Results 1 to 21 of 21

Theological Forum discuss Here's where I disagree with _________ in the Theology forums; 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 ...

  1. #1
    blhowes's Avatar
    blhowes is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    6,045

    Here's where I disagree with _________

    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
    B.Howes
    Massachusetts

  2. #2
    kceaster's Avatar
    kceaster is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,101
    Blog Entries
    1
    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
    Heb 13:20-21

    Kevin C. Easterday
    Ruling Elder and Pastoral Intern of Westminster PCA (Licentiate), Jacksonville, FL
    Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father to Kamden (21) and Kolton (20)
    Federal Theology Website
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  3. #3
    A_Wild_Boar is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    200
    I would disagree with Luther on the eucarist and his Romish thoughts on MAry.

  4. #4
    Gregg is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    535
    I disagree with Bushey when he says my avatars have been too big.
    Gregg M.
    Truth Baptist Church
    South Windsor CT.

  5. #5
    turmeric's Avatar
    turmeric is offline. Megerator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,409
    Blog Entries
    1
    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
    The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
    Meg
    Blog
    Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  6. #6
    C. Matthew McMahon's Avatar
    C. Matthew McMahon is offline. Owner and Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,523
    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.
    C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D., Th.D.
    John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

    A PURITAN'S MIND website is growing!
    www.apuritansmind.com
    Puritan and Reformed eBooks and digital downloads at the PURITAN SHOP www.puritanshop.com
    Minister - Christ Presbyterian Church
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  7. #7
    Joshua is offline. _
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    20,348
    Blog Entries
    3
    MacArthur: His Dispensationalism
    Josh
    CCRPC, RPCGA

  8. #8
    C. Matthew McMahon's Avatar
    C. Matthew McMahon is offline. Owner and Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,523
    Here's where I disagree postmillenialists:
    On postmillenialism.
    C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D., Th.D.
    John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

    A PURITAN'S MIND website is growing!
    www.apuritansmind.com
    Puritan and Reformed eBooks and digital downloads at the PURITAN SHOP www.puritanshop.com
    Minister - Christ Presbyterian Church
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  9. #9
    luvroftheWord is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    825
    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?

  10. #10
    Saiph is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    Amillenialists are simply gnostic postmillenialists.

  11. #11
    wsw201's Avatar
    wsw201 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    [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]
    ~Wayne Wylie~
    Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Ruling Elder
    http://www.mcopc.org
    Bedford, TX

    Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  12. #12
    wsw201's Avatar
    wsw201 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    [quote:4d4abe423f]
    would you like platonist better
    [/quote:4d4abe423f]

    It has a better ring to it!
    ~Wayne Wylie~
    Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Ruling Elder
    http://www.mcopc.org
    Bedford, TX

    Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  13. #13
    Saiph is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    I was an amil until yesterday.

  14. #14
    wsw201's Avatar
    wsw201 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    2,612
    [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:
    ~Wayne Wylie~
    Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
    Ruling Elder
    http://www.mcopc.org
    Bedford, TX

    Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  15. #15
    Saiph is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    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]

  16. #16
    Saiph is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    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.

  17. #17
    BrianLanier is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    359
    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.
    ^Brian Lanier^
    OPC
    Philosophy, SFSU
    Main Area of Interest: Religious Epistemology

  18. #18
    Saiph is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    I guess I would also ask how every "eye" saw Him in 70 A.D. ? ?

    I do not remember it for some reason.

  19. #19
    BrianLanier is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    359
    [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:
    ^Brian Lanier^
    OPC
    Philosophy, SFSU
    Main Area of Interest: Religious Epistemology

  20. #20
    mjbee is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    207
    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.
    Melissa Brown
    Evansville, Indiana
    Looking for a body of believers to hook up with
    "It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. Let me tell you something, friend, it is not love and it is not friendship if we fail to declare the whole counsel of God. It is better to be hated for telling the truth, than to be loved for telling a lie. It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated. It's better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude. It is better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie. There is only one Gospel and Paul said, 'If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.'"
    Pastor Adrian Rodgers, excerpts from talk, Nat'l Religious Broadcasters Convention, 1996

  21. #21
    BrianLanier is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    359
    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.
    ^Brian Lanier^
    OPC
    Philosophy, SFSU
    Main Area of Interest: Religious Epistemology

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72