스크랩 로버트 L. 레이몬드(1932~ )

[한아름]

로버트 L. 레이몬드

로버트 L. 레이몬드는 플로리다에 있는 낙스신학교 학장을 역임하였으며, 현재는 조직신학교수이다. 그는 세인트루이스에 위치한 커버넌트신학교에서 20년 이상 가르쳤고, 해외 여러 곳에서 널리 강의해 왔다. 그는 「위클리프 성경 대백과사전」(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia), 「복음주의 신학적 사전」(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology), 「복음주의 성경 사전」(Evangelical Dictionary of Bible) 등의 편찬 작업에 참여 했고, 저서로 「현대신학 입문」(Introductory Studies in Contemporary Theology), 「계속되는 계시와 기적의 관계」(What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the Presbyterian Church Today?), 「개혁주의 변증학」(The Justification of Knowledge, 이승구 옮김, CLC), 「신적 메시아 예수 : 구약」(Jesus Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness) 등이 있다.

Robert L. Reymond (born in 1932) was Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri (1968-1990).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert L. Reymond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Robert L. Reymond is a Christian theologian of the Protestant Reformed tradition. He is best known for his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (1998). Reymond holds B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Bob Jones University and has taught at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri and at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. After resigning from Knox in January 2008, he accepted a call as regular pulpit supply of Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church, a new congregation in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Reymond has written a book on Paul entitled Paul Missionary Theologian (2003) and another about Jesus called Jesus Divine Messiah (2003). Other books include a short biography called John Calvin: His Life and Influence (2004) and Contending for the Faith: Lines in the Sand That Strengthen the Church (2005), The God-Centered Preacher, The Reformation's Conflict with Rome: Why It Must Continue, What is God, and The Lamb of God.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert L. Reymond

Author profile

born:

The United States

 

about this author

Dr. Reymond received his B.A., M.Div., and Ph.D. from Bob Jones University. He has in the past taught at BJU, Covenant Seminary, and Knox Theological Seminary, and pastored several different churches. He is currently serving as the organizing pastor for Holy Trinity Presbyterian Church (OPC).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Reymond

From Theopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Robert Reymond

Robert L. Reymond is a Reformed theologian and Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, FL. He holds B.A., M.A., and Ph. D. degrees from Bob Jones University and is an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. Prior to taking the chair of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary for more than twenty years. He has authored numerous articles in theological journals and various reference works, and has written some ten books.

Reymond is one of the Reformed theologians who adheres to supralapsarianism. ^[1]

Selected publications

• Contending for the Faith: Lines in the Sand That Strengthen the Church. Christian Focus Publications, 2005. ISBN 1845500458
• The God-Centered Preacher: Developing a Pulpit Ministry Approved by God. Christian Focus Publications, 2004. ISBN 1857928962)
• Paul Missionary Theologian: A Survey of His Missionary Labours and Theology. Christian Focus Publications, 2003. ISBN 1857924975
• A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith. Nelson Reference, 1998. ISBN 0849913179

============================================================================================

출처: Reiterations   http://reiterations.wordpress.com/category/robert-l-reymond/

Category Archives: Robert L. Reymond

The Word of God as a Means of Grace

23 Apr

The Reformed church…insists that the salvation of men is always under the direct, sovereign governance of God, that salvation is always directly from the Lord and, therefore, that the Holy Spirit must bear witness, immediately and directly, by and with the Word in men’s hearts if they are to respond in repentance and faith to the Word of God….

In short, the Reformed position on the efficacy of the Word as a means of grace is that, even though the Bible is the very Word of God, it is rendered efficacious as a means of special grace, not intrinsically or automatically, but only by the immediate and direct attendant working of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of its readers and hearers.  The Reformed church emphasizes that the imparting of spiritual life is ever sovereignly with God the Spirit, who is the Giver of life.  That is to say, where and when the Spirit effectually works in human hearts by and with the Word of God (and only there and then), the Word is irresistably efficacious as a means of grace in the salvation of lost men and the building up of the saints in faith.

