Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: A New Reformation?

  1. #41
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Adding to the Book

    BGA states
    You know there are warnings, Bill, regarding adding to or subtracting from the Book of Revelation. That puts those who deny hell in a very dubious position.

    The issue is the correct interpretation of hell, not whether one denies it. The 'adding or subtracting' admonition in Revelation is a warning against interpolation, not misinterpretation. Great snakes, if my salvation depends upon interpreting all of Revelation with exact correctness, I'm going to hell for sure!

    Please understand that Richardson was not one of the main players in starting the churches that established the 1644 confession and corrections. He was a player, but there were many others.

    Historical revisionism for sure! Richardson was pastor of London's first Particular Baptist church, established in 1633. So how can you propose that he was not a major player starting the churches of the Particular Baptist association? He was a signator to three editions of the confession and one of the most respected framers.

    John Brandon, John Lewis, and Benjamin Cox later wrote material against Richardson's positon. Cox wrote his 22 'amendments' to the 1646 confession immediately after its publication. Amendment 1 affirms the doctrine of eternal punishment against the teaching of Richardson. These 'amendments' were necessary only because the core confession was considered 'weak' on the doctrine--due to the influence of annihilationists like Richardson who did not want eternal punishment confessed outright. The confession only mentions the resurrection of the unjust--not eternal conscious punishment.

    MANY nonconformists (falsely dubbed 'Anabaptists') of the state-church reformation era believed in soul-sleep and final annihilation. For this very reason the first work of Calvin was his 'Psychopannychia.' Many free-will Baptists went into the doctrine much stronger than the Calvinists. It is a part of a number of their confessions, while the Particular Baptists omitted the controversy from theirs.

    I am not going to use his failing as an excuse not to exalt what these men in general did with this great confession.

    Neither do I!

    These men, as the link has shown, were the strongest teachers since the apostles.

    This is over-reverence of specific teachers. You exalt their strengths and ignore their failings. Typical of today. Too many want to follow and exalt a human teacher rather than Christ and the gospel he revealed to his ONLY apostles.


    You can argue with me Bill but you can't win. I won't let you.

    This board is for genuine interaction of studied convictions, not pure argument for the sake of argument. No one is keeping score on 'winners.' I would certainly rather lose an argument than lose the approval of God.

    Just in case anyone is wondering, I believe and confess that the scriptures teach eternal conscious punishment of the reprobate. However, that does not align me with traditional 'law and hell' evangelism. Law-evangelism (opposed by the 1644 confession) and hell-evangelism are twin sisters and always go together in the history of dogma.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Bill please clarify the "law and hell" position.

    "John Brandon, John Lewis, and Benjamin Cox later wrote material against Richardson's positon. Cox wrote his 22 'amendments' to the 1646 confession immediately after its publication. Amendment 1 affirms the doctrine of eternal punishment against the teaching of Richardson. These 'amendments' were necessary only because the core confession was considered 'weak' on the doctrine--due to the influence of annihilationists like Richardson who did not want eternal punishment confessed outright. The confession only mentions the resurrection of the unjust--not eternal conscious punishment."

    This affirms what I thought. This is an encouragement. Also, if you can point me to these works please do.

    Regarding the fellow who published these tracts of the 1644 people, well, he is deeply rooted in successionism. I don't have trouble with churches starting other churches. I do have trouble with the thought that the faith of the baptiser is more important than the faith of the one baptised. Hence the need for succesionism all the way back 2000 years. This guy tries to prove 2000 years of particular baptist successionism. I just think the faith of the person receiving baptism is what counts, and therefore, it is unnecessary, and impossible to prove a 2000 year succession. Talk about an endless geneology!

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    A church may never be founded upon either the faith of the baptizer or the faith of the one being baptized. If it is, it will surely fall. A church must be founded upon the grace of God and the faith of Christ.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    A church may never be founded upon either the faith of the baptizer or the faith of the one being baptized. If it is, it will surely fall. A church must be founded upon the grace of God and the faith of Christ.
    but might this be guilty of an either/or fallacy? i agree that the church cannot be solely founded upon this but why does it have to be nearly or seemingly ignored altogether and why cannot it be both? do you agree that a church of believers and a new covenant with only believers as covenant members is the goal?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Talking Re: A New Reformation?

    "A church may never be founded upon either the faith of the baptizer or the faith of the one being baptized. If it is, it will surely fall. A church must be founded upon the grace of God and the faith of Christ."

