OT: The Reformed View of the Ordo Salutis

Page 2 of 3 (53 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 52 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:45 AM

RalphMauch:
Nuff said before Rich says something Wink, or the thread goes ugly

Something. Wink

Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:50 AM

Bryan, give me your email and I'll try to clarify in private. (It would be nice if Logos had a private message/mail system eventually).

Richard, 

There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better.

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 2830
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 9:56 AM
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith.
1 John 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

I have listed above how John uses the term "born" in 1 John. I am curious to see how Bryan will exegete 1 John 5:1. 1 john 2:29 seems to suggest everyone who practices righteousness does so because they are born of God. Will this method of interpretation hold true in 1 John 5:1. Thanks

 

Ted

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 5573
Forum MVP
Rich DeRuiter | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:01 AM

John Bowling:

Richard, 

There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better

As much time as I spend on these forums, I don't catch all the discussions. I try to ignore most of them. I was attracted to this one because of the subject matter (I'm a Christian Reformed Pastor and solidly in the Calvinist camp).

Having said that, I find that such discussions rarely produce any fruit. Further, this is not the place for them. So I express my opinion on the use of these forums when I am in the mood to do so. A bit capricious, perhaps, but I'm not the police, just another guy on the same road here, wishing folks would stay in the lanes (so to speak).

 

 Help links: WIKI;  Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:04 AM

John Bowling:

Bryan, give me your email and I'll try to clarify in private. (It would be nice if Logos had a private message/mail system eventually).

Richard, 

There are several threads like this, why do you have to spoil mine? Maybe it is helping people understand the historical position better.

grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..

 

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:08 AM

Ted Hans:
1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.
1 John 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
1 John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.
1 John 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith.
1 John 5:18 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

I have listed above how John uses the term "born" in 1 John. I am curious to see how Bryan will exegete 1 John 5:11 john 2:29 seems to suggest everyone who practices righteousness does so because they are born of God. Will this method of interpretation hold true in 1 John 5:1. Thanks

 

Ted

 

Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed??  I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..

is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..

 

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:13 AM

Bryan Brodess:
grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..

Terms like "moderate" and "extreme" are relative, especially in a subject like this which tends to get people emotionally charged. It's been a long time since I read Erickson's systematic theology (we used it in college), so I don't recall exactly what his position is although I recall him leaning toward a reformed soteriology. If you want to get the full spectrum I would suggest you pre-order John Miley's Arminian systematic theology and read through that and Robert Reymond's ST (which you can currently get) and read through that (of course there are a lot of other places you could go for a full Reformed perspective like Hodge and Berkhof (not out yet), but Reymond interacts with some more contemporary thought like Pinnock and Open Theism). 

[Edit: Also, you might just try reading through the relevant portions of the WCF and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (unfortunately not in Logos format). And make sure to check your library first to see if you already have these resources (you probably have WCF and Hodge).]

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 2830
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:16 AM

Bryan Brodess:

Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed??  I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..

is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..

Sorry Bryan for not making myself clear. It seems to me 1 john 5:1 is saying to believe Jesus is the Christ one has to be born again. My point is, is this a wrong way of looking at this text? What are your thoughts. Thanks

Ted

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 338
Ralph Mauch | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:22 AM

Richard DeRuiter:

Something. Wink

Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.

Totally agree, the only reason I said something is because I know how fruitless these discussions can get. There are plenty of places to argue about topics like this, do a google, but at your own risk to join in a discussion board or list. It gets ugly on both sides of these type of debates, and I like to come here because of all the discussion on how to use our new software. Just this morning I went to check what the home page was all about, because I had turned it off, and then by accident I hit the "Ctrl & Tab" keys to find it returned me back to my original layout. How is that?  rrm

 

Posts 3733
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:28 AM

Richard DeRuiter:

RalphMauch:
Nuff said before Rich says something Wink, or the thread goes ugly

Something. Wink

Please. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it, or take it private.

+1

Grace & Peace,
Bill


MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:38 AM

John Bowling:

Bryan Brodess:
grr.. Thats why I asked about Erickson. I just purchased his theology book from logos.. thought if this was it, then I could look at his book and see what your saying.. I am not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum.. Yes I agree, private messaging would be nice..

