Quotes from Robert L. Reymond

apparently sees some value in the antiquity of the doctrine of ... This means absolutely nothing to me, for whom the Scriptures alone are my sole doctrinal authority, beyond the fact that this is just one more error of the ancient fathers. I could fill pages documenting other errors that the ancient fathers held and espoused. Response to The Classic Arminian View of Election, page 135

Our God is a language-using God; he has spoken literal truth to humankind.41 And if God created people for the purpose of fellowship with him, it is fair to assume that he would have created them with the capacity both to comprehend God's literal truth coming to them ab extra and in turn to respond verbally with no loss or distortion of the truth in the verbal interchange (this capacity surely being an aspect of humanity's image-bearing character).

When we look at Calvary and behold the Savior dying for us, we should see in his death not first our salvation but our damnation being borne and carried away by him!

God is the Source and Originator of language, and he created men and women in his own image in order that he and his image bearers might be able to speak literal truth to each other. And the Christian has good and ample reasons for believing that the Scriptures are a trustworthy record of a portion of that divine-human dialogue.

Never should the atonement be represented so as to suggest that it was the Father who hated the sinner, that it was the Son who loved the sinner, and that his cross work won the Father over to clemency or extorted the Father's gracious attitude toward the sinner from him against his will.

And an argument that reduces revelational data to "brute data" pointing at best to the possibility of God's existence is a totally inadequate, even apostate, argument that Christians should not use or endorse.

law of noncontradiction, the "law of causality," and "the basic reliability of sense perception," which, they contend, "no one denies … regularly and consistently,"22 and which, for them apparently, are more non-negotiably certain at the beginning of their quest for God and truth than God himself is.

While he values science he understands that apart from God there is no reliable basis for doing science.

While he values ethics he understands that apart from God moral principles are simply changing conventions and today's vices can become tomorrow's virtues.

While he affirms the dignity and significance of human personhood he understands that apart from God man is simply a biological machine, an accident of nature, a cipher.

No, the missionary efforts of Peter, Stephen, Philip and Paul never urge lost men to do anything other than to repent of sin and bow in faith before Jesus Christ. When they debate, they draw their arguments from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2;

Whereas every other religion of the world represents men as seeking after their gods, Christianity represents God as seeking after men.

The apostolic model of exposition of, reflection upon, and deduction from Scripture supports our engagement in the theological enterprise. If we are to help our generation understand the Scriptures, we too must deduce and arrange conclusions from what we have gained from our exegetical labors in Scripture and be ready to "dialogue" with men. Engagement in and the result of this task is theology.

And if we fail to recognize within the Scriptures our Master's voice speaking his infallible truth to us from his world to our world, we destroy ourselves not only epistemically but also personally, for we abandon the only foundation for the certainty of knowledge and the only "meaning base" by which we may truly know the One infinite, personal God and thereby ourselves as persons of dignity and worth.2