tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116149452068736947..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Bully PulpitPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163767503603753862006-11-17T04:45:00.000-08:002006-11-17T04:45:00.000-08:00Phil,No, I realize the intent of your comments. I ...Phil,<BR/><BR/>No, I realize the intent of your comments. I thought it was fun (since I made the comment myself in the post that it didn't fit in with my "blog") and no harm done at all! :) I'm just poking some fun now!<BR/><BR/>And no worries about the decal, I also was just playing into some fun over this whole post. Just keep up the good work. I enjoy your blog.<BR/><BR/>Allen MickleAllen R. Mickle, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06593692347709469650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163713461689614092006-11-16T13:44:00.000-08:002006-11-16T13:44:00.000-08:00Allen:That wasn't "negative"; it was purely tongue...<B>Allen:</B><BR/><BR/>That wasn't "negative"; it was purely tongue in cheek. The remark about ruining your "look and feel" was supposed to sound self-deprecatory, not accusatory.<BR/><BR/>If you want the car decal, though, just e-mail me your mailing address and I'll send you one. In your case, since you thought I was dissing you, I'll waive the requirement for a stamped, self-addressed envelope.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1163712605525701102006-11-16T13:30:00.000-08:002006-11-16T13:30:00.000-08:00I must say, I'm quite proud that Pyromaniacs decid...I must say, I'm quite proud that Pyromaniacs decided to leave a negative (although I think a little tongue-in-cheek) BlogSpot comment about my blog. In fact, I'd love a bumper sticker that says "I was BlogSpoted by Team Pyro!"<BR/><BR/>I agree. My post about the T-Shirt contest from Pyromaniacs on my blog did ruin the look and feel of my blog so I deleted it. :)<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work.<BR/><BR/>Allen MickleAllen R. Mickle, Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06593692347709469650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161774713164148262006-10-25T04:11:00.000-07:002006-10-25T04:11:00.000-07:00Frank,I agree with the other Luke here, NT does no...Frank,<BR/><BR/>I agree with the other Luke here, NT does not provide a normative herm. for us to follow. The NT authors engaged in the herm. practices of their day, i.e. pesher, atomization, allegorization, spirtulization, midrash, etc. Not only that they used different text-types, i.e. LXX, and Hebrew text, to make their points. They operated under inspiration, and apostolic authority we don't. They didn't use the LGH to ascertain meaning from the scriptures, we do.<BR/><BR/>On Jn 1:1. Yes Jesus particularized HImself in the man Jesus of Nazareth in a hellenistic world. All John is doing is using lang. of the time that best captures who Jesus is, i.e. logos lang. Of course John's usage of logos becomes reified and different than the Classic Greek usage of it, in the sense that Jesus is the One who is true wisdom and the source of all reality vs. the demiurges of Greek Stoic thought.<BR/><BR/>P.S. I have many articles that substantiate my claims about NT usage of the OT--I have some posted at my site. My friend Matt Waymeyer adominately agrees with me on this, Frank.<BR/><BR/>Paul,<BR/><BR/>I didn't originally make this observation about Aristotle, many people (PhD's, theologians) have before me (see Colin Gunton).<BR/><BR/>You never answered my question on if you believe that systematic theology uses philosophical categories to articulate God's nature.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the idea that Artistotle has been used to articulate God is called "Thomism" (after Thomas Aquinas).<BR/><BR/>Actually, Paul, it's my commitment to the clarity of the Scriptures that drives my concern about the integration of philosophical categories with scriptures communication. <BR/><BR/>My points really aren't arguable, its a well established fact that Systematic Theology makes use of speculative philosophy to engage and articulate who God is. Ask any of the Pyromaniacs, and if they're honest they'll agree with my above assertion, Paul. It just seems that you're unaware of this reality.<BR/><BR/>In ChristBobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161745647253817462006-10-24T20:07:00.000-07:002006-10-24T20:07:00.000-07:00Hi Luke. Sorry for the delayed response. I appreci...Hi Luke. Sorry for the delayed response. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate your comment in response to mine. I really didn't know that I was hitting (specifically) you over the head with the Bible. I didn't mean to. I suppose that would hurt if I was using my hardback John MacArthur NASB (just joking with you Luke). I hope that I am keeping fairly on topic here. You have asked many questions and I'm not sure that I should use much text here to answer all of them succinctly. And frankly I'm not sure I could. I will try to better explain what I mean when I said that one is "unsettled" or "settled" in their faith. <BR/><BR/>First of all, as the Apostle Paul said: "Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me". (Phili. 3:12) The point I wish to bring out here is "Jesus took hold of me". He is still working on me, for there is much work needed. I did not take hold of Him until He securely held me. He is the Sovereign, I am the servant. He is the Potter, I am the clay. I can't see Him or the meaning of His words until He shows Himself to me through His mercy and grace. For we all have sinned and are in darkness until He chooses to shine His Light of Truth. All of Scripture makes this fact very clear. But it is also written in many different ways that men can read the Scriptures and not ever perceive their truth until they are humbled and acknowledge their total dependance on Him for sight. Many argue with the meaning of the text of Scripture. Some very intelligently. Some with the influence of their own desires or the desires of others. But Jesus said: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (Jn 5:39-40) <BR/><BR/>It is the foundation I am referring to when I say "settled". This foundation is laid by