tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post1546155779064607867..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Owen on ArminianismTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-47306719412771490342007-12-05T23:35:00.000+00:002007-12-05T23:35:00.000+00:00You know, what is amazing is this "modern" view of...You know, what is amazing is this "modern" view of circumstance!<BR/><BR/>The very first sentence I extract these words:::><BR/><BR/>"....the most recent controversies of modern times."<BR/><BR/>What suppose ye those recent controversies were? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-17896200081205526892007-12-03T13:58:00.000+00:002007-12-03T13:58:00.000+00:00About Owen, yes I agree.The beauties, complexities...About Owen, yes I agree.<BR/><BR/>The beauties, complexities of Scripture, FAITH TO BELIEVE, INVISIBLE Father, Son and Holy Ghost and of course men moved upon to pen these beauties.<BR/><BR/>Somewhere, I just cannot recall, a man Paul wrote something like there will arise confusion from men, but the True Authorities will bring order when that happens.<BR/><BR/>As for the far more severe issue Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-70466503193022196062007-12-03T13:35:00.000+00:002007-12-03T13:35:00.000+00:00Dear Michael,John Owen held to the doctrine of Lim...Dear Michael,<BR/><BR/>John Owen held to the doctrine of Limited Atonement/Particular Redemption. His excellent analysis of Scripture lighted the way for me to understand it better.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to think that if this debate must have "sides," that I'm in his corner. I think that the "other side" would at least agree to that.<BR/><BR/>Not, of course, that we should automatically accept the Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33539112166122133012007-12-02T22:15:00.000+00:002007-12-02T22:15:00.000+00:00As I read things jump at me.Here is one:"Arminius ...As I read things jump at me.<BR/><BR/>Here is one:<BR/><BR/>"Arminius depended upon the political support of the state."<BR/><BR/>That makes sense what McMahon points too about Jacob A's faith. That Arminius was a scoundel of a base order unwilling to "live" comforted by God's Faith, he had to secure the secular whims and will to pay for his own internal demons and heresy because God is never Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-55438971516413436742007-12-02T21:54:00.000+00:002007-12-02T21:54:00.000+00:00Again, as the chips fall and fell here too:"Thomis...Again, as the chips fall and fell here too:<BR/><BR/>"Thomists and Scotists had discussed it in its metaphysical form, and under a cloud of scholastic subtleties, lest the jealousies of a dominant church should be awakened." <BR/><BR/>Isn't it ironic the area the debate at Contend has waded into over these many days of debate? Seems to me we have touched some of those forms too addressed above inAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-76060883794410404102007-12-02T21:24:00.000+00:002007-12-02T21:24:00.000+00:00What great and keen insights Gottschalk gave us he...What great and keen insights Gottschalk gave us here:<BR/><BR/>for according to him, predestination was twofold, comprehending the punishment of the reprobate as well as the salvation of the elect; but while he held the predestination of men to the punishment of their sin,<BR/><BR/>Would to God Seth and company would grapple with these two and not one by one as it seems they strain in the debate Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com