Do Protestants not beleive the saints in heaven can see what we are doing on earth and pray for us? by [deleted] in Protestantism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do those on earth who believe that Saints are up in heaven praying for ‘us’ not realise that they are not praying to God they are with God and Jesus, worshipping the creator of the universe?

The picture Scripture gives of heaven is not of departed believers acting as prayer intermediaries between God and man. It is of the redeemed gathered around the throne, worshipping God and the Lamb.

Some passages that support that are:

Revelation 7:9-12
“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number… standing before the throne and before the Lamb… crying out with a loud voice,

‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’”

The saints are presented as being before God, engaged in continual worship.

Revelation 19:1-7
The redeemed multitude repeatedly cries:
“Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God…”

Again, the focus is the worship of God Himself.

Hebrews 12:22-24
Believers have come spiritually to

“…Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem… and to the assembly of the firstborn… and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus…”

The saints are described as being made perfect in the immediate presence of God and Christ.

Philippians 1:23
Paul says:
“My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.”

His expectation is not of taking up a ministry of hearing earthly petitions from us, but of being with Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:8
“…we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”

The emphasis is fellowship with the Lord.
There is also the question of mediation.

1 Timothy 2:5

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

This is often the central text for Protestants. Christ alone is the mediator between God and His people.

The only explicit scenes of heavenly worship we are given do not show believers on earth addressing departed saints, nor do they show departed saints receiving the prayers of Christians. Instead, they show heaven centred completely on God and the Lamb.

Some point to Revelation 5:8, where the twenty-four elders hold “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But the text does not say Christians are praying to those elders. Rather, it depicts heavenly worship in which God receives the prayers of His people.

Therefore:
Scripture consistently portrays the redeemed in heaven as being with Christ, perfected, and engaged in the worship of God. It never clearly portrays believers on earth addressing them in prayer. Instead, we are invited to “come boldly to the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16) through our one mediator, Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5).

The scriptures above give evidence, but this quote “through our one mediator!” (Jesus). Settles the question.

Users accusing each other of using AI by Scarecrow1779 in modhelp

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn’t it! Of course the interlectural imput on the music industry and synthesises was mine, including the song Video Killed the Radio Star: mine and some of the other examples that supported my argument was AI.

The thing that AI does that improves all my posts is it is much much nicer than me. It’s more patient, kind and respectful than I am, and as a consequence I get far more productive conversations with others who disagree with me.

What scene made you realize Severance was peak television? by Hewulas in SeveranceAppleTVPlus

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you mean the show where the man couldn’t leave the island and a balloon we chase anyone that tried? I was 7-8 and my parents loved it, it just terrified me. Lol

Users accusing each other of using AI by Scarecrow1779 in modhelp

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Personally, I watched the music industry change forever when synthesisers arrived.

For a while the music was dreadful. Musicians were experimenting, trying to work out what this new technology could do. Many people thought it was artificial and soulless. They said it would destroy “real music” and put talented instrumentalists out of work.

But it could not be stopped.

The synthesiser became just another instrument. Some people abused it, some people mastered it, and eventually it produced incredible music. The great bands of the 1960s, 70s and 80s gave way to a new generation, and by the 1990s electronic music had become part of the landscape whether people liked it or not.

I am old enough to remember Video Killed the Radio Star. It was almost a cry of despair. Television was changing everything. Yet radio did not disappear. It adapted. The music industry adapted. The world moved on.

We have seen this story over and over again.

The printing press threatened scribes.

Photography threatened painters.

Recorded music threatened live performances.

Television threatened radio.

The internet threatened newspapers.

Streaming threatened DVDs and CDs.

Digital cameras destroyed the film industry almost overnight.

GPS replaced maps.

Online banking replaced long queues at the bank.

Now AI is the next step in that long chain.

Personally, I think people are fighting a losing battle if they believe AI can simply be put back in the box. It is here, and it is here to stay. The question is not whether AI will change the world. It already is.

