Reformed Protestant checking in!

[ChristianVox]

Greetings all. I'm new to the forum. Looks interesting... and lively!

Here's my basic theological outlook:

I am a Reformed Christian holding firmly to the doctrines of grace (although some of my more Ownenian brothers wouldn’t like my more Baxterian or Hodgian (shall I say Calvinian?) convictions regarding the extent of the atonement). I find the non-cessationist position, as held by men like D.A. Carson, Piper and Sam Storms, theologically compelling. That being said, cessationisma appears existentially normative, at least to me, thus far. I grew up dispensational, but men like Kim Riddlebarger, O Palmer Robertson and Robert L. Reymond have cured me. Therefore I hold to a more covenantal view. I lean heavily towards Amillennialism, but would not die on that hill. Here I must say that G.K. Beale’s commentary on Revelation is an absolute gem. Sell your shirt and buy it. Van Til’s “The Defense of Christianity and My Credo” forever changed me. But while I am a thorough-going presuppositionalist, I very much appreciate all fields of apologetics. They all have their place. Alvin Plantinga is wildly interesting, if you’re into that kind of stuff.

I am paedobaptist, but a non-dogmatic one. Here I can really see both sides of the debate, and I feel each other’s plight. At the end of the day, I’m convinced that the warnings and the nature of the New Covenant, along with the existential problem of when to baptize a young, but professing child, tilt the issue towards paedobaptism.

I think doctrine is profoundly important (I loathe theological liberalism), but despise cantankerous Christians who wield their doctrines like clubs.

John Piper, D.A. Carson, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, G.K. Beale would be some of my top picks, if I were stranded on an island and had only the Bible and a pile of books to read. Moby Dick and C.S. Lewis’ “Space Trilogy” would be musts as well. If you haven’t read Perelendra, the second book in the trilogy, sell your pants and buy a copy (though you shoud read the first… so sell your underwear!).

I am also a member and a Deacon in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.


Cheers,

Austin

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Greetings all. I'm new to the forum. Looks interesting... and lively!

Austin

Welcome to TOL. :up:

 

[Aimiel]

Welcome. :thumb:

 

[ChristianVox]

Hey, Knight

Hey, Knight

What are the rules here for posting links to stuff. I'm a huge Christian audio fan- podcasts, lectures, sermons, etc.- but I also know forums don't like spammers. Is it alright to recommend stuff? I didn't see it in the forum rules... unless I missed it.

Thanks,

Austin

 

[Rusha]

Welcome to TOL!

 

[nicholsmom]

What are the rules here for posting links to stuff. I'm a huge Christian audio fan- podcasts, lectures, sermons, etc.- but I also know forums don't like spammers. Is it alright to recommend stuff? I didn't see it in the forum rules... unless I missed it.

Thanks,

Austin

Yep. You must have missed it. No spamming allowed. We like links, but not naked ones and not excessively lengthy ones. So if there is some great article or video out there that you'd like to discuss, then link it - or part of it - and start the discussion. Don't post a link and then say, "discuss" the way some others have done

It is an uncommon privilege to welcome a Reformed theologian Try, if you please, to expound on your views rather than merely labeling them, and take things in smallish bites for those of us who are new to the theological arena :e4e:

Welcome :wave:

 

[nicholsmom]

Here's my basic theological outlook:

I am a Reformed Christian holding firmly to the doctrines of grace (although some of my more Ownenian brothers wouldn’t like my more Baxterian or Hodgian (shall I say Calvinian?) convictions regarding the extent of the atonement). I find the non-cessationist position, as held by men like D.A. Carson, Piper and Sam Storms, theologically compelling. That being said, cessationisma appears existentially normative, at least to me, thus far. I grew up dispensational, but men like Kim Riddlebarger, O Palmer Robertson and Robert L. Reymond have cured me. Therefore I hold to a more covenantal view. I lean heavily towards Amillennialism, but would not die on that hill. Here I must say that G.K. Beale’s commentary on Revelation is an absolute gem. Sell your shirt and buy it. Van Til’s “The Defense of Christianity and My Credo” forever changed me. But while I am a thorough-going presuppositionalist, I very much appreciate all fields of apologetics. They all have their place. Alvin Plantinga is wildly interesting, if you’re into that kind of stuff.

