MP3's by Robert Reymond
- Thread starter shackleton
- Start date
- Status
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Forgive my ignorance brother, but could you give me a little info on this preacher?
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Robert Reymond - Theopedia
Robert L. Reymond is a Reformed theologian and Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, FL. He holds B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Bob Jones University and is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to taking the chair of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary for more than twenty years. He has authored numerous articles in theological journals and various reference works, and has written some ten books.
Reymond is one of the Reformed theologians who adheres to supralapsarianism. [1]
Robert L. Reymond is a Reformed theologian and Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, FL. He holds B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Bob Jones University and is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to taking the chair of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary for more than twenty years. He has authored numerous articles in theological journals and various reference works, and has written some ten books.
Reymond is one of the Reformed theologians who adheres to supralapsarianism. [1]
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Just some random bloke...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He's good on salvation but has his own quirks.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He's very good on RCC, Scripture, doctrine of God, and mostly on salvation. He made one embarrassing faux pax, but for the most part it is very good.
That "one embarassing faux pax" is a denial of the Nicene doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. This exception puts Reymond outside of the pale of catholic (little c) orthodoxy and condemned by the standards of the universal church. Tread very carefully.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I was thinking of something else, actually. Except for a few chapters, I do really like Reymond's book.
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
Do you mean that Jesus, the man, is not a part of the Trinity? He only came into existence in time about 2000 years ago? The Son of God is eternal but Jesus the man is not?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That is not what Reymond means. We need to be fair to Reymond on that point. Even worse, RTS uses Reymond's ST and thus would be purveyors of error, if true.
However, the chapter can be confusing. As I understand the chapter(s). He disagrees with the clause in the creed that says the son is very God of (genitive or origin) very God. Reymond sees the clause saying, probably rightly, that Christ is deriving his essence from the Father. Reymond then takes issue with that, opting to say that Christ is autotheos (God in and of himself).
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
That is not what Reymond means. We need to be fair to Reymond on that point. Even worse, RTS uses Reymond's ST and thus would be purveyors of error, if true.
However, the chapter can be confusing. As I understand the chapter(s). He disagrees with the clause in the creed that says the son is very God of (genitive or origin) very God. Reymond sees the clause saying, probably rightly, that Christ is deriving his essence from the Father. Reymond then takes issue with that, opting to say that Christ is autotheos (God in and of himself).
That's right. Reymond does a superb job of protecting and defending the self-existence of the Second Person of the Trinity against the doctrine of eternal generation's claim that the Second Person is dependent on the First Person for His very existence, and for His Personhood. Reymond is building on the work of previous scholars, especially from the 20th century.
Richard, it has been explained in a previous thread that the "generation" terminates on the "person" or the Son's "manner of subsistence." It does not pertain to His "existence." The Son's existence is one with the Father and the Spirit. If you claim the Son's existence is "independent" you teach Tritheism, as has been shown to you on numerous occasions.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks Rev. Winzer.
Folks, if you're interested in pursuing this subject further, you do well to do a search on this board under "eternal generation."
Here are a few links:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/nicene-christology-21767/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/eternal-generation-son-22040/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/calvin-eternal-generation-son-11259/#post148758
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/does-son-generate-being-god-24517/
SolaGratia
Puritan Board Junior
I recently heard ( I don't remember where) that Prof. Reymond is no longer teaching at Knox, that he has since retired. Does anyone know what he is doing?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
That's right. And neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is dependent on the Father for His existence, or for His Personhood. All three Persons exist together, eternally, as the one God. The Father does not have priority of existence, either temporally or logically, before the other two Persons. All three Persons have existed simultaneously (for want of a better word) for eternity.
Both tritheism and modalism must be denied. I deny both.
Now if we could only get you to use language which reflects your conviction, so that you stop speaking as if there are three "existences." What you deny one moment you affirm the next.
Richard, is the second person of the blessed Trinity the eternal Son of God?
Richard, you are wrong. Reymond is wrong. This has been played out on multiple fora (OPC, Warfield, etc) and this very list.
Your attacks on Nicea will not be tolerated. Quite frankly, it shows you to be a very poor Presbyterian, since you continually refuse the pastoral counsel and admonishment of the brethren in order to agitate on this well settled point.
Cease and desist.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I only have the first edition of Robert Reymond's book, but did he not modify his position in the second edition?
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
When studying the Trinity (I came from a Onesness Pentecostal background), I was told that Jesus, not the Son, was not a part of the Trinity, he did not exist, as Jesus the man, prior to his incarnation. I was told that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one in essence and not divided, they are all Spirit but the Son agreed, as a part of the covenant, to become man and take his punishment upon himself. There was not a man in heaven prior to the incarnation. I was also told that even now Jesus Christ is not a part of the Trinity.
Like I said I came from a oneness background so this made perfect sense because they are basically modalists, the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. They believe that the one God became Jesus in time so this made perfect sense to me.
Is this not the reformed view? I have never heard anyone else say this, outside oneness circles.
Like I said I came from a oneness background so this made perfect sense because they are basically modalists, the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. They believe that the one God became Jesus in time so this made perfect sense to me.
Is this not the reformed view? I have never heard anyone else say this, outside oneness circles.
Since Richard has be told to "cease and desist", can you show me where this has been settled? And since we are saying that "Reymond is wrong", is his teaching heretical? I mean, is his error more than semantics? If his error is fundamental - to the point where it strikes at orthodox dogma, then I want to understand what this mistake was. It must be very serious for you to demand Richard to "cease and desist".
He changed some of the language (and examples, Cf. Letham) I believe but not the concept.
If there is one existence, then this logically implies that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit.
One "substance" works since it does not necessarily imply one person.
One God exists in three persons. As long as we don't say God is one person, this works. But if there is one "existence" then we can not distinguish between the three persons. It implies they are all the same person. Isn't that the kind of language we want to avoid?
FYI: The Calvinist Doctrine of the Trinity by Roger Beckwith
This is interesting: Eternal generation of the Son - Theopedia
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes, it sounds like Reymond has been anathematized twice in this thread (first by ADKing).
Louis Berkhof, speaking of the eternal generation of the Son.
Is it proper to say that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is chiefly of importance as it safeguards both the unity of the divine nature and the reality of the personal distinctions?
Is it proper to say that the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is chiefly of importance as it safeguards both the unity of the divine nature and the reality of the personal distinctions?
- Status