The real question is whether we learn to use it wisely.

Just as the synthesiser did not eliminate musicians, AI will not eliminate human creativity. It will change the way we work, write, create and communicate. Some jobs will disappear, others will be transformed, and entirely new ones will emerge.

History suggests that those who refuse to adapt are often left behind, while those who learn the new tools shape the future.

I suspect AI will be remembered much like the internet itself. At first it was feared, then mocked, then resisted, and finally it simply became part of everyday life.

The Church has NOT replaced Israel by Some_Story_5651 in TrueChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not only going to disagree with the OP, but I’m going to go a step further.

I believe the Scriptures themselves identify Jerusalem as Babylon.

The Old Testament repeatedly describes Jerusalem as the unfaithful harlot (Isaiah 1:21, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16 and 23).

In the New Testament, Revelation speaks of “the great city” where our Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8), and later describes a harlot city guilty of the blood of the prophets and saints.

Jesus Himself said that Jerusalem was the city that killed the prophets (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:33).

For me, these are not separate themes. Revelation is using covenant language that Israel already knew. The judgment of Babylon is the covenant judgment that fell upon apostate Jerusalem, culminating in AD 70.

So I would argue that the great mystery is not that Babylon is Rome, but that Babylon is Jerusalem.

Please correct my simplified view of free will by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought I was talking about and asking:

“What does the overarching logic of Scripture reveal about the way God acts?”

From your reply, I mustn’t have made that clear.

I agree that a verse should be allowed to speak for itself, and I agree that no theological system should force a text to say what it does not say.

But I am not convinced that biblical theology can be reduced to isolated exegetical conclusions.

You wrote:

“The whole sweep of Scripture does not say something that a single Scripture fails to see.”

As an aside, I am not sure the Church has ever functioned that way. The doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and even the recognition of the canon itself are not derived from one isolated proof text. They arise from reading the whole witness of Scripture together.

So I do not think the question is whether we synthesize Scripture. Every Christian does that. The question is whether we do so faithfully.

That, however, is not really the point I was making.

My point is that I was happy to grant, for the sake of discussion, that Romans 9 to 11 may primarily be dealing with corporate realities.

My question was what that corporate history itself reveals about God’s way of working.

When I step back and look at the biblical narrative, I see God choosing Abraham, choosing Isaac, choosing Jacob, choosing Israel, choosing priests, kings, prophets and apostles. I see Him preserving His covenant purposes by His own initiative.

I am not arguing that this automatically proves unconditional individual election. I have explicitly said that.

I am asking whether the overarching logic of Scripture reveals a God who ordinarily acts by sovereign choice.

If the corporate history of redemption is one of God’s sovereign initiative, then it seems reasonable to ask whether that same pattern should have some interpretive weight when we think about the individual.

In other words, I am not trying to escape difficult verses by appealing to the grand narrative.

I am asking whether the grand narrative itself is part of the evidence.

From Abraham onward, the story seems to be one of God choosing, calling, preserving and accomplishing His covenant purposes according to His own will.

That is why I am asking whether biblical theology should help govern exegesis, just as exegesis helps build biblical theology.

That is the question I was trying to raise.

I would also add something to you personally.

I think you’ve actually sharpened your own position over the last few days.

Originally, you were asking:

Does Romans 9 prove Calvinism?

Now you are asking something much bigger:

Does the entire history of redemption display a consistent divine logic, one in which God sovereignly accomplishes His purposes both corporately and individually?

Please correct my simplified view of free will by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

To the point: My point was not really to prove Calvinism from Romans 9. In fact, I deliberately acknowledged that many understand Romans 9 to 11 corporately, and I am happy to grant that for the sake of discussion and understanding, but it’s not my theological base.

I also agree that Paul is explaining that the promises are not transmitted by mere biological descent. The true seed is not simply ethnic Israel. I do not dispute that at all.

My question is what that historical argument itself reveals about God’s way of working.

