R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

quote:

---

LNA, you are taking stuff out of context there son, doing the same dishonest quotemining as the Biblical Christians. There was more to his comment and he then went on to explain the context in full.
Go back and include all of the statement.

---

I just read it in context.So?Well, it sure beats "The Holy Spirit did it".I think it would be a lot more honest if "church" was described accurately.It was the Roman government "church".

quote:

---

Rome believes the (GOVERNMENT IMPOSED) church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the (GOVERNMENT) church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.

---

So now the Holy Spirit is taken out of it and a Roman government "church", however "correct", is seen as the agent.Now, some more hopes and wishes:Next the verse divisions and chapters can be seen as not original to the authors or early Christian community.Then certain verses themselves (like Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11) can be seen as not inspired.(I'm sure everything is still seen as "accurate" and "correct" in its present state and will be even after an admission)At least there is a ray of sunshine away from the "God did it" and more in the direction of "Man did some of it".Progress in society often comes in tinny tiny baby steps, and can be quite slow (glacial as opposed to meteoric). Look at all the newer Bible translations that will (almost) admit that Mark 16:9-20 was added on to the actual text. Previously everybody thought the Bible was written from the very pen of God, and in English boot! Many (or most?) still do. I will take all the light that can be had.But carry on with the main discussion.

And that is as dishonest as your quote mining. Sorry but just like the fundies you are just making shit up.Yes, more education is needed but what you are doing is the same propagandizing as those you criticize.You are also missing what is significant in the basics of the beliefs of some Chapters of Club Christian so go back and read it again in context and think about it as well as the actual basis for Biblical inerrancy.The most recent formulation was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and RC Sproul was a major organizer and signatory to that document so it is relevant to this discussion.The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy stands in direct opposition to Lockes position; but remember that it is still limited and does not reflect Christianity but just some Chapters of Christianity. It is the latest affirmation of a Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty.

Interesting stuff!

quote:

---

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986.

---

These evangelical leaders are not simply TV hucksters such as Falwell, Baker, Hagan, Copeland, and Hinn. They collectively represent a core group that teaches what you likely label Biblical Christianity. They are not all in it for the money, but what they share in common is this statement of belief which they signed off on in Chicago. Would you say that they are all willfully ignorant and in fact liars? I mean, to be honest, as I myself read the statement, it contained a lot of what I would want to be true, even if I couldn't prove it to be true. It also contained some material that would raise a lot of questions in my mind. ( I am always unafraid to ask questions.)

What is it in these leaders thought process, belief statement, and overall approach to teaching that we should note?

How would an Anglican or Episcopalian differ in their belief paradigm?

​

I am still reading Knox and Calvin so we can tie the modern in with the early Reform Movement as we go along. Of that group in Chicago, Sproul is among the most articulate in terms of explaining the positions of what they collectively claim to be Christian Orthodoxy.
I plan on bringing a lot of Sprouls teaching up in this topic for comments and observations. In addition, perhaps we should start another topic on the Chicago Statement itself.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is so filled with internal inconsistency and contradictions that I cannot imagine anyone could honesty sign such an utterly stupid document without being a conman.It admits there are no original manuscripts, and that the copies are not infallible, but then says the originals can be inferred from the copies and so the originals, that don't exist and can only be inferred from fallible sources are infallible.Give me a break.It also makes God a liar, cheat, Loki trickster since it goes on to claim that the reality we call this universe and that does in fact totally refute much of what is recorded as history in the Bible like the creation tales and flood and conquest of Canaan and Exodus and the earth standing still should be ignored over what is written in admittedly fallible and internally contradictory Bible stories.Give me a fucking break.The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy is an accurate description and indictment of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty. And what evidence is there to support that assertion. At best and in particular willful liars even to themselves. They, like you, are making assertions that the would want to be true rather than face what actually is shown in the evidence. But they could simply be completely delusional; and totally out of touch with reality.Here is a link to the full Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

quote:

---

And that is as dishonest as your quote mining. Sorry but just like the fundies you are just making shit up.