See; this is just so much babble to most of us.

I am paedobaptist, but a non-dogmatic one. Here I can really see both sides of the debate, and I feel each other’s plight. At the end of the day, I’m convinced that the warnings and the nature of the New Covenant, along with the existential problem of when to baptize a young, but professing child, tilt the issue towards paedobaptism.

:juggle:

I think doctrine is profoundly important (I loathe theological liberalism), but despise cantankerous Christians who wield their doctrines like clubs.

There. Something clear that I can agree with (if you'll pardon the grammar).

Cheers,

Austin

:cheers: Looking forward to your transformation into a decent communicator of your faith and doctrine :e4e:

 

[ChristianVox]

Nicholsmom

Nicholsmom

Ha, thanks for the info on posting. I'll be sensible. The reason I bring it up is because I'm a mailman, and as such, I listen to stuff all day long. Over the past five years you can imagine all the stuff that's been downloaded. Anyway, I thought I would start reviewing and recommending the best of the best for listeners who don't have time to wade through it all. So I started a website/blog doing that very thing. I'll let you ask, if you're interested.

As for my theological proclivities, err, convictions , sorry about the doctrinal jargon. I'm kind of a theological geek when it comes to that stuff. I'll work harder in future posts to make myself more understandable... though for some that would be very precise and understandable... kinda like a computer guy talking code with another computer guy. Nevertheless, your point is taken.

Thanks,

Austin

 

[godrulz]

Do you have an opinion about Open Theism?

www.opentheism.info

Have you heard of Todd Friel, Wretched Radio (Calvinist)?

http://www.wretchedradio.com/

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We get bombarded with link droppers. Therefore we are very sensitive to that issue and usually shoot first ask questions later.

TOL is designed for dialog not for link sharing.

If you make it past your first 50 posts and couple weeks of service on TOL we might be more inclined to let a link "slide" here and there.

 

[ChristianVox]

To Knight

To Knight

That's fair. Obviously if everyone posted their blogs, it would turn into one big commercial. Like I said, I listen to a lot of stuff. And more times than not, when someone asks me a question, or when I'm thrust into a theological dialogue, I discuss the matter and recommend a book and/or a lecture. For example, someone just asked me what I think of open theism. I'll respond, but man, I sure want to say, "Hey, read this and listen to this... and let's discuss as we go."

I would like to be able to do that here, if possible. But I will take your warning seriously. Once I have your trust, i would like to make people aware of the blog, if I could. I make no money through it. Nor does anyone else. It's there so people can learn more about theology.

Thanks,

Austin

 

[chrysostom]

welcome to TOL
could you be the first reformed christian here?
we know mad and calvin
but
maybe not reformed
so my advice is to skip the links
and
let's have a dialogue

 

[ChristianVox]

To Godrulz

To Godrulz

I do have an opinion about Open Theism. It is heresy. But don't just take my word about it. The Church has by and large convened, at various times and various ways, and declared it unscriptural.

The funny thing about Open Theism is that it moves the direction it does in order to suppossedly solve the problem of evil, the free will problem, determinism, etc. That's reallly what drives propenents. But in so doing it doesn't solve the problem at all. Basically, it goes the heresy route in order to adopt a position that ironically doesn't help them.

How so? Here's one example.

Let's just assume that God doesn't know the future. This suppossedly exonerates God from the problem of evil, as they understand the problem. But how so? Because people are free and He doesn't know infallibly how they will act? Then why not simply return now and end it all? If He were to return and judge the living and the dead, evil would end and future suffering would cease. And yet... He hasn't returned. Why? What is the reason? The reason is a reason that He has determined in Himself. But if that is so, then we come back around full circle to the purposes of God as normative.

Basically, the Open Theist cringes at the Calvinistic conception of divine decree. But their little formulation shouldn't make them feel any better, even though it is initially softer. The end result is essentially the same, given their concerns.


Now as for the Wretched Calvinist. No, I have never heard of that. I'll make sure and check it out right now.

Thank you,

Austin

 

[Alate_One]

I do have an opinion about Open Theism. It is heresy. But don't just take my word about it. The Church has by and large convened, at various times and various ways, and declared it unscriptural.