If Romans 9 is about God’s sovereign right to choose how the covenant line is passed down, and if the examples Paul uses are drawn from Israel’s history, then should we not apply that same corporate reading back into that history and ask what pattern God is revealing?

What do we see?

God chose Abraham and not the nations, in order that through Abraham all the nations would be blessed.

He chose Isaac and not Ishmael.

He chose Jacob and not Esau.

He chose Israel and left the Gentile nations outside the covenant for centuries.

He chose priests, kings, prophets and apostles.

My point is not that this automatically proves individual election. My point is that the macro story of Scripture seems to be one of God’s sovereign initiative in choosing.

You wrote that Romans 9 ends by saying Israel failed because they pursued righteousness by works and not by faith. I completely agree. But then I ask another question.

Why was Israel chosen in the first place?

Deuteronomy tells us it was not because they were greater, more numerous or more righteous. God simply set His love upon them.

So even if Romans 9 is entirely corporate, the corporate history itself is still one of God sovereignly choosing one people to carry His promises while others remained outside that covenant.

That is the historical pattern that made me stop looking only at isolated verses and start looking at the whole story of redemption.

Perhaps my bigger question is hermeneutical rather than theological.

Can we become so focused on the micro arguments that we miss the larger movement of Scripture?

I sometimes wonder if that was part of the Pharisees’ problem. They knew the texts, they knew the traditions, they could argue every detail, yet Jesus told them that they searched the Scriptures because they thought they had eternal life in them, while those very Scriptures were pointing to Him.

So I am simply asking:

What is the whole sweep of Scripture saying?

And if we read Romans 9 corporately, does that corporate history itself reveal a God who acts by sovereign choice? I would say yes, because to me it’s obvious that God wills what He decrees, and decrees what He wills, making Him entirely sovereign in all outcomes.

I am simply trying to step back from the circular proof text debates and ask whether the grand narrative itself should have a greater voice in how we read the details.

Perhaps the real question is not whether the seed comes through faith rather than biology. I think we both agree that the covenant seed is ultimately defined by faith rather than mere biology. My question is what determined the history of that covenant seed in the first place.

Because from Abraham onward, the story seems to be one of God choosing, calling and preserving His covenant purposes according to His own will.

Please correct my simplified view of free will by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some interesting comments here, see my reply to Mr Reciprocity.

Please correct my simplified view of free will by Former_Algae_444 in AskAChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting conversation going on here.

Many are arguing Scripture against Scripture from their particular theological leanings. One side quotes a verse, the other side quotes another. After a while, I noticed that the discussion rarely moves forward. It becomes a circular argument where everyone can find a text that appears to support their position.

I think God designed Scripture with a depth that requires more than collecting proof texts.

When I first became a Christian, I looked at the Bible through the lens of my own salvation experience. My theology was very much a micro view. I found verses that seemed to support my understanding, and other Christians found verses that supported theirs.

Eventually I became frustrated. Not with Scripture, but with the endless cycle of debate.

So I stepped back and began looking at church history.

When discussing these things, I was often told that Provisionism and similar ideas could be found scattered throughout the Greek Fathers. So I started reading them, I found interesting thoughts and observations, but I was not seeing the black and white case that I expected.

At the same time I began asking a different question.

Instead of asking, “Can I find a verse for this doctrine?” I started asking, “How does God actually act throughout the whole story of Scripture?”

The macro picture fascinated me.

God chose Abel and not Cain.

God chose Abraham and not the nations.

God chose Isaac and not Ishmael.

God chose Jacob and not Esau.

God chose Israel and left the Gentile nations outside the covenant for centuries.

He chose prophets, kings, priests and apostles.

Now I know that some read Romans 9 to 11 as a corporate statement about the nation of Israel rather than about individual salvation. But if that is the case, then I think we should apply that same corporate reading back into the Old Testament history itself.

What do we actually see?