---

I really need you to explain yourself. (Was it the parenthesis I added? I thought it was an obvious addition, plus I didn't say it was his words)I don't know what part was dishonest (other than the obvious additions I added, which I thought would be clearly an addition due to my above statements prior to the quote)

Take this to another thread. I'll not have this cluttering up my topic.

At a minimum, I’d say you need to go back to the English reformers (Knox et al) and the Westminster Confession.But you probably should go back to John Calvin as well.And you arguably should go all the way back to Saint Augustine, who was foundational for Luther’s and Calvin’s views.ABE: a good basic starting point might be R.C. Sproul’s booklet, What is Reformed Theology?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

RC Sproul has extensively dealt with questions regarding his belief paradigm and shows that if nothing else he can at least make a thorough argument. We talk of the Bible as being the inspired Word of God. Would the men who chose the books to be included in the Bible also have been inspired by God?
He notes:

quote:

---

Modern critical scholarship, which rejects the infallibility of the individual volumes of Scripture and likewise the whole of Scripture, would say that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of fallible books.

---

That is the position that you and others here at EvC have pointed out time and time again and supported. Sproul is not dodging the argument and being dishonest.He elaborates:

quote:

---

The historic Protestant position shared by Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and so on, has been that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. This is the reasoning: At the time of the Reformation, one of the most important issues in the sixteenth century was the issue of authority. We’ve seen the central issue of justification by faith alone, which was captured by the slogan the Reformers used: sola fide, by faith alone [we are justified]. Also there was the issue of authority, and the principle that emerged among Protestants was that of sola scriptura, which means that Scripture alone has the authority to bind our conscience. Scripture alone is infallible because God is infallible. The church receives the Scripture as God’s Word, and the church is not infallible. That is the view of all Protestant churches.

​

The church has a rich tradition, and we respect the church fathers and even our creed. However, we grant the possibility that they may err at various points; we don’t believe in the infallibility of the church. I will say that there are some Protestants who believe that there was a special work of divine providence and a special work of the Holy Spirit that protected the Canon and the sorting process from mistakes. I don’t hold that position myself. I think it’s possible that wrong books could have been selected, but I don’t believe for a minute that that’s the case. I think that the task the church faced and did was remarkably well done and that we have every book that should be in the New Testament.

---

One may argue that every religion believes that the right books were selected for the belief statement of that religion. Even you yourself read what the Bible says clearly and use your own wisdom and reasoning to arrive at a learned opinion of what it says.Sproul has a supportable argument in my mind in how he explains his reasoning. Here is another question he answers: There are so many different interpretations of what the Bible is saying. How do I know which one is right?

quote:

---

We find these same differences of opinion in medicine. One doctor says you need an operation, and the other doctor says you don’t. How will I find out which doctor is telling me the truth? I’m betting my life on which doctor I trust at this point. (...)What do you do when you have a case like that with variant opinions rendered by physicians? You go to a third physician. You try to investigate, try to look at their credentials to see who has the best training, who’s the most reliable doctor; then you listen to the case that the doctor presents for his position and judge which you are persuaded is more cogent. I’d say the same thing goes with differences of biblical interpretations.

​

The first thing I want to know is, Who’s giving the interpretation? Is he educated? I turn on the television and see all kinds of teaching going on from television preachers who, quite frankly, simply are not trained in technical theology or biblical studies. They don’t have the academic qualifications. I know that people without academic qualifications can have a sound interpretation of the Bible, but they’re not as likely to be as accurate as those who have spent years and years of careful research and disciplined training in order to deal with the difficult matters of biblical interpretation.