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), p. 916.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on April 23, 2011 in Biblical Authority, Robert L. Reymond, Sufficiency of Scripture, Systematic Theology

 

Bad Origen

07 May

It is clear, from all this, that Origen’s trinitarian construction was seriously flawed.  But, if this is so, also flawed was his view of the incarnation.  In keeping with his unbiblical view of the pre-existence of all human souls, Origen maintained that Christ’s human soul both pre-existed and had undergone a complete interpenetration with the Logos.  It was this Logos-filled soul which became flesh and which provided the link between the Logos and the material nature of Jesus.  Jesus, for Origen, did actually suffer, die, and rise again but, after the ascension, the humanity was so absorbed into the divine Logos that it was “no longer other than the Logos, but the same with it.”  As a man, He is now “everywhere and pervades the universe” (De principiis 2.11.6).  The true humanity of Christ is obscured, if not totally abandoned, by this construction.

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), p. 595.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on May 7, 2010 in Origen, Robert L. Reymond, The Incarnation

 

God’s Omniscience

10 Apr

God has never forgotten anything, either.  Never will He experience a momentary lapse of memory, know a “senior moment,” or suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease.  I make this point simply to note that, when God says, in Jeremiah 31:34, that He will not remember our sins, He means that He will not remember our sins against us, but He will never forget that we are redeemed sinners.  All this is what we intend when we attribute omniscience to Him.  And, He has always been, is now, and ever shall be, everlastingly omniscient…

A few early church fathers questioned whether God concerns Himself with such earthly trivia as the number of gnats that are born or die every second or the number of fleas that are on earth.  But, the holy Scriptures affirm that God has just that kind of knowledge.  He not only determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name (Psalm 147:4), but He also knows when the sparrow falls (Luke 12:6) and He determines the number of hairs on our heads (Matthew 10:29-30) ? as well as the number of fleas on earth at any given moment.  To all this, we can only say, with the psalmist: “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it” (Psalm 139:6).

From: “What is God?”: An Investigation of the Perfections of God’s Nature by Robert L. Reymond (Fearn: Mentor Books, 2007), pp. 125, 126.

Robert L. Reymond (born in 1932) is Professor of Systematic Theology at Knox Theological Seminary in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on April 10, 2010 in God's Attributes, Robert L. Reymond

 

The Authority of the Church

05 Sep

The nature of the church’s authority is exclusively spiritual and moral, over against the civil and legislative authority of the state ? also a divinely appointed authority (Romans 13:1-7) ? the latter authority often manifesting itself in physically coercive ways against human violence and public disorder.  That is to say, the church’s authority is strictly ministerial and declarative, not imperial, magisterial, or legislative. 

The church has no police force or battalions of soldiers.  The medieval church was dead wrong when it endorsed, under Innocent IV’s bull Ad extirpanda (1252), the use of torture to break the will of heretics and to extort recantations from them, and penalized the unrepentant with confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and their surrender to the “secular arm,” which meant death at the stake.  The Spanish Inquisition, in 1479 under Ferdinand V and Isabella, in particular, was aimed at Jews, Muslims and, later, Protestants and, under its first Grand Inquisitor, Tomas Torquemada, burned some two thousand people for heresy and expelled from the Holy Roman Empire Jews who refused to be baptized.  The church was wrong when, in the eleventh through the thirteenth century, it launced the Crusades (eight or nine, in all) to recover the Holy Land from Islam.  Martin Luther was wrong when he called for the German princes to use the sword against the Anabaptists.  The Protestant leaders at Geneva, including John Calvin, were wrong when they burned Servetus at the stake as a heretic.  The English Reformers under Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I were wrong when they employed the secular authority to persecute Roman Catholics.  And the theonomic reconstructionists of our day are just as wrong when they call upon the state to execute false prophets, witches, adulterers, and homosexuals.