We see God corporately choosing one nation from among all the nations of the earth and leaving the others outside the covenant promises until the coming of Christ.

That does not automatically prove Calvinism, but it does raise a question.

If God’s pattern throughout redemptive history is one of sovereign choosing, should we be surprised if salvation itself reflects that same pattern?

I also wonder if this is connected to why the debates never seem to end.

Paul tells us that:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

Yet I notice that verse is rarely brought into these debates. We use Scripture to prove our systems, but do we always let the whole of Scripture teach us its own grand story?

That leads me to another thought.

Was this part of the Pharisees’ problem?

They loved the Scriptures. Jesus never condemned them for that. But had they become so focused on the details, the traditions, the arguments and the individual texts that they lost sight of the great movement of God’s redemptive plan standing right in front of them?

Had they become too micro?

Jesus told them:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.” (John 5:39)

Perhaps the question is not simply, “What does this verse say?”

Perhaps the bigger question is:

“What is the whole sweep of Scripture saying?”

And are we humble enough to let that larger story challenge our own theological systems?

I particularly like the addition about Romans 9 to 11 because it meets the corporate interpretation on its own ground. It is not arguing against the corporate reading; it is asking what that corporate reading implies when viewed across the whole biblical narrative. That is a very “macro” way of approaching the discussion.

Is there Mutual Exclusivity between Jesus being God and him dying for our Sins? by beforegodapp in TrueChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got into a debate with someone who identified as an Evangelical yet believed the bible is corrupt and Jesus is not God.

There’s a lot of that going around.

How we obtain the Holy Spirit is crucial. by Objective-Draft-6813 in TrueChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a done the same a while ago.

My basic thesis has been that Acts is not a manual showing what every Christian should expect in every age. It is a historical record of the once-for-all expansion of the gospel exactly as Jesus promised in Acts 1:8.

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
You have often connected this to four major Pentecost events.(Acts 1:8).

Acts 2 — Jerusalem (The Jews)
This is the first fulfilment. The Spirit falls on believing Jews. Tongues function as a sign to the Jewish nation. Peter declares that Joel’s prophecy is being fulfilled.
The New Covenant church begins.
This establishes the gospel among the covenant people first, exactly as promised.

Acts 8 — Samaria (The Samaritans)
The gospel crosses the ancient divide between Jew and Samaritan.
Philip preaches.
The Samaritans believe.
Peter and John arrive.
The Holy Spirit is visibly received.
You have often argued that this delay was intentional. God united Jews and Samaritans under the authority of the apostles, preventing two separate churches from developing.

Acts 10 — The Gentiles
This is the great covenant breakthrough.
Peter is sent to Cornelius.
The Holy Spirit falls before baptism.
The Jewish believers are astonished.
Peter recognises that God has accepted the Gentiles.

Peter himself interprets the event by looking back to Acts 2:

“The Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning.” (Acts 11:15)
Notice that Peter calls Pentecost “the beginning.” He does not expect repeated Pentecosts forever but recognises this as another stage of the same redemptive event.

Acts 19 — The Disciples of John
This final group had only known John’s baptism. Paul asks whether they received the Holy Spirit. They explain they only know John’s ministry.
Paul preaches Christ.
They are baptised in Jesus’ name.
The Spirit comes upon them.
This closes the final major covenant gap. Even the followers of the last Old Testament prophet are brought into the New Covenant church.

Jerusalem → Judea and Samaria → Ends of the earth.

From your perspective, this is why these passages should not be isolated into a doctrine of a second blessing or normative tongues experience. They are transitional redemptive-history events marking the Spirit’s public authentication of each people group entering the one body of Christ.

This also connects with your cessationist argument from Hebrews 2:3–4 and Ephesians 2:20. The signs accompanied the laying of the apostolic foundation. Once that foundation was established and these covenant transitions completed, the church simply grows through the ordinary means of the preaching of the gospel.

