Define what you believe "Trinity" is

[bob]

I love this thought Roldan...

Move on to some other subject that you actually know about.

Lets see here 90% of what I wrote was about my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. Yet you tell me to write about something that I know about.

I guess Tyler and Manata are right. I cannot know if I even exist, and what I thought was something I knew about, "cause I been dair, nawmean?" I really dont know about.

And whats this junk about you saying I dont believe in Redemption? Thats a bold face lie Roldan! Now somebody who needs to talk about what they know about, is someone who actually knows what I BELIEVE: don't you think?

I don't run around telling folks that Roldan believes Jesus was a Pink Elephant do I?

[DoGMaTiX]

bob said:

And whats this junk about you saying I dont believe in Redemption? Thats a bold face lie Roldan! Now somebody who needs to talk about what they know about, is someone who actually knows what I BELIEVE: don't you think?

When and where and to whom did I say that nonsense?

You believe Redemption ALREADY occured in 70 A.D., right?

He say she say is sinful gossip. holla

[HereticHound]

I think one of the problems here is that you fail to recognize the sovereignty of God in the life and history of his people. The God who ordained the Jerusalem council is the same God who ordained the councils who drafted the ecumenical creeds, the council of Dort, the westminster confession, ect.

Yes John, we know it is the same God who ordains EVERYTHING. Believe me Kent and I are far more consistent then the infras out there when it comes to God’s sovereignty.

But we still have two problems here John. First, you arbitrarily chose which councils/creeds you will submit to, and which you will not. The answers I have seen so far to which councils/creeds are to be considered authoritative has been nothing more than begging the question. I would like to see someone actually articulate, without begging the question, why you affirm council/creed (x), but not council/creed (y). Nowhere in your article “A Histio-Scriptural Explanation for the Origin and Role of the Creeds” was this problem addressed. In fact the article by AA Hode that Roldan posted actually goes a long way to refute what you have said in your article.

It must be remembered, however, that the matter of these Creeds and Confessions binds the consciences of men only so far as it is purely scriptural, and because it is so; and as to the form in which that matter is stated, they bind those only who have voluntarily subscribed the Confession, and because of that subscription.

Farther on Hodge lists a number of creeds and confessions many of which I doubt you hold to and some I know you do not hold to. You have chosen to not have those particular creeds and confessions bind your conscience. Why not? Because they go against scripture? That would be my answer, and was Luther’s answer, but that can hardly be your answer as you refuse to subject ALL the creeds to the same test. You and Tyler have made it abundantly clear that certain creeds are ‘closed’, it’s not even on the table for discussion. To question or ask that they be tested against scripture is to set the creeds at odds with scripture. We can’t pit them against each other now can we? Yet you have no problem doing it with the creeds you won’t accept. Your position is grounded in humanism and comes from man’s wisdom. It makes you (John, Tyler, Mr. Smith) the judge on what to accept and what to reject. And while you may have made good choices in my opinion, what does that tell you? It is my opinion. Edwin and others would certainly disagree with your choices and call you heretics. And they are right. You are heretics. Remember, you are the ones who want to define orthodoxy by the creeds and church history, not by Scripture. So by applying your own standard you are heretics. You reject the accepted canon of Christ’s Holy Church that has been in place for almost 2000 yrs. You just up and decide that you know better and that Christ has been leading His bride in error of over 1500 yrs. How dare you believe that God would lead His church in error and not protect her! (I'm refering to the Canon of course)

Job and Abram are members of the Church Christ established. The fact that God communicated through a donkey and a burning bush doesn't mean God EVER communicated outside or "without" the Church. Need to rethink your covenant theology my friend. If you had a God that communicated to you without the Church, you would have a different God than the one revealed to us in scripture.

Are you kidding me? Let’s see how many different definitions of ‘Church’ you can use in one post. It should be clear what Kent meant by his statement (of fact) and he is absolutely correct. God has spoken to INDIVIDUALS in history. But please, define your definition of ‘Church’ for us in your above post and then demonstrate exactly how God was speaking through it when he used the donkey (just curious).

And what is this nonsense about rethinking covenant theology? I’m not trying to be stupid here but are you not a reformed Baptist? If you understood covenant theology you wouldn’t be credo Baptist. This is ridiculous. Roldan are you seeing this. A reformed Baptist is going to tell a couple of Presbyterians (PCA) they don’t know what covenant theology is. Please……

I am confused as to how one could make a distinction between Christianity and the truth of Scripture. Christianity IS the truth of scripture. It is cults who try to separate Christianity from the Bible and claim they affirm different things.

HH

[OrthodoX]

James-

I see you have become renewed with your old angry self...welcome back ;D.

And I must give a warning to you, if you hadn't noticed, your post was edited by another moderator other than myself. Please refrain from slander and personal attacks, they will not be tolerated. The next time Rol will not merely edit your post, I will delete it entirely. You are a grown man, I know you can control yourself.

