Originally Posted by JesusFan
What are those 2 concepts that you brought up here? "multi-perspectivalism".
"Republication

So best to stay with the older theologians than?
1. "Multi-perspectivalism": briefly it is the idea that a particular passage in Scripture can be interpreted (vs. applied) in various ways on the basis of one's "perspective". And thus even though these various interpretations are contradictory, they can still be said to be true.

2. "Republication": briefly, that in the OT there was some 'merit' accrued by Israel before God according to their obedience to a command. This Republication/Two Kingdom model was popularized by the late Meredith Kline. Many have objected and rejected this view and it is currently being 'investigated/deliberated' by committee(s) within the OPC.

Re: reading older writers. Generally speaking, yes. Most of the Reformers and published Puritans are worthy of reading and far more reliable than most all modern writers. There have been some very excellent modern authors, however, e.g., Berkhof, Hendriksen, the early R.C. Sproul Sr., John Gerstner, and some others.

Remember, there is nothing "new" under the sun. But the old heresies that were introduced into the Church repeat themselves throughout generations and often taken different forms in order to deceive. Each successive generation needs to be alert and discerning and guard against these heresies. That is one of the main benefits of being Confessional. The old Evangelical Creeds and the Reformation confessions & catechisms are safeguards for the Church.

Last edited by Pilgrim; Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:17 AM.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]