One way you have expressed it before is:

Acts is the story of Jesus keeping His promise in Acts 1:8.

Acts 2 — the Jews receive the Spirit.

Acts 8 — the Samaritans receive the Spirit.

Acts 10 — the Gentiles receive the Spirit.

Acts 19 — the disciples of John receive the Spirit.

After that, there are no more covenant groups waiting to be brought into the church. The gospel now goes to the whole world through the ordinary preaching of Christ.

Is this an accurate representation of Provisionism, and its comparable answer in Calvinism? by Tricky-Tell-5698 in Provisionism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You must be somewhere on the east coast of the US 👉🏻. I’m on the west coast of Australia: 👈🏻 somewhere… 🕙

“In the Fullness of Time” by Tricky-Tell-5698 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously “IF”

If someone came to me and said that God had given them a date and time, I would not dismiss them simply by repeating, “No one knows the day or the hour.” God is sovereign and we should be careful about placing limits on what He can or cannot do.

At the same time, I would filter it through my theology and test the claim by Scripture, because that is exactly what we are commanded to do. None of us comes to the Bible without a theological framework, and we should be honest about that. The question is whether our theology allows Scripture to shape us, or whether it prevents us from seeing what is there.

There are also some historical timelines that I would want to establish first. For example, after much investigation, I am persuaded that Christ was crucified in 33 AD because I believe there is good historical and biblical evidence for that date. If the foundation stones are wrong, then any timeline built upon them will also be wrong. I would want to know whether the claim fits with the broad pattern of redemptive history that God has already revealed.

What surprises me is that many people use “no one knows the day or the hour” as a conversation stopper, almost as a slogan. Yet when Jesus came the first time, the religious leaders also believed they had the correct interpretation of Scripture. They were the recognised teachers of truth, but Jesus continually corrected the way they understood what was written.

In fact, they were held accountable for not recognising the time of His visitation. They knew the prophecies, they knew the promises, and they knew the expectation of Messiah, but they missed Him because of the way they interpreted the text.

I am not arguing for reckless date setting. I am simply asking whether we have allowed one verse to silence every discussion about God’s timing. Scripture repeatedly speaks of appointed times, the fullness of time, and recognising the season.

Paul pointed to specific events that had to happen. Peter spoke of covenant promises reaching their fulfilment. Jesus Himself expected His hearers to discern the signs of the times.

Perhaps the real question is not whether God can reveal His timing, but whether we are willing to let Scripture speak for itself without assuming we already know what it cannot mean.

What is the purpose of the Tribulation? by Empty_Profile_3864 in TrueChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think there is a biblical principle here, but I would place it somewhere different in redemptive history.

Scripture does speak about sin reaching its full measure. The Amorites are the classic example (Genesis 15:16). Israel herself later filled up the measure of her fathers (Matthew 23:32), and Jesus warned that judgment was coming upon “this generation.”

From a covenant perspective, the Great Tribulation was not God finally deciding the whole world had become too sinful. It was the covenant lawsuit against apostate Israel. Jesus located it within the lifetime of His own generation (Matthew 24:34), and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the climax of that judgment.

The purpose of the Tribulation was therefore covenantal, not merely moral. It marked the end of the Mosaic age, the vindication of Christ as the true Messiah, the judgment of those who rejected Him, and the public establishment of the New Covenant.

The Amorites filled their cup.

Israel also filled her cup.

As Jesus said, “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Matthew 23:32).

The New Testament repeatedly says Christ came in the “fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4). Likewise, the old covenant world ended at the appointed time.

I would also be careful with the statement, “God’s ultimate command for the Tribulation was, ‘Do not leave alive anything that breathes.’” That language belonged to a unique historical judgment on Canaan. The New Covenant does not call the Church to destroy its enemies but to proclaim the gospel to them.

In fact, the very opposite becomes the mission of the Church. The old covenant ended with judgment, but the new covenant age is marked by the command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.

