagree with Thornwell and AA Hodge:
They don't beleive in presumptive regeneration following the reformers.

MacArthur: His Dispensationalism

Here's where I disagree postmillenialists:
On postmillenialism.

Hey Matt, can you very breifly describe your differences with Solomon Stoddard on the half-way covenant? Maybe in a few sentences describe what Stoddard believed and what you disagree with?

Amillenialists are simply gnostic postmillenialists.

[quote:7bc5f2f101][i:7bc5f2f101]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:7bc5f2f101]
Amillenialists are simply gnostic postmillenialists. [/quote:7bc5f2f101]

You got that wrong Mark According to Paul, we are NEO_GNOSTICS :lb: You forgot the NEO.

BTW,

Greg Bahnsen:
Christian Reconstructionism

C. Van Til:
Presuppositionalism

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by wsw201]

[quote:4d4abe423f]
would you like platonist better
[/quote:4d4abe423f]

It has a better ring to it!

I was an amil until yesterday.

[quote:d396b4b665][i:d396b4b665]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d396b4b665]
I was an amil until yesterday. [/quote:d396b4b665]

Luke (I mean Mark)! Come back from the dark side!!


:sw:

Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is coming; and from the seven spirits which are before His throne; even from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and [b:cd39b2fcf6]the Ruler of the kings of the earth.[/b:cd39b2fcf6] To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and made us kings and priests to God and His Father, to Him be glory and [b:cd39b2fcf6]dominion forever[/b:cd39b2fcf6] and ever. Amen. Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, and those who pierced Him will see Him, and all the kindreds of the earth will wail because of Him. Even so, Amen.

[Edited on 4-20-2004 by Wintermute]

All of us pierced Him.

Also, the resurrected damned will see Him.

That verse does not necessitate Preterism.

However, some could argue it does not necessitate a Postmil interpretation either.

Just a quick question, Paul. When did the Jews of the first century SEE Him (that is, coming in the clouds)? Did they see Him in the Romans who destroyed the city? There is no question of whether or not it was divine judgement, but HOW did the Jews SEE Him? I am not trying to debate, just something I have always wondered about preterism.

I guess I would also ask how every "eye" saw Him in 70 A.D. ? ?

I do not remember it for some reason.

[quote:eb2f0fc72f][i:eb2f0fc72f]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:eb2f0fc72f]
[quote:eb2f0fc72f][i:eb2f0fc72f]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:eb2f0fc72f]
I was an amil until yesterday. [/quote:eb2f0fc72f]

Luke (I mean Mark)! Come back from the dark side!!


:sw: [/quote:eb2f0fc72f]

yes, please come back.........................................:bs2:

I understand. We apply a literal hermeneutic to all of Scripture EXCEPT the eschatalogical. There we apply allegory and whatnot. We say that apocalyptic writings are interpreted differently from, say, didactic Scriptures. Can somebody tell me why? And if you applied a consistently literal hermeneutic to ALL of Scripture, including eschatology, wouldn't you arrive at the pre-wrath position? Has anyone here ever investigated the pre-wrath position? I don't agree with VanKampen 100%, but I think he's onto something.

What to you mean by literal? If by literal you mean that, for example:

1) In Rev. 20 Satan (an incorporal spirit) is going to be bound up with a literal chain. How big must this chain be?

2) In Rev. 19:15 we learn that out of Christ's body (his new glorified physical body) comes a sharp sword and that that sword would strike down the NATIONS in battle.

3) We could multipy these types of examples until we become sick.

We interpert the scriptures in a literal fashion in the way that they were intended to be interpreted. A historical narrative is to distinguished from a parable and so on and so forth.

As far as the pre-wrath theory goes, well, if is based on the above examples of a "literal" interpretation then that speaks for itself. This is besides the fact that this theory is BRAND new.