Calvinism

[Waiting on him]

Scripture tells us to carefully examine doctrines against Scripture and that there are many doctrines that are untrue.

John Gill believed the doctrine that Michael and Jesus was one in the same. This was theoretical.

Dispensationalism began as a Calvinist doctrine. It is also a theory (it is not simply Scripture) as is Covenant theology.

Many of our eschatological doctrines (most or perhaps all) are also theories.

You need to look up the meanings of words before you choose to use them.

The question is not whether the Theory is a doctrine but if the teaching is in the Bible. It is not.

When Jesus says it is written, I will smite the shepherd, who do you believe the I is referring to, and what do you believe smite implies?

 

[John Caldwell]

When Jesus says it is written, I will smite the shepherd, who do you believe the I is referring to, and what do you believe smite implies?

In the verse God calls the sword to strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep. This shows all is accomplished according to the will of God.

Zechariah 13:6-7
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!” declares the LORD Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

 

[Waiting on him]

In the verse God calls the sword to strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep. This shows all is accomplished according to the will of God.

So The swords name is I?

 

[Waiting on him]

In the verse God calls the sword to strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep. This shows all is accomplished according to the will of God.

Zechariah 13:6-7
“Awake, sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!” declares the LORD Almighty. “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

I agree, but Jesus sees it as being some what personal. He says I will smite. Would you mind giving your opinion as to what it is to smite?

 

[Waiting on him]

Sorry John, it’s my opinion that it was the Spirit of God alone that walked Him up that hill, Jesus himself said the flesh is weak, it was the Spirit that walked Him same one walks in us per scripture.
No man had the power to take his life.

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree, but Jesus sees it as being some what personal. He says I will smite. Would you mind giving your opinion as to what it is to smite?

Scripture uses the word נכה. It carties the meaning of striking, conquering, wound, slay. The principle is that without a shepherd the sherp will scatter.

In the passage God charges a sword to strike the shepherd so that the sherp will be scattered.

 

[John Caldwell]

Sorry John, it’s my opinion that it was the Spirit of God alone that walked Him up that hill, Jesus himself said the flesh is weak, it was the Spirit that walked Him same one walks in us per scripture.
No man had the power to take his life.

No need to apologize for disagreeing. We can learn of each others views without having to agree with each others views.

What do you do with Peters claim it was not God but wicked men committing evil, yet according to God's plan. Also, Jesus said He lay down His life.

 

[Waiting on him]

Scripture uses the word נכה. It carties the meaning of striking, conquering, wound, slay. The principle is that without a shepherd the sherp will scatter.

In the passage God charges a sword to strike the shepherd so that the sherp will be scattered.

It’s my belief that the whole of what mr Calvin is trying to present is that it’s not within the flesh of man to make the trip up that hill to the Cross of Christ, only the Holy Spirit within a man can perform this.

 

[Waiting on him]

The flesh profits nothing. All the Glory be to God alone.

 

[John Caldwell]

It’s my belief that the whole of what mr Calvin is trying to present is that it’s not within the flesh of man to make the trip up that hill to the Cross of Christ, only the Holy Spirit within a man can perform this.

I agree Jesus relied on the Spirit in submission to the Father.

 

[Waiting on him]

No need to apologize for disagreeing. We can learn of each others views without having to agree with each others views.

What do you do with Peters claim it was not God but wicked men committing evil, yet according to God's plan. Also, Jesus said He lay down His life.

What I’d make of that is He on that day fully illustrated what’s within man and what’s within God. Choose this day

 

[Steve Owen]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a theory. It is also a doctrine.

The theories of Atonement include Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, Satisfaction Theory, Penal Substitution Theory, and many more.

Each of those are also doctrines. Just like the Theory of Evolution is often referred to as evolution (as a doctrine rather than a theory).

Oh dear!
Let's deal with science first. A scientific law has to be tested in a laboratory and there has to be the possibility of disproving it. For example, the Law of Abiogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life. It was formulated by Louis Pasteur who proved that flies did not spontaneously appear in rotting meat by the simple expedient of covering the meat. It can be disproved by someone creating life from inorganic matter in a lab, though no one has managed it yet.
The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven under laboratory conditions, nor is there any way decisively to disprove it. Therefore it remains a theory.

A theological doctrine has nothing to do with scientific laws or theories. It is one that is based of the Bible and is received by a reasonable number of theologians and churches. Thus there is a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, although I presume most here would not agree with it. It is held by the Church of Rome and certain other denominations and articulated by Roman catholic theologians. IMO it is a false doctrine, but a doctrine nonetheless.

A theological theory would be something that someone articulates and puts forward that has not (yet?) been endorsed by other theologians. So the theory may be true and a doctrine may be false, but that is not the basis for the nomenclature.

What I have objected to, both here and on another board, is the sneering supposition that other people's views are theories, whilst one's own views are doctrines or that someone else's understanding of a teaching is a mere theory, while one's own understanding is doctrinal.

Penal Substitution is a doctrine. It is accepted by a substantial number of theologians and churches. Anyone can have a shot at proving it false, but unless his arguments are accepted by others, P.S. will remain a doctrine.

 

[Willie T]

Actually God told both you and I (and every Christian) that a doctrine is from God -- it is a divine revelation and a teaching from God and Christ.

And Christians are to hold to sound doctrine, particularly the *Doctrine of Christ* (which includes His finished work of redemption).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (2 John 1:9,10)

The word *doctrine* is repeated THREE TIMES in two verses. And John was writing by divine revelation.

