Owner - christianforums.net
- Nov 4, 2004
Red said:Jeff said:When we look at the verse you posted, does your theology take into account these items?
a. Sources (Oral traditions or written sources i.e. Jawist Source, Priestly source, Apostolic source or disciples)
b. Historical Author or Sender
2. What / What about?
a. The World of the Text (Implied author <-> Implied Receiver)
a. The World in front of the Text
b. Historical Receiver (Israel, Southern Kingdom, Church in Rome Theophilus etc)
c. Interpreter (Rabbis, School of Alexandria, Augustine, Luther, Calvin etc)
Sorry Steve, but Calvinism does not use oral tradition or Rabbis when it comes to the development of systemic doctrine.
Your style is a bit too eclectic.
Calvinism starts with the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible as its axiom, then explicitly states or logically deduces its doctrine. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1. I would go on to give the article, but after seeing the confusion of your hermeneutical principles I would suggest you read the entire first chapter of the Westminster Confession several times slowly.
IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not trying to be sarcastic here, but please take a moment to actually read what I write. For starters, my name is Jeff (as noted at the end of a few of my posts) and my screen name is StoveBolts. You can call me Stove for short, or Jeff.
Secondly, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you took the time to read, or if you did, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t understand what I had written. Perhaps this graph will better explain it.
In regard to the Jawist or Priestly source, I am speaking on the writers of sacred scriptures. When I speak on oral account, I believe that you would agree that Adam, Noah or Abram did not write their portions of Genesis, nor do I believe that the presumed author of Genesis has met any of the people mentioned. Furthermore, Luke also gives a second hand account on many items in both his gospel and in Acts. Thus, we speak of the oral word and oral traditions and neither of them are dirty words.
In regard to 3c, I believe that your interpretation of Calvin would be another category that I did not include. We can call that 4a if you want.
But you know what I find extremely ironic? Is how you slam down the law that the 66 books are you axiom and immediately refer me to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Personally, I found the Apostles Creed sufficient, but thank you anyway.
You see Red, scripture is deeper than the written word. It is a living word.
As far as, how did you put it? Ã¢â‚¬Å“Pesky UniversalistsÃ¢â‚¬Â. I have a hard time faulting the true URist for wanting all men to be saved and it should be our prayers that all men would come to Christ. Would you agree with this?
The last thing that IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll say to you is this. You have your WCF and itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s based on a need in response to an opposing thought (you could use the chart above and just plug in Calvinism according to Red). If memory serves me, the Apostles Creed was created to affirm that Christ was in deed fully human as the Gnostics believed that Christ was God, and thus, could not have been a man. The second creed of the church (The Nicene Creed )was to affirm that Christ was indeed fully God and reject AriusÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ claim that he wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.
My point is this, creedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s and confessions donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just jump out of thin air and neither did our bibles. Each word was written with a specific purpose for a particular tension in itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time.
Job says to YHWH, I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye has seen you. (and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to get a lot of mileage out of this scripture in the days to come).
Job didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get an answer, why must you insist that Calvinism has all the answers and belittle those who disagree? We must not create doctrine to Ã¢â‚¬Å“WinÃ¢â‚¬Â arguments for truly, the battle belongs to the Lord.
I will start on a reply to your last post to me. (hopfully I can tag team Vic's in there too) You bring up some very good points that I hope to address and perhaps we can further address.