After two years wasting my time debating with these types of people on the newsgroups I have come to the concussion that for the sake of the blog it is just best to blacklist divisive people who at every opportunity must try to divert any topic to an argument and insult people.

When their views are not received they always end up attacking your character and Christianity because you do not see their selection of scriptures their way or will not post their rants. Could it be the problem is that they never received understanding to go along with those scriptures they quote?

I don’t mind some discussion but I agree with Don that this is not the best place to discuss theology. None of us commenters should be here just to promote our own theological views on all occassions.

If you allow me, I would still like to add these last thoughts but I promise I’ll shut up myself after that.

I’m aware of the position taken on the state of Israel by the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S. [PCUSA] so perhaps that explains Paul’s views (I didn’t read his comment that got deleted though so I’m sorry if I’m wrong). However, what I really wanted to add here is that many in the Dutch Reformed [calvinist] churches actually agree with a premillenial view or at least some form of futurist interpretation of Revelation. Whether they hold on to traditional covenant theology, dispensationalism or a modified version of covenant theology - I don’t know for sure. In fact, I have rarely heard of any such discussions because they virtually all agree on Christ’s second coming in a premillenial sense and God still having a purpose for physical Israel. Spurgeon, for instance, was Calvinistic yet he didn’t hold on to some sort of replacement theology. So these theological debates on here are getting very confusing, frankly.

For the record, I’m not settled in all aspects of “my” theological views but as I think I said before elsewhere, I tend towards the Calvinist view - I agree with four out of the five points since I have my reservations on the doctrine of Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement. As I asserted in my reply I believe that hyper-calvinism is real but I do not agree with it. The articles on hyper-calvinism that I linked to are written by a 5-point Calvinist. It’s true that some Arminians would call any Calvinist a “hyper-calvinist” but the fact that 5-point Calvinists are criticizing hyper-calvinism is rather telling, wouldn’t you agree? [rhetorical question]

Anyways, hope that we’re not going to have to turn all discussions into theological debates from now on.

God bless.

/logout

You just posted a one sided humongous argument telling me why Israel is the Church. Anyone can have a one sided debate and make it look like they are biblical and the other view is not. I certain could refute your every point but I have no intention of doing that. If you want to debate your replacement theology views go to a website that does that. In addition, I do not expect anyone to take the time to refute your views here and even if they did I certainly do not want them posted in the comments on Richard Foster.

Paul if you are going to continue to comment on my blogs stay on topic or you will get banned from commenting at all. This is not the first time you have tried to divert my blog topics to a Covenant versus Dispensational theology debate.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

I don’t like to rely too much on Wikipedia but since I’m short on time, I’ll link to the article anyway. You will find more links on the bottom of the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

If you interpret “hyper-Calvinism” simply as adhering to Calvinist theology in all its aspects, fine. But hyper-Calvinism is generally not used in that sense but to refer to a deviation of Calvin’s teachings. Of course the hyper-Calvinists would probably say they simply represent true Calvinism and therefore reject the label of “hyper-Calvinism” but I don’t agree. The five points of Calvinism were not even formulated by Calvin himself. I don’t mean to say that the five points of “Calvinism” are not in lign with Calvin’s theology for that reason, but I do think that some have drawn the wrong conclusions from it leading to misinterpretations of what “Calvinism” really is. I think some of these views not only distort Calvin’s views but especially the Bible. After all, we’re not supposed to be good Calvinists or Arminians or whatever and know the ins and outs of all theology; our focus should be on what the Bible tells us and judge the various theological views that have been developed over the centuries not by their logic or soudness but by the Bible itself.

Regardless of whether one agrees with all the five points of Calvinism or not, I don’t believe the hyper-Calvinist view represents what John Calvin truly stood for. No mortal man can tell whether a person is among the elect or not - only God knows that. As far as I know Calvin never stated that anyone of us are able to figure out just who might or might not be elected? The Presbyterians were actively involved in missions, e.g. in Korea during the 19th century. To this day I know there are many Reformed Christians who are still actively engaging in evangelization or supporting it.