    My point is that the faith of the baptised person is what counts. Therefore that person could start a fellowship even if he came out of a false one. And you know what I believe about how few there are who are founded upon the grace of God and the obedience of Christ. I don't even need my thumb.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    disciple:

    i agree that the church cannot be solely founded upon this but why does it have to be nearly or seemingly ignored altogether and why cannot it be both?
    Faith ought not be ignored but it is not the basis for the church. The focus of the church must never, ever be man. The church must be God-centered and we determine the true church by its faithfulness in proclaiming God's Word, not by our hopeless attempt at discovering if each of the founders or each of the members have a true faith.

    do you agree that a church of believers and a new covenant with only believers as covenant members is the goal?
    Christ has not promised us such a church. He said there would be chaff and there will be until the judgment.

    bg:

    My point is that the faith of the baptised person is what counts. Therefore that person could start a fellowship even if he came out of a false one. And you know what I believe about how few there are who are founded upon the grace of God and the obedience of Christ. I don't even need my thumb.
    Wow!! So on this earth there are 4 or fewer churches which were founded upon God's grace?are you among the super apostles? Of course I would say the number is 0 if I thought the complete purity of faith produced by the person is what the church is founded upon.

    Sola Gratia,
    Wildboar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Faith ought not be ignored but it is not the basis for the church. The focus of the church must never, ever be man. The church must be God-centered and we determine the true church by its faithfulness in proclaiming God's Word, not by our hopeless attempt at discovering if each of the founders or each of the members have a true faith.
    perhaps you didn't understand what i was saying. i agree that Christ (and His grace) should be the foundation of a church. but why would not Christ being the foundation result or include regenerate church membership? why is it either/or to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Christ has not promised us such a church. He said there would be chaff and there will be until the judgment.
    and please don't misunderstand me to be saying that a church cannot be a church unless every member is regenerate (i fully understand the concept of wheat/tares). my question was not what is reality but what is the goal? if we were to purposely open the floodgates of the church to the pagans (who were somehow members just by baptism and infant baptism) then what would the result be? certainly there will be a few tares but is this the goal or just a reality of our limited knowledge of people's hearts and professions? to me it is clear that this wheat/tares was more of a concession than a goal:

    Mt 13:37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world (not the church); and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

    notice too that the tares are not purposely there by design as a goal for the church but are from the evil one. and notice too that the field is not the church but the world. that is crucial in our exegesis of the passage. we mustn't miss this fact. if we are to use this as the sole passage on why church membership doesn't need to be regenerate then we better make sure we understand what it is actually saying.

    i also do not think that the point of the parable is to give the composition or nature of the church (corpus permixtum - wheat/tares, believer/unbeliever mixture) or to say that the disciples just needed to happily accept the unbeliever into fellowship of the saints. i think rather the point of the parable was to tell the disciples that it wasn't their job to be arbiters or judges of who is in or out of the kingdom (perhaps as a result of old covenant thinking)...it is instead God's job alone and will be done in the final judgment. i believe that jesus was probably addressing a specific situation as seen in Luke 9:54:

    Lk 9:49 John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us." 50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you." 51 When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52 and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" 55 But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village.

    and it wasn't in the church that they were trying to do this but in the world. the disciples saw it as their job to go into the world and decide who's in or out and harvest before the time. this in no way negates a goal of a regenerate church. in fact, it argues for it rather than against it because they wanted to clear all imposters (false professors) not out of the church (for this was already assumed as the assembly of the saints) but out of the world as well.

    and here is where i get my presupposition that the goal of the ekkelsia is to be regenerate:

    Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. 44 And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

    Acts 5:14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number

    Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

    Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

    1 Cor 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

    Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,


    as i understand it and read these verses, the unbeliever (and unregenerate) is not to be knowlingly and purposely included in the church. a regenerate church is the goal...no other composition makes sense else we would blur the distinction between the church and the world.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    "Wow!! So on this earth there are 4 or fewer churches which were founded upon God's grace?are you among the super apostles? Of course I would say the number is 0 if I thought the complete purity of faith produced by the person is what the church is founded upon."

    The problem is the freedom for the truth to be pronounced. I would say the freedom to teach what scripture really teaches about law and grace, eternal generation, Christ as sabbath, etc is virtually non existent. Believe me, Wildboar, I have tried. People do not want to hear and preachers who want to make money do not want to risk that in any way. Therefore it is much easier to rest with tradition. That is the essence of teaching today, tradition.

