Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Good Evening,
I would like to start out this thread by making a confession so some do not think me to be a liar. A couple of weeks ago I got frustrated in a baptism thread (anybody else ever been there?) and I announced that it was time for me to stop posting on the board. Of course the one thread wasn't the only reason, as my life circumstances were a bit overwhelming at the time. They still are, but after taking a couple of weeks to clear my head I realized the best thing for me to do is to steer clear of the baptism threads for a while. A long while! But there is no sense in me not being able to get on here and ask questions of brothers whom I respect very much.
This quote by Rich earlier today smacked me upside the head.
As I read that I thought, a lot of what Rich is saying is talking right to me. I've been humbled enough in my 14 years in the ministry to say I don't believe I came here with a head full of steam, but it didn't take me long to figure out a lot of you have an understanding of the Scriptures that I don't have. In my circle, as Rich was talking about, all we learned about and concentrated on was dispensationalism and end times. Not a good mix. So, then as God opened my eyes to reformed doctrine I can definitely see exactly what Rich was saying in his quote. The sad thing is, that the leader of my former circle (Ruckman, for those of you who know him) would tell his students that after they graduate from his school they would know more than 99% of Christians in the world. That is so laughable because those guys would be humbled so fast on this board when it comes to doctrine and biblical interpretation. But most of them wouldn't respond by admitting this like Rich said, they would respond by calling you a name. Real "Christian" like.
Anyway, I'm taking the long way of saying thanks for the quote Rich. I realize I don't have to stop asking questions here just because I haven't made up my mind on the baptism issue etc. I'm 5 years in on the Reformed faith. That means I'm new to the Reformed faith and mostly I'm just looking for answers when I ask questions. With that said I hope everybody can remember that when I ask a question, because I think part of the reason why discussions turn sour is because people come with their presupps about what the other person is writing too often. Just my
Now my question concerns Redemptive Historical preaching and hermeneutics. I was reading Frame tonight on the subject and he said this
My question is simple. What is the best reference to help come to a better understanding of the redemptive-historical setting that Frame speaks of? Does the view of the setting change between different parties?
I would like to start out this thread by making a confession so some do not think me to be a liar. A couple of weeks ago I got frustrated in a baptism thread (anybody else ever been there?) and I announced that it was time for me to stop posting on the board. Of course the one thread wasn't the only reason, as my life circumstances were a bit overwhelming at the time. They still are, but after taking a couple of weeks to clear my head I realized the best thing for me to do is to steer clear of the baptism threads for a while. A long while! But there is no sense in me not being able to get on here and ask questions of brothers whom I respect very much.
This quote by Rich earlier today smacked me upside the head.
There are a lot of generic Calvinists who want to interact on this board but they come with a head full of steam because, perhaps in the circles they run in, everybody thinks they really know the Scriptures. Some of them learn the hard way here that there are people that are much better studied on more details than they conceivably imagined in their small circle. The smart ones figure it out quickly and decide to start listening instead of reacting
As I read that I thought, a lot of what Rich is saying is talking right to me. I've been humbled enough in my 14 years in the ministry to say I don't believe I came here with a head full of steam, but it didn't take me long to figure out a lot of you have an understanding of the Scriptures that I don't have. In my circle, as Rich was talking about, all we learned about and concentrated on was dispensationalism and end times. Not a good mix. So, then as God opened my eyes to reformed doctrine I can definitely see exactly what Rich was saying in his quote. The sad thing is, that the leader of my former circle (Ruckman, for those of you who know him) would tell his students that after they graduate from his school they would know more than 99% of Christians in the world. That is so laughable because those guys would be humbled so fast on this board when it comes to doctrine and biblical interpretation. But most of them wouldn't respond by admitting this like Rich said, they would respond by calling you a name. Real "Christian" like.
Anyway, I'm taking the long way of saying thanks for the quote Rich. I realize I don't have to stop asking questions here just because I haven't made up my mind on the baptism issue etc. I'm 5 years in on the Reformed faith. That means I'm new to the Reformed faith and mostly I'm just looking for answers when I ask questions. With that said I hope everybody can remember that when I ask a question, because I think part of the reason why discussions turn sour is because people come with their presupps about what the other person is writing too often. Just my
Now my question concerns Redemptive Historical preaching and hermeneutics. I was reading Frame tonight on the subject and he said this
http://www.thirdmill.org/files/engl...~Frame.Preaching,Ethics,Biblical_Theology.pdfAs I said above, however, I don’t believe that every sermon must be about
redemptive history. If a congregation is well-informed about the biblical relation of
grace and works, I don’t see why the pastor might not occasionally focus on, say,
an ethical text, without dwelling at great length on the redemptive-historical
setting. To call a pastor moralistic because he preaches such sermons is wrong,
in my view. And to call a pastor moralistic because he does not use the jargon of
biblical theology is slanderous.
My question is simple. What is the best reference to help come to a better understanding of the redemptive-historical setting that Frame speaks of? Does the view of the setting change between different parties?