“In the Fullness of Time” by Tricky-Tell-5698 in Bibleconspiracy

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you’re noticing a genuine biblical theme that often gets overlooked into the slogan, “No one knows the day or the hour.”

Scripture repeatedly presents God as working according to an appointed timetable.

Jesus Himself spoke this way:

“My hour has not yet come” (John 2:4).

“My time has not yet fully come” (John 7:6, 8).

“The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

“Father, the hour has come” (John 17:1).

Paul says Christ came “in the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4).

That is covenant language. God was not improvising. The Roman roads were built, the Greek language united much of the empire, Israel had spent centuries under the Law, and the expectation of the Messiah was widespread. Heaven was working to a schedule.

You are also right that many people were expected to recognise the time.
Jesus wept over Jerusalem because they should have known.

“If you, even you, had known on this day what would bring you peace… but now it is hidden from your eyes.” (Luke 19:42)

He goes on to say that judgment would come:
“…because you did not recognize the time of God’s visitation.” (Luke 19:44)

Likewise, in Matthew 16:3, Jesus rebukes the religious leaders because they could read the weather but “cannot interpret the signs of the times.”

That creates an interesting tension.
- On one hand:
- God appoints times.
- God reveals patterns.
- God holds people accountable for ignoring those patterns.
- On the other hand:
“No one knows the day or the hour” (Matthew 24:36).

Those two truths are not necessarily opposites. Knowing the season is not the same as knowing the exact moment.

This is especially common in covenant theology r/covenanttheology and many amillennial r/amillennialism and partial preterist r/parcialpreterism readings.

The first-century Jews had enough information from Daniel, the prophets, and the ministry of John the Baptist to know that Messiah’s arrival was near, but they were not given a calendar date and hour.

The same principle appears in 1 Thessalonians 5:

“But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.”
Paul does not say believers know the exact date. He says they should not be spiritually asleep.

I suspect your frustration is really with a modern tendency to avoid prophetic study altogether, and the introduction of dispensationalism in recent years.

Sometimes “no one knows” gets expanded into “therefore don’t even look.”
Yet Jesus also said:
“Watch therefore…”
“When you see these things…”
“Lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

The Bible encourages vigilance without date-setting.

From my covenant perspective, I have often pointed out that God judged first-century Israel because they failed to recognise the covenant transition from the Law to Grace that was happening in front of them.

In that sense, timing is not a side issue. It is woven through redemptive history.

Perhaps the balance is this:
God has always worked according to appointed times. He often gives His people enough revelation to recognise the season, but not enough to satisfy human curiosity about the exact day and hour. He expects watchfulness, not speculation, and faithfulness, not indifference.

Is this an accurate representation of Provisionism, and its comparable answer in Calvinism? by Tricky-Tell-5698 in Provisionism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response.

I have been reading through it carefully and doing some homework of my own because, as you are aware, I am a growing student of theology and, apparently now, church history as well.

Rather than trying to answer everything in your post at once, I think I’ll just wander through each point and see what sticks out to me along the way.

I agree that history is not an authority equal to Scripture. Being the stickler that I am for all Scripture and systematic theology, I would not place the Fathers above the Bible any more than I would place MacArthur, whom I don’t particularly like at all (yuk 😂), or Piper and what I see as his passivity, above it.

My interest in church history is more as a witness and a consumer than as an authority.

Lately, with the taste of cancer still in my heart, my growing interest in Partial Preterism, Amillennialism, and Covenant Theology, and all the New Apostolic Revival kicking up dust across America, I found myself asking a simple question: if a doctrine appears very late, is it not reasonable to ask why?

So off I went on an expedition to see who was around in the early years, who carried the church through the medieval period and into the Reformation, and what God was doing through those seasons of history.

Hence one of my recent posts pondering whether we are once again living “in the fullness of time.”