    Bill, I wanted to ask you if you have any writings about the 1644 people and the sabbath. The consistency of their position demands that they rejected an earthly sabbath, Saturday or Sunday. Just curious about what you have on the subject.

  9. #49
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    BGAMALL:

    I have no evidence that any of the 1644 framers of the first London confession believed in Sabbath transference theology at all. They were opposed to it. Sabbath transference came Nicholas Bownde and his Scottish followers in the early 1600's. However, only the Westminster crowd in England adopted such views. The London Baptists of the earlier years rejected such a view with horror, in contrast to the Presbyterians.

    The Baptists of the later 1600's accepted the Westminster theology of the Sabbath--due to political pressure and the threat of persecution if they didn't.

    On your other questions (about the opponents of Richardson's views on hell), I will respond when I have time to consult sources. Thanks.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Twisse said:

    "If we are to have another visitation of God's glorious gospel of grace in Christ in our time, this will necessarily involve the following elements:

    A. Shedding the sectarian spirit.
    B. Unity based on the true gospel alone. No popular additions of law (Old or New) or sacrament will be introduced to divide the body of Christ.
    C. A New Ecclesiology renouncing historic churchianity and fully embracing the priesthood of all believers.
    D. Consideration of the need to condemn and renounce the following lies of Protestantism, some of which are the legacy of the whoring Diet of Regensburg. These were accepted to please the Papacy and attempt a false unity:

    1. Jesus founded an institutional 'church' to which he gave the keys of the kingdom.

    2. The great 'Babylonian captivity of the church' began only around the 6th century A.D. The early ‘fathers’ were orthodox and the ‘councils of the church’ may be used to condemn and punish ‘heresy.’
    3. Truth is mysterious and paradoxical. The mind of God cannot be adequately comprehended in regard to how he would express truth in words.

    4. The atonement of Christ was owed to an 'eternal law' separate from God's person and will.

    5. God never created evil. This act would make him the author of sin and therefore more wicked than any of his created beings.

    6. All men are created equal and endowed with natural liberty and free-will.

    7. Traditional views of hell and damnation come from God's revealed word in the Bible.

    8. The Canon of scripture presently accepted is self-authenticating and exhibits a perfect harmony of gospel teaching and revelation.

    I have softened a bit on #8 as I now accept a two-level canon. But the principle is still valid.

    Anxiously awaiting further interaction."



    My question to you Twisse, is what does your "8 items" represent here in this list? "[the following lies of Protestantism,]"

    Are you saying that the above 8 statements are "LIES"???

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Bill Twisse said:

    "If we are to have another visitation of God's glorious gospel of grace in Christ in our time, this will necessarily involve the following elements:

    A. Shedding the sectarian spirit.
    B. Unity based on the true gospel alone. No popular additions of law (Old or New) or sacrament will be introduced to divide the body of Christ.
    C. A New Ecclesiology renouncing historic churchianity and fully embracing the priesthood of all believers.
    D. Consideration of the need to condemn and renounce the following lies of Protestantism, some of which are the legacy of the whoring Diet of Regensburg. These were accepted to please the Papacy and attempt a false unity:

    1. Jesus founded an institutional 'church' to which he gave the keys of the kingdom.

    2. The great 'Babylonian captivity of the church' began only around the 6th century A.D. The early ‘fathers’ were orthodox and the ‘councils of the church’ may be used to condemn and punish ‘heresy.’
    3. Truth is mysterious and paradoxical. The mind of God cannot be adequately comprehended in regard to how he would express truth in words.

    4. The atonement of Christ was owed to an 'eternal law' separate from God's person and will.

    5. God never created evil. This act would make him the author of sin and therefore more wicked than any of his created beings.

    6. All men are created equal and endowed with natural liberty and free-will.

    7. Traditional views of hell and damnation come from God's revealed word in the Bible.

    8. The Canon of scripture presently accepted is self-authenticating and exhibits a perfect harmony of gospel teaching and revelation."


    I ask: are 1-8 supposed to be false statements? Are they some statements that are false that Protestants compromised on?

  12. #52
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    whs1:

    I ask: are 1-8 supposed to be false statements? Are they some statements that are false that Protestants compromised on?

    The answer is 'yes' in my estimation, after examining the history of Protestant and Western dogma.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    286
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    "7. Traditional views of hell and damnation come from God's revealed word in the Bible."

    "8. The Canon of scripture presently accepted is self-authenticating and exhibits a perfect harmony of gospel teaching and revelation."


    Well, Bill Twisse, would you like to prove from Scripture that these two statements are "false" or "lies"? I am not too interested in something "OUTside" the final Authourity: The holy Bible.