Terms like "moderate" and "extreme" are relative, especially in a subject like this which tends to get people emotionally charged. It's been a long time since I read Erickson's systematic theology (we used it in college), so I don't recall exactly what his position is although I recall him leaning toward a reformed soteriology. If you want to get the full spectrum I would suggest you pre-order John Miley's Arminian systematic theology and read through that and Robert Reymond's ST (which you can currently get) and read through that (of course there are a lot of other places you could go for a full Reformed perspective like Hodge and Berkhof (not out yet), but Reymond interacts with some more contemporary thought like Pinnock and Open Theism). 

[Edit: Also, you might just try reading through the relevant portions of the WCF and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (unfortunately not in Logos format). And make sure to check your library first to see if you already have these resources (you probably have WCF and Hodge).]

thanks for the references, Erickson considers himself a "moderate" Calvinist ( see Wikipedia)  for what moderate Calvinism vs extreme Calvinism means ( I consider myself to be moderate calvanist .as per that definition.

I have hodge, Not sure of WCF. I do not have access to logos on my work computer, Which I hope to change soon,, am hoping to try on a external hardrive and see if that works.. thats if I do not need admin rights to install..

 

 

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:42 AM

Ted Hans:

Bryan Brodess:

Not sure exactly what you mean. What is righteousness. Does a person who is not "born of god do a righteous deed??  I am looking at God's perspective and not mans..hint rom 3..

is this what your getting at.? if not explain and I will try to respond..

Sorry Bryan for not making myself clear. It seems to me 1 john 5:1 is saying to believe Jesus is the Christ one has to be born again. My point is, is this a wrong way of looking at this text? What are your thoughts. Thanks

Ted

1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

 

seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??

 

 

Posts 3733
BillS | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:45 AM

Bryan Brodess:
not sure I want to give me email out in a public forum..

Very sensible. That's why I have a yahoo account for use in public places like this. It isn't my private account for family & friends. It isn't even the one I use for business. It's just for places where damage is limited if it's scanned. And Yahoo has a pretty good spam filter, so most of it never makes it into the inbox. You don't have to give your private email. Since these accounts are free, set one up & then take it off line without fear.

Big Smile

Grace & Peace,
Bill


MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
Fire 10HD 64GB 7th Gen

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 10:47 AM

Virtually any sort of theological discussion suffers from the charge of "fruitless" by certain persons. (In fact a lot of non-theological discussions on this board look "fruitless" too.) Personally, I disagree. It's not that I don't think they *can be* fruitless, but that I don't think we can prejudge any discussion as *going to be* fruitless. 

For years I was a hard nosed Arminian. I debated it for a long time and some people told me the pursuit was "fruitless" but some time later, as I mulled over the previous debates I had, fruit was born (although some of a different theological position would disagree). At the very least, all the debates, often late into the night, made a difference, although not immediately.

To be honest, every time (not an exaggeration) I've had this debate in a public manner (whether it be over dinner with friends or on a forum) someone has said that we shouldn't have the conversation because it would be "fruitless". If I had listened to them, I'd never know the other side of the issue. I personally know people who think that the very topic is by nature "fruitless" and, thus, that there is never an appropriate time or place to discuss such issues. Actually, I think a lot of people approach this subject like that, although probably never with a conscious awareness that they are doing it.

My own opinion is that we should not censure any discussion or prejudge it as fruitless unless it devolves into vulgarity or ad hominems. 

I'm more than willing to not debate the issue here and I made that clear from my first post, but if charges like "fruitless" are going to be thrown around, well...

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Posts 2830
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 11:00 AM

Bryan Brodess:

seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??

 

Thanks Bryan for your response. I posted how John uses the term "born" above in a previous post and gave an explanation of what i thought he was saying concerning "righteousness" in a text that included "born" 1 John 2:29. A literal translation suggest differently from your explanation.  Born comes before belief, the reason why they believe is that they are born of God not the other way round. At least in 1 John.

Thanks for your interaction in this thread and the other, i have benefited a lot even though i do disagree with your view point. You have given me much food for thought & you have tried to be biblical in presenting your understanding of scripture.

Every Blessing.

Ted

Edit

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 198
Bryan Brodess | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 11:22 AM

Ted Hans:

Bryan Brodess:

seems to me it is saying whoever believes ( although I think the word faith, not just mere belief should be insinuated here) is born again, which would mean faith must come first.. do we agree??