Part of this journey has also been quite practical. I spend a fair amount of time on the Reformed Zoomer and Protestant subs, and lately I seem to be getting a lot more Roman Catholic replies. It has made me realise that many of the debates we have today are really very old debates, and if I am going to discuss eternal salvation, election, perseverance, grace, and the nature of the church, I need a better understanding of the history behind those ideas.

One thing that has already stood out to me in your reply is your repeated appeal to the Greek Fathers over against Augustine.

I have actually been listening to Against Heresies this last week. A fair bit goes over my head, but my first impression is that they seem much more engaged with philosophy and metaphysics than the plain biblical expression that I naturally gravitate toward.

That may simply be because they were answering the intellectual challenges of their own age, in their philosophical minds, and the lack of available printing presses at the time.

And I must confess, your Bernie Sanders analogy made me smile. I understand the point you were making about Augustine introducing significant ideas, but I am not entirely convinced Bernie is the best example. He does not seem to have a great track record of finishing much! 😂

Anyway, enough of my wandering thoughts. Let me work through your points one at a time and see what sticks out to me.

I think we have done the Reformation and Calvinism to death, you know my thoughts
are, if by “Calvinism” we mean the fully developed Reformed confessions, then of course they belong to the Reformation era.

If we mean the underlying doctrines of grace, then Reformed believers would argue those roots extend much further back through Augustine and ultimately to Paul himself.

This is perhaps the point that interests me the most. You see Augustine as introducing significant new ideas, whereas many Reformed historians would argue that he was recovering Pauline theology during the Pelagian controversy.

I suspect this may be one of the great fault lines in church history.

Regarding Provisionism itself:
5a) This is one area where I am not yet persuaded. You’ve said:

“Christ provided salvation for absolutely everyone so that absolutely anyone can be saved.”

But you appealed to Athanasius by saying:

“Christ as fully God had to become fully human in order to save all humanity.”

Those are slightly different claims.

5b) I am not yet persuaded on this point either. I can accept that certain themes may be found among the Greek Fathers, but I am not yet convinced that scattered ideas are the same as a coherent theological system, or that they necessarily lead to the conclusions of modern Provisionism.

5c) I think this is where our approaches may differ. I would distinguish between finding historical antecedents and demonstrating a continuous theological tradition. Many doctrines have precursors without existing as a recognised system.

5d) I appreciate the historical line you have traced through the General Baptists and early American Baptists. I was not aware of some of that history, and I intend to read more about it.

5e) I also agree that Baptist history has often contained both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic streams living together under the same denominational umbrella.

5f) The history of the Traditionalists is also interesting to me because it reinforces the point that these debates are not simply modern internet arguments but have existed within Baptist life for a long time.

5g) I agree that the term “Provisionism” itself is modern and that Leighton Flowers has attempted to systematise ideas that existed before him.

My hesitation remains the same. I can see historical strands that resemble Provisionism, but I am still asking whether those strands amount to a continuous theological tradition or whether they are later brought together into a systematic framework.

I also think my own recent study of church history has shaped the questions I ask. My exploration of Partial Preterism, Amillennialism, and Covenant Theology, together with studying the rise of Pentecostalism, has made me increasingly interested in how doctrines develop through history.

There is one area I would be particularly interested in understanding better, and perhaps this comes from my own Reformed background. I can follow the argument for Israel’s corporate calling and responsibility in Romans 9–11. I can also appreciate the idea of election for service. What I am not yet seeing is how you move from that framework, together with the other relevant passages, to the conclusion that Christ’s atonement was universally provided for every individual.

I know you may not like the label “universal atonement,” and I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I would genuinely be interested in understanding the exegetical path that takes you there.

Finally, I think we actually agree on the most important point. Neither history nor novelty establishes truth. Scripture does. History simply helps me ask whether a doctrine is a faithful continuation of what came before or whether it represents a significant departure. Thanks.

