Got an unabridged copy for sale on eBay https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F114033413927

I think you’re understanding of the methods used in the derived global stemmata is very much a straw man attempt misrepresenting lack of scholarly collaboration, good faith and mastery of ancestral attestation to the variation expected from thousands of years in lawmen free transmission of manuscripts in antiquity

Are there plans to update your Vos Group reading schedule online (https://reformedforum.org/resources/vos/)?

I’m a third-year student completing an undergraduate Communication degree at a secular institution. A bit ago last year, I began following your most recent episodes about Vos’s conception of Prophethood, as it’s diametrically opposed to the conceptions offered by unbelieving critical scholarship. And in God’s providence, I enrolled in a Global History of Religions course, and one of our textbooks is Karen Armstrong’s The Great Transformation, which includes much critical scholarship concerning “Axial Age” Israel and many of God’s prophets from a critical historical framework.

So, remembering your Vos Group series, I was inspired to borrow a brother’s white-colored Banner of Truth edition and begin from the beginning, December 2013. But I noticed that your extremely helpful guide only reaches to April 8th, 2016.

Is it possible to update the dates, topics and pages to your most current episodes? It would prove helpful, but it may be a drag. Lol Thank you anyway for such an important resource.

“Huio-centrism” from the Greek “huios” (or uios), meaning “son.”

Very good exposee and exegesis. God bless you with more deeper and greater insight into His word to preach and teach it to mankind, so that the world would know and see Christ Jesus as its ONLY SAVIOUR AND REDEEMER .AMEN.

I went back to the book’s page on the WTS Books site and found the study guide underneath the Product Description tab.

Here’s a direct link to the guide:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0021/5210/3983/files/The_Wonderful_Works_of_God_Discussion_Guide.pdf?47876

Yes, would you be able to locate the study guide for us? Or should we contact WTS Books?

Would you be able to help me understand how Adam and Eve were not at enmity with God after disobeying him and falling into sin? Or perhaps a better question – aren’t unbelievers, prior to regeneration, at enmity with God? I’m thinking particularly of Ephesians 2:3 where the unregenerate are considered children of wrath, “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

I’m glad to hear it. You won’t be disappointed.

Hello! Since every action presupposes an inclination first, Adam, Eve, and the angles must have had a sinful attraction to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge after the serpent tempted them. Inclinations are involuntary reactions your body has to stimulus. For example, straight men will only chose to get with women if they experience sexual attraction to them.

Without sexual attraction, they will have no motivation to do so. Attraction is not a choice. So saying the often repeated “God gave Adam and Eve free-will” clearly doesn’t explain WHY they choice to use their free-will in the first place. They needed a motive first. They had to EXPERIENCE temptation first to even consider the idea of sinning. It was not Adam or Eve’s fault they experienced temptation, it was God’s fault because he made them with sinful natures.

Now, God could have made Adam, Eve, and the angles morally perfect, so they would not have had the ability to willing sin (just as God can’t will to sin) and things would have just been fine. They still would have a free-will, though not in the contra-casual sense. God would also be the EFFICIENT CAUSE, NOT THE FINAL CAUSE, of the SINFUL NATURES of his INNOCENT CREATION, though he did make them primarily with GOOD NATURES, since they did not sin until they were tempted.

Also, I must add, good and evil have an INVERSE relationship (less evil=more good). Without a sinful inclination, no one would sin, since they would have no motive to do so. You can only use free-will if you have a motive.

No sinful motive (inclination) = no reason to sin = therefore, you can and will only do what is good. Had Adam been completely good, he would only do what is good.

We know doubly-beyond a doubt that God did not make the first moral creatures perfectly good. They were less than 100% good, so we are talking 70% good, 30% evil (for example) which would beyond doubt prove that some of their constitution was morally evil. People have been acting like good is a stand-alone property when it isn’t! That is why none of them can explain WHY Adam, Eve, and the angels sinned.

Thank you, and God bless.

Edouard

ha, yes… Lee Irons! Thank you Adam York.

I was going to make this same observation about Turretin. J.V. Fesko has a great little article on his “upper register” page… that is, the difference between Calvin and Turretin concerning Trinitarian formulations.
Also, Chad Van Dixhoorn has a superb chapter in the book “retrieving the doctrine of eternal generation” where he outlines the historical theological debate on this very topic in the Westminster Assembly.

James, thanks for the sources. I’ll review Turretin on this. Much appreciated!

Oh also, this is not just the “Eastern tradition” – Lombard works along the same lines, see Sentences Distinction 18.

Loved the article though! Wonderful explanation of the implications of the fact that the persons are the essence – I hope “some theologians” give up on the attempt to locate real change in the persons – after all, one of the anathemas of Nicaea is against those who say that the Son is mutable!

Von Mises warms my heart.

Forgot to mention, this is probably a result of adventists promoting a very false she-prophet, another thing commanded against in Matt 7.15-23, notice no forgiveness mentioned at all.

They disobey Jesus at every single turn, yet they claim to keep a day holy! Listen dear reader, liars, idolators, blasphemers, thieves, keep nothing holy! These people deceive themselves and many others.

They have been tricked into worshipping this aspect of satan. They do not have ears to hear.

I find your caricature of Sociniansm and their spiritual successors to be somewhat confusing. As a biblical unitarian myself I let scripture interpret itself, read it in context and apply sound hermeneutics. I don’t believe silly things like God having a body. It’s easy to knock something down if you paint it erroneously, but what you’re doing is just constructing a straw man.

Since you don’t count four point Calvinist as Calvinist that creates a problem and misleading your followers. Reformed theologians such as Charles Hodge and BB Warfield in their writings still considered four point Calvinist as Calvinist . Almost all of the earliest American Dispensationalist were four or five point Calvinist. From the four and five point Calvinist who were Dispensationalist we have men such as John Darby Himself , James Brookes , Lewis Sperry Chafer , Donald Barnhouse, James Gray , William L . Pettinggill , Charles Feinberg , Wilbur Smith , Allen MAC Rae , W.H. Griffith Thomas , Louis Talbot and many others . So it’s misleading to claim most were semi Arminian . The semi Arminian strain branch appears to follow along the lines of Harry Ironside , Vernon McGee, Henry Thiessen, Dave Breese , Adrian Rogers . Norman Geisler and some others . You did a disservice by not presenting an accurate picture of things . When you add four point Calvinist to the picture it makes it different than what’s being presented. An accurate description is to state both views are found amoung Dispensationalist and they differ from one another on it . Classic Dispensationalism originally was Calvinistic Dispensationalism . Arminianism showed up later up just like in the reformed church with the original Arminians who caused a problem in the reformed church with their false teachings . I would hope you reconsider what you had said and present an accurate picture . Notice I don’t deny some Dispensationalist were Arminian but rather I pointed out that the earliest Dispensationalist were four or five point Calvinist.