Comments on: Scripture and Doctrine in the Church http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/ Reformed Theology Podcasts, Videos, Blogs and More Tue, 22 May 2012 04:03:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Berti Kona http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9253 Berti Kona Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:50:26 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9253 Thank you Nick for managing to squeeze my name in this podcast. Do I get any financial compensation for this? Just kidding. Great job, I listen o tyou guys every week. Keep it coming. Blessings, Berti Thank you Nick for managing to squeeze my name in this podcast. Do I get any financial compensation for this? Just kidding. Great job, I listen o tyou guys every week. Keep it coming. Blessings,

Berti

]]> By: Timothy M http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9216 Timothy M Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:13:40 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9216 Thanks Jeff, that is a helpful way of framing the discussion. I guess the multi-pers. approach sounded to much to me like saying, "We have different existential experiences, therefore we have different ways of seeing Scripture." To me that sounds like a terrible view of inspiration and the Holy Spirit's use of the Text in Christians' lives. The point about Poythress is clarifying concerning his view in contrast to a dialectal approach. While I would concede in saying that formally there is agreement with dispensationalists on a host of issues, materially they are in opposition to Reformed theology, especially on inspiration and hermeneutics and a host of other issues. Thanks Jeff, that is a helpful way of framing the discussion. I guess the multi-pers. approach sounded to much to me like saying, “We have different existential experiences, therefore we have different ways of seeing Scripture.” To me that sounds like a terrible view of inspiration and the Holy Spirit’s use of the Text in Christians’ lives. The point about Poythress is clarifying concerning his view in contrast to a dialectal approach.

While I would concede in saying that formally there is agreement with dispensationalists on a host of issues, materially they are in opposition to Reformed theology, especially on inspiration and hermeneutics and a host of other issues.

]]> By: Jeff Waddington http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9214 Jeff Waddington Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:58:16 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9214 Tim There does need to be a distinction between Frame and Poythress. One can learn from other eschatalogical perspectives than one's own and also recognize contradictions and differences. Are you suggesting that to reject dispensationalism commits me to thinking every last detail of that erroneous system is wrong? Whoever held to such a view? I agree that attempts to bridge the divide between theonomy and Kline seem ill-planned and destined for failure from the start. However, Poythress has never denied that one can and ought to come to solid theological conclusions on various issues. For instance, consider his interaction with Pete Enns in the recent debacle at WTS. So yes, one can come to very specific conclusions that exclude particular options. I do not read Poythress as excluding the possibility of coming to a knowledge of the truth that eliminates the law of non-contradiction. As I understand him he is simply affirming that truth is rich. But saying that truth is rich is not saying that truth is dialectical. Tim

There does need to be a distinction between Frame and Poythress.

One can learn from other eschatalogical perspectives than one’s own and also recognize contradictions and differences. Are you suggesting that to reject dispensationalism commits me to thinking every last detail of that erroneous system is wrong? Whoever held to such a view? I agree that attempts to bridge the divide between theonomy and Kline seem ill-planned and destined for failure from the start. However, Poythress has never denied that one can and ought to come to solid theological conclusions on various issues. For instance, consider his interaction with Pete Enns in the recent debacle at WTS.

So yes, one can come to very specific conclusions that exclude particular options. I do not read Poythress as excluding the possibility of coming to a knowledge of the truth that eliminates the law of non-contradiction. As I understand him he is simply affirming that truth is rich. But saying that truth is rich is not saying that truth is dialectical.

]]> By: Timothy M http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9210 Timothy M Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:04:08 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9210 Just listened to this on the doctrine of Inspiration and could not help but think of Multi-perspectivalism in all its glory: http://www.christurc.org/audio_files/adult_catechism/horton/systematic_theology/2008-11-30-horton-chm.mp3 especially the latter part of the conversation... This audio comes from this series: http://www.christurc.org/catechism_horton.html#SystematicTheology Just listened to this on the doctrine of Inspiration and could not help but think of Multi-perspectivalism in all its glory: http://www.christurc.org/audio_files/adult_catechism/horton/systematic_theology/2008-11-30-horton-chm.mp3

especially the latter part of the conversation… This audio comes from this series:

http://www.christurc.org/catechism_horton.html#SystematicTheology

]]> By: Camden Bucey http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9205 Camden Bucey Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:05:25 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9205 That's great Bob! I vaguely remember hearing that before. I'll have to start signing my emails like that! That’s great Bob! I vaguely remember hearing that before. I’ll have to start signing my emails like that!

]]> By: Bob McDowell http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9204 Bob McDowell Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:53:41 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9204 When I was at L'Abri in the summer of 1970, Peter Cook (who was studying under J.I. Packer at Tyndale Hall in Bristol) came up with this joke: Q. How does Schaeffer sign his letters? A. "Yours truly, but not exhaustively," When I was at L’Abri in the summer of 1970, Peter Cook (who was studying under J.I. Packer at Tyndale Hall in Bristol) came up with this joke:

Q. How does Schaeffer sign his letters?

A. “Yours truly, but not exhaustively,”

]]> By: Timothy M http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc72/#comment-9201 Timothy M Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:33:47 +0000 http://reformedforum.org/?p=677#comment-9201 Multi-perspectivalism surely sounds like the fourfold interpretation adopted by the Medieval church and squarely denied by the Reformed and Reformation churches as you all said. I would be very interested in your return to this topic. Any thoughts would be helpful. Frame specifically uses this in light of Theonomy and Klinean thought. I find this very troubling. Also, I have seen Poythress write about this concerning the benefits of the different eschatological positions. Does this not deny the systematic approach to Scripture? Also, the Reformed and Reformed scholastics have taught that the Scriptures ARE Baby-talk (i.e. the Ectypal knowledge) of God and His ad extra works. Therefore, they can be known according to locus of Scripture, Christ Jesus as the only True Israel. You may very much be indeed saying this and just saying that it has many implications. But if Theology is a science as you recently discussed and the Bible is ectypal language, then it can be quantified and other theological postulates can be renounced. Thoughts? Multi-perspectivalism surely sounds like the fourfold interpretation adopted by the Medieval church and squarely denied by the Reformed and Reformation churches as you all said. I would be very interested in your return to this topic.

Any thoughts would be helpful. Frame specifically uses this in light of Theonomy and Klinean thought. I find this very troubling. Also, I have seen Poythress write about this concerning the benefits of the different eschatological positions. Does this not deny the systematic approach to Scripture?

Also, the Reformed and Reformed scholastics have taught that the Scriptures ARE Baby-talk (i.e. the Ectypal knowledge) of God and His ad extra works. Therefore, they can be known according to locus of Scripture, Christ Jesus as the only True Israel. You may very much be indeed saying this and just saying that it has many implications. But if Theology is a science as you recently discussed and the Bible is ectypal language, then it can be quantified and other theological postulates can be renounced. Thoughts?

]]>