Comments on: Did Paul Teach the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?

By: Awenydd » Who is I in Romans 7?

Awenydd » Who is I in Romans 7? — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:58:16 +0000

[...] is using the word “imputation” in a very different way from how we usually think of it (not that this invalidates the doctrine of imputation). With this general context in mind, then we come to Romans 7:7-10. For I would not have known [...]

By: Awenydd » Freed from the Law . . . by the Law?

Awenydd » Freed from the Law . . . by the Law? — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:24:32 +0000

[...] of the Law himself in our place. His works are accounted to us. And this is all true (see my post on imputation in Paul). But Romans 8 shows us that this is not the entire story. Paul tells us here that we are freed [...]

By: Jonathan Sedlak

Jonathan Sedlak — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:18:00 +0000

Oh, and by the way, I really think that all the mockery and name calling of Mr. Jay Dyer is completely unnecessary. I do not agree with every aspect of Federal Vision myself (and even FV advocates do not completely agree among themselves), but I consider it a waste of time for everybody here to watch you argue mainly with mockery and name calling.Mr. Dyer, if you do not have anything constructive to say, then please cease commenting on this blog. No one wants to hear your diatribe.

By: Jonathan Sedlak

Jonathan Sedlak — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000

I read this whole article Chris and I'm still not quite sure what the point of it really is. But even if that is a problem on my end of things, I have a question for you.Were you referring to Douglas Moo and his commentary on Romans 5:13-14 at the end of this article?If so, please read Moo's arguments in the book titled: "Five Views on Law and Gospel". Greg Bahnsen does a very thorough and scholarly work exposing the fallacies, inconsistencies, and down-right bad hermeneutics of Moo involving the law and justification. Plus, Moo is one of the leading advocates of New Covenant Theology, which I have done a lot of research in, and it's really misleading hermeneutically. I do not recommend New Covenant Theology to anyone (as it is formally labeled today by Moo, Lehrer, Feinberg, Gibson).

By: Jay Dyer

Jay Dyer — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:53:00 +0000

Yeah, it was really cute and funny. Just talked to some FV and other dudes who are fed up with it and ready to leave. Keep it up – it's the best way to send people our way.

By: Steven Wedgeworth

Steven Wedgeworth — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:21:00 +0000

Jay,I honestly debated whether or not to say anything at all here at this point. I still don't know. But I thought I should get serious for a minute. Obviously I was poking fun at you earlier, as it seems to me that you are a little too over-anxious to start an e-fight. But, that wasn't the right way to approach things, and I'm genuinely bothered now. This really isn't the way to have theological discussion, no matter how deep-seated the disagreement. Just look back over your words here: "We'll see how awesome you are," "your stupid…," "lame ass," "don't have the balls," "grow a pair."It sounds like we're on the school-yard, and you're trying to bait me into a fist-fight. The only thing missing is a derogatory reference to my mother. This really isn't the appropriate way to discuss the divine mysteries. How could I even respond at this point? Chris' post is about something that actually has to do with the salvation of men's souls from death and hell. I'm bad about being a cynic, myself, but I think it would be worthwhile to go back to the basics at this point. Step away from the debater's chair for a minute. Say an actual prayer for an upright Spirit. Fear God.sincerely

By: Jay Dyer

Jay Dyer — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:27:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&suggest&note_id=303461269145