Uh.... "doctrine" is not a Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Greek word. It means nothing more than a "teaching", no matter how much you want to try and make it a "spiritual" word.

 

[Waiting on him]

Oh dear!
Let's deal with science first. A scientific law has to be tested in a laboratory and there has to be the possibility of disproving it. For example, the Law of Abiogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life. It was formulated by Louis Pasteur who proved that flies did not spontaneously appear in rotting meat by the simple expedient of covering the meat. It can be disproved by someone creating life from inorganic matter in a lab, though no one has managed it yet.
The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven under laboratory conditions, nor is there any way decisively to disprove it. Therefore it remains a theory.

A theological doctrine has nothing to do with scientific laws or theories. It is one that is based of the Bible and is received by a reasonable number of theologians and churches. Thus there is a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, although I presume most here would not agree with it. It is held by the Church of Rome and certain other denominations and articulated by Roman catholic theologians. IMO it is a false doctrine, but a doctrine nonetheless.

A theological theory would be something that someone articulates and puts forward that has not (yet?) been endorsed by other theologians. So the theory may be true and a doctrine may be false, but that is not the basis for the nomenclature.

What I have objected to, both here and on another board, is the sneering supposition that other people's views are theories, whilst one's own views are doctrines or that someone else's understanding of a teaching is a mere theory, while one's own understanding is doctrinal.

Penal Substitution is a doctrine. It is accepted by a substantial number of theologians and churches. Anyone can have a shot at proving it false, but unless his arguments are accepted by others, P.S. will remain a doctrine.

It was the flesh man that was put off in my opinion, we also see this in the sword in scripture for our good dividing to the asunder.

 

[Waiting on him]

Romans 1:1 KJV
[1] Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,


Tecarta Bible

 

[Waiting on him]

Galatians 1:15-16 KJV
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, [16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Here again in my opinion we see a man separated to God before he even got the news,
And flesh nor blood had anything to do with it
Tecarta Bible

 

[Waiting on him]

Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit

 

[John Caldwell]

Oh dear!
Let's deal with science first. A scientific law has to be tested in a laboratory and there has to be the possibility of disproving it. For example, the Law of Abiogenesis states that life can only come from pre-existing life. It was formulated by Louis Pasteur who proved that flies did not spontaneously appear in rotting meat by the simple expedient of covering the meat. It can be disproved by someone creating life from inorganic matter in a lab, though no one has managed it yet.
The Theory of Evolution cannot be proven under laboratory conditions, nor is there any way decisively to disprove it. Therefore it remains a theory.

A theological doctrine has nothing to do with scientific laws or theories. It is one that is based of the Bible and is received by a reasonable number of theologians and churches. Thus there is a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, although I presume most here would not agree with it. It is held by the Church of Rome and certain other denominations and articulated by Roman catholic theologians. IMO it is a false doctrine, but a doctrine nonetheless.

A theological theory would be something that someone articulates and puts forward that has not (yet?) been endorsed by other theologians. So the theory may be true and a doctrine may be false, but that is not the basis for the nomenclature.

What I have objected to, both here and on another board, is the sneering supposition that other people's views are theories, whilst one's own views are doctrines or that someone else's understanding of a teaching is a mere theory, while one's own understanding is doctrinal.

Penal Substitution is a doctrine. It is accepted by a substantial number of theologians and churches. Anyone can have a shot at proving it false, but unless his arguments are accepted by others, P.S. will remain a doctrine.

Perhaps it is a language barrier. We speak the President's English, not the Queens.

In our dictionaries we find that theory means a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. All of the Theories of Atonement, to include the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement meets the definition of theory.

In our dictionaries the word "doctrine" means a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. All of the Theories of Atonement are doctrines as well (all were or are beliefs held and taught by a Church).

So yes, Penal Substitution is a doctrine just as much as Ransom, Moral Influence, Government, Recapitulation, Substitution, etc are all doctrines as they are beliefs held and taught by the Church. No more no less. And they are also all theories as they are suppositions or ideas intended to explain the Atonement.

It is not about proving each of these theories fakse but proving the ones we teach true via Scripture. That is where Penal Substitution Theory fails.

It can only be "proven" true when things are added to Scripture and words redefined (as you have done with "theory" by assuming "scientific theory".


Do you have dictionaries in England? If so, do you use them?

 

[John Caldwell]

Uh.... "doctrine" is not a Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Greek word. It means nothing more than a "teaching", no matter how much you want to try and make it a "spiritual" word.

I think this goes back to liberalism.

People like to redefine words in order to exclude other interpretations or views. "Doctrine" means anything I believe while "theory" means anything I disbelieve sort of mentality.

People disagree, but that is a cult-like mindset and indoctrination, plain and simple. The underlying philosophy colors everything, including Scripture.

 

[John Caldwell]

So The swords name is I?

Not in Zechariah 13:6-7. But in both it is the will and plan of God that the Shepherd be smitten.

Scripture also tells us that God presented Christ as a sin or guilt offering. God is involved.

The difference is that this is not God punishing Jesus. There are no passages that state God punishes the righteous, or even that God condemns the righteous. There are many that state the exact opposite.

So, if Scripture is true (all of Scripture) then how do we interpret the passage?

We could stick to the notion God punished Jesus and leave it as a mystery as to how it does not make God a liar.

OR we could allow Peter's sermon to interpret the text - wicked men punished Christ believing that Christ was smitten by God when in truth it was they who deserved the stripes they were inflecting and the death they imposed upon Christ. At the same time this was in accordance with God's will and plan of redemption.

I always think it best to allow Scripture, rather than theology, to interpret Scripture.