---

We all frame issues through the lens of how we are taught to think, how we prefer to think, what the facts say, and what our bias prefers.
Take our ongoing debate regarding the god character lying and the snake telling the truth.....Have we gone deeper into the reasoning as to why a god character would lie, would need to lie, and/or would want to lie? Can we glean any information from the other characters? What would Sprouls likely position be and should we care? What about Augustine? What about the local Episcopalian Pastor? What about our Mother?You yourself criticize the Chicago Statement for making God out to be a liar and a trickster but have asserted elsewhere that the god character lied. Critics would ask why one character is any nobler than the other?Of course, Sproul emphasizes Source and asserts and seeks to define Content. He maintains that the god character exists and is the source.You report on Content, make your own conclusion, and tell us to throw Source away. Comments?

The problem is if I only use Sprouls booklets to defend Sprouls position, I am limiting myself. We can trace Sprouls beliefs back to Calvin. Critics assert that Calvinism is a vile and disgusting creation of humanity.The framework of this line of thought is what the grounds of one's belief should be or are. Tradition asserts that the grounds are Scripture alone and Faith alone.The contrarians maintain that the grounds are logic, reason, and reality and that we are as free and responsible to reach our own conclusions as anyone else.Everyone makes stuff up, be they poet, prophet, or president. The issue on this topic is how well they support it.

I point out what the story found in Genesis 2&3 itself says, not what I say, when discussing the Bible stories.I point out what reality shows when comparing what the stories claim to the actual universe we live in.Nobility is irrelevant.The different writers created gods that they could imagine, and in fact the god character in the stories is very much like any despot of the period. In the oldest stories the God character is like any prince or king or warlord; often capricious, quick to anger, without empathy, jealous of rights and often insecure. The same character though can be friendly, comforting, forgiving or unfriendly, unforgiving, demanding. They created a super human. As the tales evolve over time the God character first become Mira, the fates, then the offstage voice, and in the New Testament almost non-present.Sproul can and does try to support his position from a doctrinal position. That is generally fine until he crosses the line from what is believed to what must be true.To claim there are no contradictions or that stuff like the flood or special creation or the Exodus or conquest of Canaan are historically accurate is simply nonsense, absurd, false silly, pathetic. He can fall back on the excuse that human minds are fallen and so cannot interpret the data but the obvious response is that he is making a claim that the target got hit and EVERYONE and EVERY METHOD shows there are no holes in the target.Sproul and other members of the Reformed Theology movement can make the claims but then they need to also stand by the implications of their positions; that if the Flood happened then the God hid every single bit of evidence to hide the reality and if Election is true then the God is an vile, evil nasty picayune creature that should be opposed and condemned by every honest and loving individual in the world.

I challenge you to come up with an interpretation of Calvinism that is not vile. So far the only defenses I have seen but forward are one version or another of "God is not to be judged" or "If God did it, it is by definition not vile even if I cannot explain why".If you can do better than any of those non-explanations or are claiming that RC Sproul did better than that, I'd love to hear about the details. Tell us what you assert.

So logically, instead of Calvinism what would be the logical presentation or depiction of said evolving God character today? So far I can't really find anything. The talks seem to reaffirm Gods sovereignty and don't provide a loophole apart from Christ. Apparently, God gets acquitted due to the fact that he offered Christ and is under no obligation to provide another way. What would be the logical implication of such a stand, however? If humans collectively opposed and condemned God, what should Gods next step be? Try and look at it from the evolving characters point of view...Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Throw God away.Instead, do what Jesus (and many other similar religious leaders) said; feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sorrowful, protect the weak.GOD, if GOD exists, does not need anything from humans. Reasonably, the first step would be for the congregation to stand up and walk out of that church and throw that God away.That God could then evolve into something acceptable or simply get forgotten as has happened to most Gods.

That is not a difficult question. Christians should just dump Calvinism. Period. Christ said that every man can be saved. Take Jesus at his word.

Scripture is the message. It tells you what to do. It tells you that if you don't produce the fruit, you don't have faith. You need to have faith in the message.