In the prefaceto the second edition, Dr. Reymond writes, "I want to thank both my commenders and my critics for the time and effor tthey expended to review the work. All their critical comments were taken seriously, and often these comments led to a modification of expression or of conception." However, he does not go into much details so as to mention which specific sections were modified. I have not read his 130+ pages on the trinity. Based on that criticism from a while back, I'm not sure If I'm going to read it any time soon. I may do it to see if he did revise the section.
in Christ, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
I have not purchased the new improved version yet....another $40 bucks or so...Of course, I disagree with more than just his doctrine of the Trinity.....Berkhof is still better IMHO overall and thus, I think I will stay with something my tried and IMHO more faithful to the text of Scripture.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Of course, I disagree with more than just his doctrine of the Trinity..
So would I. I disagree with his treatment of Romans 7:14-25, his defense of supra [I can't spell this word, so I'm not going to even bother[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/heavy.gif" alt="heavy" title="heavy[/img]. Although, certain sections I really like: Extent of the atonement, Soteriolgy, the Covenants, Federal Headship, Eschatalogy (minus the partial-preterism). In most, of these sections He quoted Hodge, Murray, Warfield, and Vos [ and perhaps that's why I like those ones I have not read the other sections. So much things to read with so little time. Charle Hodge's systematics is still my favorite, minus the latin quotations.
in Christ, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
In reply to: Ron you said "is it not true that if Christ died for every person born from this moment on, the middle east will come to Christ in mass rather soon ?"
The heart and the world is the backdrop for irresistible grace.
All unconverted are of course equally dead but Islam hinders the Gospel - as God has, for His reasons, intended. An unconverted Muslim is a threat to the "visible" Church, ie, you and me, now in the flesh. The false prophet is a different kind of adversary than anti-christian Rome. It does not set out to deceive the elect as Rome does. It does not hide its hatred for Christ and His people and contempt for other non-muslims. Pagan unbelief offers little threat to the "visible" Church.
I fear you belittle your foes of Roman Catholicism and Islam. I would strongly advise you to study the ethos of these lethal weapons from Satans armory before you dismiss them as "More specific appellations for unbelief"
Praise God for the last 450 years and beyond ! And Praise God for the next 450 years which are going to get a lot rougher, if He permits them to happen of course.
How much faith will there be on earth when Christ returns ? [Luke 18:1-8 KJV] I don't know do you ?
Howard,
You posted my statement, but you haven't addressed. In fact, your response disorients the teleological relationship between those for whom Christ died and irresistible grace. In essence you are suggesting that Christ could not have died for everyone who will be born tomorrow simply because irresistible grace will not likely overcome the powers of Rome and Islam. Of course, when stated this way, you will deny the implications of your post. Notwithstanding, you simply dismiss the fact, by ignoring it, that God draws all those Christ died for. Instead, you have implied that Christ died for those who it seems feasible to you will likely stand a chance of being drawn.
At the very least, you might have dealt with the point that if the church is growing year after year in percentages, it is gaining on the kingdom of darkness.
I'll let you speak the last word. Again though, our eschatology is not derived from popular opinion but from the Scriptures. Finally, even if the amill. position were the biblical one, all amills (who hold to particular redemption and the rules of percentages) should agree with what I have said. My sole point has been that the world as we see it is not at odds with an optimistic view of the Kingdom, and in some very real and tangible ways, it supports it strictly on pragmatic grounds if you will.
In His Grace, Ron
Last edited by chestnutmare; Sun Jul 01, 201210:46 AM.
On the whole, I like Reymond's book very much. It is the first systematic I know of that has taken the Sproul-Gerstner / Catholic / Arminian apologetic and put it in its place. It is clearly Vantillian, though he does take Van Til to task over the Clark controversy in the OPC. It deals wonderfully with more contemporary issues such as Dispensationalism and even Open Theism. It references the WCF throughout as well. All in all, I recommend it highly but not as a replacement for any others that have been mentioned but as a supplement. <br><br>Ron
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Most "partial" preterists (and I prefer to use the term orthodox preterists because the other term was coined to make us OPs appear to believe only part of what the Bible teaches) believe that there is yet a future fulfilment of the very same prophecies.
I may be wrong, but many non-Preteriests can make the same statement about future fulfillments. So, is everyone a preteriest (OP or PP) but we do not know it. Are the OP (PP) inferring something else with that statement, or is that not the major issue driving the OP (PP) position? If not, then what is the driving issue.
(Maybe on these echatology issues, I know more what I don't believe than do)
John Chaney
"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ."Colossians 2:7
Your hypothetical statement is not worth the response -thus my smilie. Even my wife read it and wondered what you were talking about
I am not going to fall out with anyone over eschatology , unless its dispy pre-mil of course, so say all you want .
It would do you no harm if you were to look into Islam to see just what Christianity is up against even though your "so what" attitude makes me think that you dont care about it . Dont ignore Satan - he has but a short time left so get aquainted with his device of Islam so at least you can witness against it .
Do you witness to Moslems and Papists ? I do . "So what" , could well be your response . You are not a hyper-calvinist btw are you ? Do you just sit back and say "so what, God will do it " ?
We are in a war zone as christians , not on a picnic ! Wake up to it Ron .
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Sofa.gif)
smilie. Even my wife read it and wondered what you were talking about ![[Linked Image]](http://the-highway.com/Smileys/crazy2.gif)