The church is to address the spiritual and moral needs of men and women who are, prior to their salvation, by nature slaves to sin and Satan, and who are, after their salvation, in need of instruction in the details of living out their most holy faith before a watching world.  This is not to say that the church must not speak out against political injustice and moral abuses by the state ? it must be willing to speak out against moral abuses whenever they occur.  But the church’s officers must never resort to physical force in order to establish a beachhead for the church within the human community it seeks to reach for Christ.

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. 865-866.

Robert L. Reymond (born in 1932) was Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri (1968-1990).

Reymond’s statement: “The church has no police force or battalions of soldiers” reminded me of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin’s sneer, made during World War II: “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on September 5, 2009 in Church History, Robert L. Reymond, The Church

 

The Doctrine of Scripture

27 Jun

A word must be said about the willingness of the Confession to include within the “whole counsel of God” truths that “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”  Some Christians have urged that logical deduction adds to Scripture and, therefore, must be resisted.  This is wrong.  Validly deduced truths add nothing to the overall truths of Scripture.  John Frame has, rightly, declared:

Implication does not add anything new [in syllogistic argument]; it merely rearranges information contained in the premises.  It takes what is implicit in the premises and states it explicitly.  Thus, when we learn logical implications of sentences, we are learning more and more of what those sentences mean.  The conclusion represents part of the meaning of the premises.

So, in theology, logical deductions set forth the meaning of Scripture…

When it is used rightly, logical deduction adds nothing to Scripture.  It merely sets forth what is there.  Thus, we need not fear any violation of sola scriptura, as long as we use logic responsibly.  Logic sets forth the meaning of Scripture.

A case in point is the doctrine of the Trinity.  In no single passage of Scripture is the full doctrine of the Trinity set forth.  But the church has deduced “by good and necessary consequence,” as the implicate of all the Scripture data, the doctrine of the Trinity ? to be believed as surely as the explicit declaration of Scripture that God is loving!

One final comment.  While the framers of the Confession were absolutely convinced of the Scripture’s sufficiency, and stated as much, they affirm once again, here, that “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word.”  In so doing, they indicated their zeal to keep the source of spiritual life where it must always be kept ? directly in God alone.  It is the Spirit of God, working immediately and directly by and with the Word of God in the hearts of men, who imparts spiritual life!

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. 86-87.

The Frame quotation is from: The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John Frame; A Theology of Lordship series (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1987), p. 247.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on June 27, 2008 in Doctrine of Scripture, John M. Frame, Robert L. Reymond, Systematic Theology

 

The Ten Commandments in the New Testament

26 Jun

In fact, the New Testament writers allude to every commandment, in one place or other, in their letters to the churches: the first three commandments lie behind many of the statements in Romans 1:21-30, 2:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, James 2:7, 19, and Revelation 21:7; the fourth commandment behind the designation of the first day of the week ? the Christian’s day of worship ? as “the Lord’s Day” (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, and Revelation 1:10; see Isaiah 58:13); the fifth commandment behind statements in Romans 1:30, Ephesians 6:2-3, Colossians 3:20, and 1 Timothy 1:9; the sixth commandment behind statements in Romans 1:29, 13:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, James 2:11, 1 John 3:15, and Revelation 21:8; the seventh commandment behind statements in Romans 2:22, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 1 Timothy 1:10, James 2:11, Revelation 21:8; the eighth commandment behind statements in Romans 2:21, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Timothy 1:10; the ninth commandment behind statements in Romans 13:9, Ephesians 4:25, Colossians 3:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, and Revelation 21:8; and the tenth commandment behind statements in Romans 1:29, 7:7-8, 13:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, Galatians 5:26, Ephesians 5:5, Colossians 3:5, and Hebrews 13:5.  In addition, the two great Old Testament love commandments ? to love God with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18), which are beautifully New Testament, as well, in scope and concept, are declared to be summary statements of the Ten Commandments (see Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:29-31; Romans 13:8-9).  Surely, the Christian is to obey these commandments!  Indeed, Jesus said to His disciples: “If you love Me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15), and again, “You are My friends if you do what I command” (John 15:14).  And, John declared, “We know that we have come to know Him if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3), and then actually defined love for God in terms of obedience to His law: “This is love for God, that we keep His commandments” (1 John 5:3).