    Bill

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Please explain what you are getting at with number 8.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  15. #55
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    On point #8, I have already explained on this board (months ago) that I do not propose dropping any books from the present canon of scripture. I only propose that the issue of the canon be re-opened and re-studied. There are SO many historical facts regarding its development that have been covered up. It is not entirely self-authenticating: that is the real issue. If we propose that it is, Rome will win the argument.

    On point #7, the traditional view of hell is that of Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims. Protestants defend the 'law and hell' evangelism of the Puritans, based on the 'eternal law' philosophy of Anselm and the notion that 'law and hell' must be preached prior to the gospel. If someone wants to debate this fact, I am perfecly willing to do it in a thread devoted to the subject. So far I have not detected that anyone is genuinely interested in discerning the truth of this doctrine from scripture. All have been interested only in defending the history of dogma.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Well, it is clear to me that the law and fear of hell have nothing to do with the gospel. The gospel is the power of God. However, I believe that hell is real and that it is evil to teach otherwise.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillTwisse
    On point #7, the traditional view of hell is that of Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims. Protestants defend the 'law and hell' evangelism of the Puritans, based on the 'eternal law' philosophy of Anselm and the notion that 'law and hell' must be preached prior to the gospel. If someone wants to debate this fact, I am perfecly willing to do it in a thread devoted to the subject. So far I have not detected that anyone is genuinely interested in discerning the truth of this doctrine from scripture. All have been interested only in defending the history of dogma.
    i don't know what you meant by "So far I have not detected that anyone is genuinely interested in discerning the truth of this doctrine from scripture. All have been interested only in defending the history of dogma." but i'm interested in this and am with you on this. hell as a torture chamber and "law and hell" evangelism are false teachings based on medeival dogma and not Scripture as far as i'm concerned.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    Quote Originally Posted by bgamall
    Well, it is clear to me that the law and fear of hell have nothing to do with the gospel. The gospel is the power of God. However, I believe that hell is real and that it is evil to teach otherwise.
    not that bob needs any defense (he can take care of himself just fine) but i'm pretty sure he's not denying the existence of hell, but rather is expressing concern about contemporary teaching about hell as based on historic dogma and not Scripture (meaning that the contemporary commonly accepted conceptions about hell are false though it is a real place/state/act).
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  19. #59
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    99
    Thanked in
    49 Posts

    About Hell

    Thanks, Doug, for your rebuke. I did go overboard in stating that none were willing to discuss the issue--one of those moments of bad over-reaction.

    I think that I have mentioned it before: the gospel of John is a great example of what needs to be preached or taught to those presently lost. Though it certainly speaks of judgment to come & that unbelievers will have a resurrection of damnation to face, it does not utilize any 'law and hell' evangelism in the style of the Puritans. To me, this contrast speaks quite a bit about the difference between the apostolic approach and later wrong approaches in preaching to the lost.

    Preaching the terrors of the law and hell (independently) as a 'preparation' for the gospel is wrong. We may certainly teach the reality of eternal punishment as the destiny awaiting those who refuse the gospel. On that point I agree with you, bgamall.

    To over-simplify (I admit), we might state that there are three views in the history of dogma on the sufferings of hell:
    1. With end. The views of Arnobius and all of his subsequent followers.
    2. Without measure and without end (an expression from Calvin). The traditionalist view of Papists, Muslims, and Protestants.
    3. With measure but without end. What I believe is the apostolic and biblical view (many others have held to it also). This is in harmony with the biblical perspective on God's immutability. His disposition towards the reprobate never changes; it is always one of wrath tempered with goodness--both in this life and in the life to come.

    We can get into it further after I finish my studies on baptism.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    351
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A New Reformation?

    "not that bob needs any defense (he can take care of himself just fine) but i'm pretty sure he's not denying the existence of hell, but rather is expressing concern about contemporary teaching about hell as based on historic dogma and not Scripture (meaning that the contemporary commonly accepted conceptions about hell are false though it is a real place/state/act)."

    Disciple, you are without doubt one of the most arrogant and condescending people I have ever met on a board. Don't take it personally, it is just what I have seen from you. You probably are not that way toward everyone.

    However, what you are saying here is not the whole thing. What Bill is saying is that the fear of hell in preaching is not the gospel. Using law and condemnation and fear of hell is not the gospel of Christ. I would agree with that.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nazareth
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-06-05, 03:13 PM

Posting Permissions

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