Now as to me being a heretic...hmmmm...I will do what you and your comrads have been unwilling to do. Show me from any of the ecumenical creeds and I will repent of my heresy. I sincerely do want to be pure in my life and doctrine. So if you really believe I am in error...help me. Show me from the historic Christian faith. Where do I waiver from the faith of my ancestors?

Also, you have insulted Roldan's intelligence. You think that he doesn't see hyprets as more ignorant of cov theology than credo baptists?? I am his brother in arms, the hyprets are heretics...but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself.

Hey James, do me a favor...seriously: Go up to Rev. Casselli, your PCA minister, and ask him which is the heretic, the full-preterist or the Reformed Baptist? I think we will both be less than surprised by the answer.

Take a cyperspace stroll through Puritan board. Ask my friend Paul Manata, your fellow presbyterian. Dr. McMahon of a puritansmind...another presbyterian, they will agree with Rev. Casselli. Ask the Westminster Divines!! Truth is, credo, though considered error, has never been considered heresy in the reformed community. Why?? Because the REFORMED Community defines orthodoxy by the statements of faith (creeds, uh oh, there's that word again!) or interpretations of the Bible by the historic Christian Church!!

How many cats does Tyler have to quote? Geeze. And unlike you, I am not closed to the possibility of my error...I know I am wrong in my theology and will repent as I am mandated by scripture. But I know that I am correct in my beliefs as they coincide with the creeds.

As for the accusation that I randomly adhere to the creeds I wish and reject others...you reveal your terrible misunderstanding of Chrurch history. Please re-read my arguement entitled 'String of Orthodoxy" in my article- Defending Orthodoxy Pt.2. And also read Calvin who I guess like me randomly chose the ecumenical creeds as the bear minimum definition for orthodxy aka Christianity.

James, bottom line is that only hyperpreterist agree with you. Thats something to think about.

Also please see my arguement entitled, 'The Biblical Case For Creedalism' in the same article as stated above... I think it would be of help to you.

DoX

[ChristVader]

test

[HereticHound]

I see you have become renewed with your old angry self...welcome back .

And I must give a warning to you, if you hadn't noticed, your post was edited by another moderator other than myself. Please refrain from slander and personal attacks, they will not be tolerated. The next time Rol will not merely edit your post, I will delete it entirely. You are a grown man, I know you can control yourself.

Now as to me being a heretic...hmmmm...I will do what you and your comrads have been unwilling to do. Show me from any of the ecumenical creeds and I will repent of my heresy. I sincerely do want to be pure in my life and doctrine. So if you really believe I am in error...help me. Show me from the historic Christian faith. Where do I waiver from the faith of my ancestors?

You totally missed the point. Let me restate. Depending on who sets the standard, you yourself may and are considered a heretic by some. Now the standard you have arbitrarily chosen as your rule are 3 of the ecumenical creeds. You do go against all the early creeds in regards to the Canon, but that aside I was not necessarily referring to only 3 ecumenical creeds.

Also, you have insulted Roldan's intelligence. You think that he doesn't see hyprets as more ignorant of cov theology than credo baptists?? I am his brother in arms, the hyprets are heretics...but don't take my word for it, ask him yourself.

Again you missed the point. The point was not logically valid anyway, it was a fallacy, but I still thought it funny. Sorry you missed it.

Hey James, do me a favor...seriously: Go up to Rev. Casselli, your PCA minister, and ask him which is the heretic, the full-preterist or the Reformed Baptist? I think we will both be less than surprised by the answer.

Take a cyperspace stroll through Puritan board. Ask my friend Paul Manata, your fellow presbyterian. Dr. McMahon of a puritansmind...another presbyterian, they will agree with Rev. Casselli. Ask the Westminster Divines!! Truth is, credo, though considered error, has never been considered heresy in the reformed community. Why?? Because the REFORMED Community defines orthodoxy by the statements of faith (creeds, uh oh, there's that word again!) or interpretations of the Bible by the historic Christian Church!!

I don’t know what to say. John, you are too smart for me. How does this have anything to do with anything? You know what, forget it.

Because the REFORMED Community defines orthodoxy by the statements of faith (creeds, uh oh, there's that word again!) or interpretations of the Bible by the historic Christian Church!!

This assertion would require some qualification. I may agree with it, but probably not in the way you would define it.

How many cats does Tyler have to quote? Geeze.

How many cats do I have to quote? Quotes out of context (both textually and historically) can be made to say anything, including the exact opposite of what was intended. I have (in other discussions) quoted Luther and Calvin in context refuting the exact ideas that Tyler is espousing.

And unlike you, I am not closed to the possibility of my error...

This is not true in two ways. First, your assumption that I am closed to the possibility of error in my position is ridiculous. I have been taken to Scripture and shown my error before and gladly invite anyone to do it again. Secondly, I in turn believe that you are not willing to recognize your error because of pride. In fact you say that you know you are correct a couple of sentences down. How does that leave you open for correction?