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. 776-777.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on June 26, 2008 in Robert L. Reymond, Systematic Theology

 

On Eternal Generation, Again

04 Mar

Finally, John Murray also says of Calvin’s rejection of the ancient doctrine of the Father’s eternal generation of the Son:

Students of historical theology are acquainted with the furore which Calvin’s insistence upon the self-existence of the Son as to His deity aroused at the time of the Reformation.  Calvin was too much of a student of Scripture to be content to follow the lines of what had been regarded as Nicene orthodoxy on this particular issue.  He was too jealous for the implication of the homoousion clause of the Nicene creed to be willing to accede to the interpretation which the Nicene fathers, including Athanasius, placed upon another expression‎! in the same creed, namely, “very God of very God.”  No doubt this expression‎! is repeated by orthodox people without any thought of suggesting what the evidence derived from the writings of the Nicene fathers would indicate the content to have been.  This evidence shows that the meaning intended is that the son DERIVED His deity from the Father and that the Son was not, therefore, “autotheos.”  It was precisely this position that Calvin controverted with such vigor.  He maintained that, as respects personal distinction, the Son was of the Father but, as respects deity, He was self-existent.  This position ran counter to the Nicene tradition.  Hence, the indictments levelled against him.  It is, however, to the credit of Calvin that he did not allow his own more sober thinking to be suppressed out of deference to an established pattern of thought when the latter did not commend itself by conformity to Scripture and was inimical to Christ’s divine identity.

John Murray (1898-1975), quoted in Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), p. 330.  All bold emphases are mine.

Reymond cites John Murray, “Systematic Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 25 (May, 1963), p. 141. 

Murray’s approval of Calvin’s attitude toward Nicea on this subject would seem to imply that Murray was, himself, skeptical of the doctrine of eternal generation.  The last sentence (which I’ve put in bold type) espouses an important principle: Scripture is always and ever the touchstone, the final arbiter of truth, not any tradition, no matter how ancient and (otherwise) venerable.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on March 4, 2008 in Eternal Generation, John Calvin, John Murray, Robert L. Reymond

 

On Eternal Generation

03 Mar

In both Nicene and post-Nicene times, this doctrine of the Father’s eternal generation of the Son was supported by four main arguments: (1) the very titles “Father” and “Son” were said to imply that the Father generates the Son; (2) the term “monogenes” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9) was thought to teach that the Father begat the Son; (3) John 5:26, expressly declaring that the Father, who has life in Himself, “gave to the Son also to have life in Himself,” was thought to teach that the Father communicates the divine essence to the Son; and (4) 1 John 5:18b ? “the one who was begotten by God keeps Him” ? was said explicitly to teach that the Son was generated by the Father.

With regard to the first argument, the titles “Father” and “Son” must not be freighted with the Western ideas of source of being and superiority, on the one hand, and of subordination and dependency on the other.  Rather, they should be viewed, in the biblical sense, as denoting sameness of nature and, in Jesus’s case, equality with the Father with respect to His deity (see John 10:30-36).

Regarding the second, it is the general consensus among twentieth-century scholars that “monogenes” does not mean “only begotten,” alluding to some form of generation, but, rather, “one and only” (see Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38) or “one of a kind” or “unique.”  Warfield, for example, writes: “The adjective ‘only begotten’ conveys the idea, not of derivation and subordination, but of uniqueness and consubstantiality: Jesus is all that God is.”

Third, a consensus has, by no means, been reached among theologians and commentators that the words of John 5:26 refer to an ontological endowment.  It is entirely possible, indeed, much more likely, that they refer to an aspect of the incarnate Son’s messianic investiture.  John 5:22-23 refers to His designated authority to judge, which is, clearly, an aspect of His messianic role and so is the similar thought of 5:27.  Accordingly, 5:26, paralleling 5:27, seems to be giving the ground upon which the son is able to raise the dead, namely, it is one of the prerogatives of his messianic investiture.