Just FYI there may be some people that become very um . . . uncivil when it comes to open theism.

But you sound like an informed, interesting and thoughtful person, so please stick around.

 

[ChristianVox]

Cantankerous Open Theists?

Cantankerous Open Theists?

Thanks for the heads up.

So are you saying that they'll become angry like the people in Ephesus when Paul denounced their idolatry :chuckle:

I'm not looking to start a riot... but if need be...

Austin

 

[godrulz]

I appreciate Wretched Radio (on Satellite) and his strong convictions, heart for evangelism/apologetics, humor, etc. You would like him. He is Piper friendly, etc. (Piper also has a heart for evangelism, refreshing since hyper-Calvinism should blunt it as it has at times historically...around Finney's time). I do not appreciate when he and Piper tell people who are suffering, childless, etc. to suck it up because it is God's will. Not everything is God's will and many negative things relate to free will and spiritual warfare with the demonic realm (allowing is not intending/desiring).

The irrevocability of genuine free will (vs compatibilistic, illusory) is part of a sound theodicy. Both views could ask why God did not stop Adam, Satan, Hitler, etc. A free will defense is more coherent than you think.

I realize Piper, etc. label Open Theism (a more consistent, biblical free will theism than Arminianism) as heresy, but they tend to misunderstand/misrepresent it. They also say the same about Arminianism, so anything non-Calvinistic becomes heretical. I find this arrogant and presumptious given the problematic issues with Calvinism (impugning the character and ways of God).

So, you are open to charismatic issues (non-cessationist)? This is positive.

 

[Krsto]

Howdy Vox. I have a lot of respect for the Reformed faith as it seems to be one of the few that hasn't bought Darby/Hal Lindsay eschatology hook, line, and sinker, (as I did at one time.)

I can tell you what I don't believe (futerism) better than I can tell you what I do believe and am open to exploring amilenialism as I do see it has merit and so far don't see much difference with preterism which is my current eschatological bent.

Do you know of any good online primer for amillenialism?

 

[chrysostom]

can anyone else confirm that this is our first reformed one?

 

[godrulz]

Thanks for the heads up.

So are you saying that they'll become angry like the people in Ephesus when Paul denounced their idolatry :chuckle:

I'm not looking to start a riot... but if need be...

Austin

:deadhorse:

Calvinists shut down dialogue on the issue. There is a big difference between views on providence/sovereignty, free will, theodicy within the Christian umbrella and rank heresy/idolatry. Save your pejorative snippets for the cults, not for thoughtful, non-Calvinistic CHRISTIANS (vs Ephesian worshippers of false gods). It is circular to say that if God is not hyper-sovereign, impassible, strongly immutable, etc. that He is not God at all. We are not talking YHWH vs Allah, but a common trinitarian view (orthodox, biblical). e.g. impassibility, strong immutability, etc. are philosophical, Platonic, not explicitly biblical. As well, we both affirm omniscience but differ as to what are possible objects of certain knowledge (due to nature of creation, not limitation in God). God not knowing where Alice in Wonderland is does not mean He is not omniscient. cf. God not being able to create a rock too heavy to lift (absurd logical contradiction) is not a limitation or denial of omnipotence.

Without free will, we have no love, relationship, freedom, responsibility, a big price to pay in order to cling to a wrong view of sovereignty and exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.

You will like AMR (who does not like me), but I will not be your cup of tea. So be it.:dog:

 

[godrulz]

Howdy Vox. I have a lot of respect for the Reformed faith as it seems to be one of the few that hasn't bought Darby/Hal Lindsay eschatology hook, line, and sinker, (as I did at one time.)

I can tell you what I don't believe (futerism) better than I can tell you what I do believe and am open to exploring amilenialism as I do see it has merit and so far don't see much difference with preterism which is my current eschatological bent.

Do you know of any good online primer for amillenialism?

Pre-mill. is the biblical, historical view. Thank Augustine, et al, for amill. which relies on an allegorical approach (subjective) to Scripture vs a normative literal, grammatical, historical, contextual approach.

These issues are peripheral when you have a defective Christology. If you were Reformed on the doctrine of God, we would rejoice. Many of the other issues are not salvific.