I know I am wrong in my theology and will repent as I am mandated by scripture. But I know that I am correct in my beliefs as they coincide with the creeds.

I also know that I am wrong in parts of my theology and don’t even have answers for other parts, and will change, repent etc. I also believe that I am correct concerning the creeds because I affirm the true reformed position including Calvin, Luther, the Westminster etc., and not this new take on what these men meant and this rewriting of reformed history.

As for the accusation that I randomly adhere to the creeds I wish and reject others...you reveal your terrible misunderstanding of Chrurch history. Please re-read my arguement entitled 'String of Orthodoxy" in my article- Defending Orthodoxy Pt.2. And also read Calvin who I guess like me randomly chose the ecumenical creeds as the bear minimum definition for orthodxy aka Christianity.

I have already read your articles and I repeat, you do not address the problem I stated. If you have a valid explanation as to why you accept creed/council (x), but not creed/council (y) without begging the question or appealing to a test of Scripture, then let’s hear it. You are sadly misunderstanding Church history.

James, bottom line is that only hyperpreterist agree with you. Thats something to think about.

Actually you are incorrect. The PCA pastors that have read your camp’s arguments disagree with you. To deny that your position is highly debated in reformed circles is flat out dishonest. Not only does the PCA disagree with you, so does some Reformed Seminaries (Gentry's own Seminary refutes him), as well as many of the Reformers themselves. I have demonstrated the latter before and am preparing to do it again in more depth in response to Tyler’s last article.

Also please see my arguement entitled, 'The Biblical Case For Creedalism' in the same article as stated above... I think it would be of help to you.

I have already read it and it was of no help.

HH

[HereticHound]

Here, I modified my reply that you deleted. Is it acceptable now?

I am confused as to how one could make a distinction between Christianity and the truth of Scripture. Christianity IS the truth of scripture. It is cults who try to separate Christianity from the Bible and claim they affirm different things.

If Kent or I make a distinction between the truth of Scripture and what is Christianity, it is because your camp has told us there is a difference. I was told flat out by a TR member that a statement I made was “not Christian” because it was contrary to a man made creed. He did not once appeal to Scripture to place my statement outside of ‘Christianity’. This has been done repeatedly by the creedalist. You have not defined Christianity by Scripture, but by Creeds.

[ChristVader]

Roldan,

Lets try this again...

You say....

If not, any more attempts to belittle the ordained Church of Christ for which he suffered and died for not only to redeem but to take care of her until His appearing, WILL be deleted and or modified.

I say...

And whats this junk about you saying I dont believe in Redemption? Thats a bold face lie Roldan! Now somebody who needs to talk about what they know about, is someone who actually knows what I BELIEVE: don't you think?

Now it dont seem like roket siance to undertand that "belittling redemtive history" is one and the same with not believeing in it.

If I belittle your '73 Ford Pinto by saying it "can't run at Daytona", then I am saying "I DON"T >>>>> BELIEVE in IT".

Maybe I missed something.

Does Context just not mean anything to anyone these days?

Painting a picture the wrong color to make another person look bad is a sin that we just can't get enough of though huh? Thank God the mind has been dissolved! ;D

[ChristVader]

Move on to some other subject that you actually know about.

90% of what I wrote was about my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. Yet you tell me to write about something that I know about.

hello?

Did I miss something again?

[OrthodoX]

Kent-

Are you serious?

[DoGMaTiX]

christvader said:

Roldan,

Lets try this again...

You say....

If not, any more attempts to belittle the ordained Church of Christ for which he suffered and died for not only to redeem but to take care of her until His appearing, WILL be deleted and or modified.

I say...

And whats this junk about you saying I dont believe in Redemption? Thats a bold face lie Roldan! Now somebody who needs to talk about what they know about, is someone who actually knows what I BELIEVE: don't you think?

Now it dont seem like roket siance to undertand that "belittling redemtive history" is one and the same with not believeing in it.

If I belittle your '73 Ford Pinto by saying it "can't run at Daytona", then I am saying "I DON"T >>>>> BELIEVE in IT".

Maybe I missed something.

Does Context just not mean anything to anyone these days?

Painting a picture the wrong color to make another person look bad is a sin that we just can't get enough of though huh? Thank God the mind has been dissolved! ;D

Wow, anybody else get his interpretation of what I said?

holy!!!!!

[ChristVader]

Was that a response?

Roldan, just what is it that you are not getting here?

Seriously man, I never seem to get answers from you, only comments.

Suprise me one time please.

In Him,

Kent

[DoGMaTiX]

christvader said:

Was that a response?

Roldan, just what is it that you are not getting here?

Seriously man, I never seem to get answers from you, only comments.

Suprise me one time please.

In Him,

Kent

Read it a couple more times and maybe you will see that you accuse me in error.

[HereticHound]

Just a quick note. John moved our discussion on creeds over to Christianity vs. Orthodoxy in case anyone was wondering.

[ChristVader]

Where is my reponse to Roldan?