Thanks Bryan for your response. I posted how John uses the term "born" above in a previous post and gave an explanation of what i thought he was saying concerning "righteousness" in a text that included "born" 1 John 2:29. A literal translation suggest differently from your explanation. ( Born comes before belief, the reason why they believe is that they are born of God not the other way round. At least in 1 John)

Thanks for your interaction in this thread and the other, i have benefited a lot even though i do disagree with your view point. You have given me much food for thought & you have tried to be biblical in presenting your understanding of scripture.

Every Blessing.

Ted

Edit

Thank you. I wish I knew why you disagreed so I can undersyand further, but it is fine.. And this is how we should discuss things in a brotherly manner. which you will not get in those other forums.. We should learn why people believe to understand them.. not to force them to believe the way we do..

Thanks again Big Smile

 

Posts 338
Ralph Mauch | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 11:53 AM

John Bowling:
Personally, I disagree. It's not that I don't think they *can be* fruitless, but that I don't think we can prejudge any discussion as *going to be* fruitless

If you meant my comment on fruitless, then let me explain... the older version of Logos had the remote notes that you could logon to, as well as the "newsgroups" where many of the discussions turned fruitless, not because folks could not learn form them, but because written emails, or even these posts, often failed to express what the author intended. Let's face it, emails and such is a very flat medium. Needles to say many folks started to express themselves out of frustration rather then helpful dialog. After having been through that for over 10 years now I have some experience with what happens. I have also had over 12 years involvement with two "yahoo Groups" , one of which I am a moderato for, so I also know how difficult it is too express yourself with this type of dialog.

The Word of God discussed is never fruitless, and while I don't see that we can avoid it here sometimes, it definetly can lead to something less than deisred. My own journey sounds very similar then your own, and I think disscussions on boards designed for that can grow one in their understanding of theology. But this specific topic is just an invitation for some less then desired discussion, though none has yet taken place. It's just my opinion, but one that has experience. I would love to have deep theological discusion too, but not sure this is the place. Other then not liking the Forum format, it was these intense discussions that never seemed to get resolved, why I've not posted very much, but am content to just listen and learn.

On vacation too, which is why I have more time then usual to be the forumBig Smile

Blessings,

Ralph

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 11:59 AM

Can I chime in?

I'm not a pastor....I'm probably the least of anyone here....

I'm probably misunderstanding this but I looked over the verse list that Ted gave....and coming from my "Calvinistic" perspective...I didn't see any issues that would contradict anything that Calvinists believe....

 

Am I missing something?

 

It seems to me that 1st John 5:1 supports the Calvinist view.

Everyone who ("present tense" currently) believes has been ( "perfect tense" past action, divine passive) born of God.

 

EDITED TO ADD: 1st John 2:29 seems to be exactly the same situation....present action / past action by God....

Is there something that I'm not seeing? (that's usually the case)

 

God bless,

bob

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 12:06 PM

RalphMauch:
I would love to have deep theological discusion too, but not sure this is the place

 

Ralph, I agree with you brother...this is a Logos forum....and IF we could confine the dialogue to "does the present tense mean...does the exegetical guide help doing this or that?

Then it would be relevant....as it is...one BIG problem is that most of the time...people don't listen to what the other is saying; they are "ready with their answer" before the send button is pushed!

 

If people are going to debate this via email...i'm in...I'd like to follow the conversation, which is above my head sometimes...as I said in my previous post....I'm not that bibically educated as a lot of you are....

bob

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 320
John Bowling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 30 2009 12:08 PM

RalphMauch:
written emails, or even these posts, often failed to express what the author intended. Let's face it, emails and such is a very flat medium.

Actually, I tend to think that they can be a better medium of exchange, they at least have that potential. Persons can choose their words more carefully and be more precise as well as have more time to think about what was said and what should be said. In addition, one can go back and reread what someone said, this can lead to much greater understanding of where a person is coming from than a verbal conversation. In a verbal conversation, which moves quickly, the other person *usually* only gives half of his attention to what the speaker is saying. The other half is spent in trying to think of how to respond and a lot of what is said gets forgotten.

But of course it doesn't always work out in this ideal way and the other things you say have some merit.

 

perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

Page 2 of 3 (53 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS