<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d8382812700944261936', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

12.10.2011

Cornering Rome

Responding to this:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kingdom-covenant-71536/#post915133


Rev. Winzer responded with this:

In effect, modern antipaedobaptists have etherealised "covenant;" relating kingdom to that etherealised covenant requires the antipaedobaptist to etherealise the kingdom. That is all that is accomplished by the OP. As an exercise in consistency it has gone a long way towards accomplishing its goal. As an incorporation of biblical and dogmatic theology, however, it is disastrous. In terms of biblical theology, the Davidic covenant is the covenant of the kingdom. One must neglect that important development in order to tie covenant and kingdom together from the beginning of revelation. In terms of dogmatic theology, "the kingdom of God" has always been understood as being connected with the visible church in some way. Even the modern modifications of it accept a partial connection. An etherealised kingdom which relates to an etherealised covenant destroys the claim of the church of God on earth to serve a kingdom which is in the world but not of it.


You're right, Rev. Winzer. Rome is not going to be pleased with this turn of events.

(Having said that, I must also state that the author of the post linked above, in rather uncharming man-fearing fashion, threw too many bones Rome's way in the last portions of his post. Anyway, I must also say, this is a step in the right direction, overall, but these guys have further to go. Kingdom, warfare, holiness. They don't involve things you can touch, or eat, or have sex with. Think about spiritual warfare. Rome and its unconscious followers would mock the biblical teaching on spiritual warfare as 'etherealised.' Right, because we must actually burn people at the stake if we are to engage in spiritual warfare. Right? Right.)

3 Comments:

Blogger c.t. said...

By the way, to defend his unbiblical doctrine Winzer is forced to sound like a Dispensationalist. "Oh, everything is spiritualized then, huh? Huh, buddy? Is that it? Just go and spiritualize everything, huh? I tell you what, I don't think so!"

December 10, 2011 at 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a fraud! I really don't understand Winzer's use of the word etherealized with regard to anything biblical. I am an antipaedobaptist. That is, a real Baptist, that believes in the Sovereign Grace of God in everything. Besides, when understanding prophesy, if one does not "think" spiritually, one thinks carnally. A carnal approach to the Kingdom was used by the Pharisees. They missed the Kingdom!

Dispensationalists call their carnality literalism. But we can see through that ruse, can't we. The opposite of spiritual is carnal - of the flesh. The opposite of literal is ....

But we have the preserved, infallible word of God - in English, it exists in the King James Bible!

Winzer does seem to demonstrate some movement toward Rome. (Does he also use one - or two or three - of Rome's new bible version?

Joe V.

December 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM  
Anonymous ct said...

No, ironically Winzer is exceptional as a defender of the Authorized - King James - Version (rare in Reformed circles). I think his main stumblingblock is he really, really wants his confession (the Westminster Standards) to be perfect, and so he argues and pulls everything into that template. Personally, I see the virtue and usefulness of having an on-the-mark confession, but I think God keeps a tension there and doesn't allow a perfect confession so that we will always keep our eye on the actual word of God (of which He does allow perfection).

December 17, 2011 at 12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home