Finally, it is not at all certain that 1 John 5:18b teaches that the Father eternally generates the Son.  Raymond E. Brown, for example, discusses five interpretations that have been proposed by scholars, opting, himself, for the idea that “the one who was begotten of God” refers to the Christian whom God enables to keep himself.  Even those who contend that the phrase refers to Jesus (the majority view) must, and do, acknowledge that it is not certain that John had an essential begetting in mind or that he was referring to the eternal generation of the Son. 

Thus, Scripture provides little to no warrant for the speculation that the Nicene Fathers made the bedrock for the distinguishing properties of the Father and the Son.  In fact, when they taught that the Father is the “source,” “fountain,” and “root” of the Son, and that the Son, in turn, is God “out of” God, that is, out of the being of the Father, they were virtually denying to the Son the attribute of self-existence an essential attribute of deity, and were implying that the same divine essence, paradoxically, can be both “unbegotten” and “begotten,” depending upon whether it is the Father or the Son which is being considered.

No doubt, the Nicene Fathers were satisfied that they had carefully guarded the full deity of the Son by their affirmation of the “homoousia” and by their insistence that the Son was “begotten not made.”  But, their utilization of the language, if not also, in some measure, the thought modes, of the earlier Origen, regardless of these Fathers’ commendable intention to distance the church from Sabellianism by it, suggests the Son’s subordination to the Father, not only in modes of operation, but in modes of subsistence, as well.  Nonetheless, in spite of these deficiencies, the church continues to employ the Nicene terminology to this very day.

Robert L. Reymond (1932-    ), A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. 325-327.   I have, again, broken up Reymond’s (or the publisher’s) one long paragraph into 7 smaller paragraphs for ease of reading.

 

Leave a comment

Posted by reiterations on March 3, 2008 in Eternal Generation, Robert L. Reymond

 

A Definition

17 Jan

As the word itself suggests, “theology” (from the Latin theologia, in turn from the Greek…) in its broad sense speaks of intellectual or rational (“reasoned”) discourse about God or things divine.  As the intelligent effort to understand and explicate the whole Bible viewed as revealed truth, “theology,” in the broad encyclopedic sense, encompasses the disciplines of the classical divinity curriculum with its four departments of exegetical (or biblical), historical, systematic, and practical theology.

By “systematic theology” ? the department of theology with which this book is primarily concerned ? I refer to the discipline that answers the question, “What does the whole Bible teach us about a given topic?”  Stated more technically, systematic theology is that methodological study of the Bible that views the Holy Scriptures as a completed revelation, in distinction from the disciplines of Old Testament theology, New Testament theology, and biblical theology, which approach the Scriptures as an unfolding revelation.  Accordingly, the systematic theologian, viewing the Scriptures as a completed revelation, seeks to understand, holistically, the plan, purpose, and didactic intention of the divine mind revealed in Holy Scripture, and to arrange that plan, purpose, and didactic intention in orderly and coherent fashion as articles of the Christian faith.

Systematic theology covers, as integral parts of Holy Scripture’s total body of sacred truth, the theological topics of Holy Scripture itself, God, man, Christ, salvation, the church, and last things.  Also falling within this discipline’s province are articulation of a believer’s pattern of life (personal and social ethics) and the Christian presentation of truth to those outside the church (apologetics).

From: A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L.  Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), pp. xxv-xxvi.

Reymond (born in Tuscaloosa, Alabama on October 30, 1932) was Professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, from 1968 to 1990.  Interestingly ? for someone as thoroughly Reformed as Reymond is ? he earned all three of his degrees (BA, MA, Ph.D) at Bob Jones University (in 1958, 1959, and 1961, respectively).  BJU is most definitely not Reformed and has, historically, been quite hostile to the Reformed faith.