I think Westboro Baptist Church might serve as an example of hyper-Calvinism. They like to walk around yelling at everyone that “God hates fags”, “God hates America” and everyone’s going to hell but not they of course, they’re the “elect.” I reckon Calvin must be turning in his grave when he hears that, not to mention what Christ must be thinking of this sect.

OK, looks like I wrote a long reply after all… Probably rather messy but I hope you stil get my point. I really got to go now because I have lots to do. I might not be able to reply very soon if you answer to this but I’ll try to get back as soon as I’m able to.

Paul said he thinks hyper-Calvinism and replacement theology are straw men arguments and he is starting to believe that no one teaches them.

I do not know why most hyper-Calvinists would not say they were a hyper-Calvinist at all. They would just say they were a Calvinist. The difference between a hyper-Calvinist and a orthodox five point Calvinist is in their commision. A hyper-Calvinist basically thinks no one has any choice, everyone’s destiny is set in stone from birth so they see no point in evangelizing?

No doubt that you are going to have a hard time finding this taught unless you go to the backwoods where people and pastors are still self taught in the Bible but nevertheless certain people and churches do live out a hyper-Calvinist belief.

Granted, that true hyper-Calvinism in not a big problem in the Church become the whole concept for anyone that has proper biblical understanding is totally ridiculous..

Replacement theology has to be defined because people will almost always say they do not believe in it. Many that do believe in replacement theology will say they are not replacing Israel because they think believers in ancient Israel are also part of the Church. I won’t argue that point here but they do away with all literal promises to the literal natural descendants of Jacob saying the natural was cut off or divorced and there is now only the spiritual.

They say the promises are to the spiritual church and they have no regard for what God said through the prophets about natural literal fulfillments to natural descendants of Jacob. I do not know how this could be a straw man argument when it is obvious that a huge amount of people believe the Church is Israel. They do not just believe the Gentiles are grafted into the Commonwealth of Israel like Roman’s declares but they believe all believers actually make up Israel. That is replacement theology because it replaces physical Israel and the unconditional promises that God made to a natural people with allegorical presumptions to a spiritual people.

No need to argue the different points of the theology here but there is no doubt that replacement theology is taught in some of the Church.

I can read the history of John Wesley and know what he taught. I can do the same with Finney. I can read the works of Arminius, and I can read the accounts of the proceedings and decision of the Synod of Dordt. I can read John Calvin’s works - almost all of them are now available on the web. So I can find the points of doctrine concerning Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Augustinianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. I can study the consistent points of doctrine concerning historical premillennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism. I can even follow the trail of variations historically in the more recent dispensationalism and I can find stated bliefs in pre, mid, and post rapture positions. So I can determine to some degree of certainty, what each of these systems or persons represent. I am not able to find any real documents defining “hyper-Calvinism” from a “hyper-Calvinist’s” perspective. I am beginning to suspect that hyper-Calvinism is a nothing more than a stawman designed by many different people to avoid the painful study it takes to argue effectively for their understanding of Scripture. (I did, however, find one web site in which an author explained that he was a hyper-Calvinist. But then he just described Calvinism, so I think he was being sarcastic, having been labelled that by those that do not understand much of any doctrine.) If you or anyone know of a document in which a hyper-Calvinist descrbes hyper-Calvinism, please post it. “Replacement theology” is also a similar strawman, for I have not found anyone that professes it either. Again, if you find a document in which a supporter writes of it, please post it.

On the other hand, the “Emergent Church movement” is real and really “greasy” or “slippery” when it comes to determining the “emerging doctrine” that goes with it. As I said before it is based upon ignorance of Scripture, church history, true doctrine, and gospel preaching. It is man-centered as is Arminianism and Pelagianism. It appeals to the unregenerate. Take note of all the self proclaiming experts on the web. I consider them part of the “Emergent Church” as well. All the old heresies are being “preached” as I sit here at the keyboard.

“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 17:6

This is the apostasy.

I’d appreciate that and I also want you to know that your picking this piece up was motivation for me to update it with even more current information.

Thanks for all the work you do keeping us informed on these issues.
I just noticed that you are not on my blogroll links. I thought you were. I will be adding your site shortly

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.