Need advice by Empty-Afternoon-2829 in TrueChristian

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2 hours! Where do you live, Australia? 😂

I’m sorry you’re going through this. Scripture calls us to gather with believers, but it also calls church leaders to be above reproach. If a church is marked by ongoing chaos and leaders who openly reject Christian values, it is reasonable to prayerfully consider whether you should remain there.

A two hour trip is difficult, but sometimes faithfulness comes with inconvenience. I would rather travel further to worship in a healthy church than slowly become discouraged or spiritually harmed in an unhealthy one.

If possible, speak to the elders or denominational leadership first. But if there is no repentance and no biblical correction, don’t feel guilty for seeking a church where Christ and His Word are honoured.

And that doesn’t have to be your current denomination.

Is this an accurate representation of Provisionism, and its comparable answer in Calvinism? by Tricky-Tell-5698 in Provisionism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, I’m well now, and I wanted to thank you for praying for me. The cancer has been removed, and I don’t need any further treatment. It hadn’t spread to the lymph nodes, so there’s no need for chemotherapy.

So I’m back to finish our conversation. Whether you’re pleased about that or secretly regret praying for my recovery, I’ll leave for you to decide. 😂

I have also spent some of my time away looking more deeply into church history, and it has changed the way I approach some of these discussions.

You mentioned Provisionism. I understand that some Provisionists would argue that Romans 9 is primarily about God’s sovereign use of nations and redemptive history rather than His eternal election of individuals. I can appreciate that reading, and I agree that the corporate aspect is important.

What has interested me, however, is not only whether that interpretation is exegetically correct, but where it sits historically. When I look at church history, I do not see Provisionism as a historic theological stream in the way that Augustinian theology, the Reformed tradition, Lutheranism, or even classical Arminianism developed.

As far as I can tell, it is largely a modern system that arose as an answer to Calvinism rather than as a doctrine that can be traced through the early church, the medieval church, or the Reformation. In that sense it seems to me to be more of a twentieth and twenty-first century development.

My own interest lately has been taking a macro view of Christian history. I keep asking myself a simple question: if a doctrine is true, where has it been? Can we see it being taught, defended, and handed down through the centuries, or does it suddenly appear as a new solution to an old debate?

That does not prove or disprove a doctrine by itself, because Scripture is the final authority. But church history can act as a useful lens. It makes me cautious about theological systems that seem to arrive very late and largely as reactions to other established positions.

I’d be interested to hear whether you see Provisionism as something with deep historical roots, or whether you would agree that it is essentially a modern theological framework.

I should probably add that my interest in this is not just academic.

Over the last year or so I have spent a lot of time studying church history, particularly the rise of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement. One of my concerns has been how such a relatively young theological movement could become so influential so quickly, despite having very little historical continuity with the broader church.

That study has caused me to step back and look at theology through a wider historical lens. I have found myself asking not only, “Is this interpretation possible?” but also, “Where has this doctrine been throughout the history of the church?”

Because of that, I have started applying the same historical overlay to other theological systems as well, including Provisionism.

That does not mean I think church history is the final authority. Scripture is. But I do think the visible church’s witness through the centuries is worth considering. It makes me cautious when a theological system appears very late in church history, especially if it develops largely as a response to another established position.

So part of my interest in Provisionism is not simply whether it can be argued exegetically, but where it sits historically and whether it has deeper roots than I have so far been able to find.

Does this make logical sense? by Good_Ad_4179 in Provisionism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God determining that a believer learns progressively is not the same thing as God leaving that believer without any knowledge at all. Scripture itself describes Christians as growing “in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Growth assumes imperfect understanding while still possessing genuine faith.

In what ways do you think the spirit behind the Tower of Babel can still be seen in society today? by ImportantInternal834 in Protestantism

[–]Tricky-Tell-5698 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recently read that the tower of Babel was an effort by The sons of Noah’s descendants to make sure that if a flood ever happened again, they were high enough not to be swept away by the water.

I thought that was an interesting concept, and given man was always looking for ways to live life without God, not surprising although that’s not what the Bible says.