God Himself "for no-one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ"(1Co 3:11). "Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens"(Ps 119:89). Jesus Christ never changes nor does His Word or the meaning of it. This is the "settled" that I speak of. Some who "speak with authority" and sound like bullies do so because they have the right foundation laid by God and are following Him in their diligent study of His Word as God illuminates. John ch. 6 and 8 shows those who had a faulty foundation in their so-called faith in Christ where Jesus “bullied” them for this and they were found out. If you are of the true Spirit of God you will pass the test of "every word" which proceeds from the mouth of God (All Scripture) without any perversions or excuses or retaliation or contrary philosophy. It all falls into it's proper place by the Living Word of God Who gave it. If you have God’s Spirit His Words (the Bible) contain all that is needed to comprehend Truth. We have “helps” to assist us there but it is all “settled” in His revealed Word. We grow in this grace and knowledge, but the foundation must be of the True One or we are laboring in vain. We do learn more but the foundation of our salvation NEVER changes. Is it a "what" (a philosophy) or is there a "Who"(a Savior) that we are building on? Has He set you free or are you endlessly seeking freedom through philosophy?<BR/><BR/>No accusations here. God is the Judge along with His Words and how His Spirit backs their real meanings. It really doesn't matter how intelligent we are by human standards, for it is written "not many wise" or "not with enticing words of mans wisdom". I personally thank God for this. Many of the founding Apostles were unlearned men but they were with Jesus and "knew" all they needed to "know" for their eternal life and that of those who would have ears to here them. They "knew" Him. Everyone everywhere all over the world soon after Christ ascended on High has argued meaning of the Holy Bible. This reflects a spiritual battle, not just a battle with semantics or interpretation. Christ is not confused nor is He schizo. He has One Mind, and it is not fuzzy. He does not change, we do. What Spirit or spirit are you in fellowship with? Are you certain you have the real Savior of the World in the foundation of your faith? Our eternal life should not be as a game of "To Tell the Truth", where we wait to see if we got it right in the end as we speculate or philosophize on "what is truth?". We can know the Truth before we get there. And we must "know" the Truth to get to Heaven. <BR/><BR/>Ep 2:20 “having BEEN BUILT on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone”<BR/>Ep 3:5 “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it HAS NOW BEEN revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” <BR/>Its All been said and done! We must see this to believe it.<BR/><BR/>Please forgive my long windedness. I hope it was beneficial.Dennis Elslagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02062505999764363210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161743158237034872006-10-24T19:25:00.000-07:002006-10-24T19:25:00.000-07:00Frank,Let me push back a little. John 1 obviously ...Frank,<BR/><BR/>Let me push back a little. John 1 obviously presupposes some very Jewish ideas about the Messiah; it's intent is to re-tell the story of Israel in a way that would have sounded deeply subversive to non-Christian Jewsih ears--as a story that culminates in the not-so-Messiah-like (given Jewish expectations) actual Messiah, Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>Still, it seems a bit of a jump from acknowledging that a correct understanding of John 1 requires something like the hist-crit method to claiming that such a method is implicit in the OT and NT. I'm not saying it isn't, and in general I think the hist-crit method (used properly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) is the best game in town. <BR/><BR/>This said, I don't think it's altogether clear (in fact, I think its' demonstrably untrue) that Paul, for one, assumed a hist-crit hermeneutic (in the sense we usually think of it), particularly in his handling of OT texts. It seems clear that the Christological spin Paul puts on just about every OT text/event he comes into contact with violates one of the basic premises of the hist-crit method, namely, to interpret texts and/or events in original historical context, such that one's interpretation reflects what the contemporaries of the text and/or event would have understood by it. <BR/><BR/>But how many Israelites would have understood OT texts and/or events in the way Paul does? My point is just that, for Paul, at least, it seems the Spirit does far more hermeneutic work than any hist-crit premises. Not to be difficult, but I think your position requires more argumentative work than one or two two lines. Richard Hays has a good collection of books on Paul's use of the OT; I think it's called The Re-Invention of the Imagination (or something like that). Good stuff.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161728867412721162006-10-24T15:27:00.000-07:002006-10-24T15:27:00.000-07:00Paul,I never insisted that you had to know Aristot...Paul,<BR/><BR/>I never insisted that you had to know Aristotle to know God, just that if one knows Aristotle's impact on Christian theology it might help enhance that person's relationship with Jesus (i.e. able to discern what part of theology is based on speculative theology, and what part is the Bible). BTW sorry about the comment on being a man . . . a bit of passion mis-directed . . . I apologize and ask for forgiveness on that point (seriously).<BR/><BR/>Would you concede that when doing systematic theology, we have used, both in the past and at present, philosophical categories to articulate God's nature?<BR/><BR/>Explain, if you will, why I can't go very far with holding to the perscipuity of the scripture . . . so far you've just made an assertion, and I'm not understaning the causal connection between my view on Aristotle and my supposed inability to hold to the persc. idea. <BR/><BR/>I think you're misunderstanding me, Paul . . . which is probably my fault in my under-communication.<BR/><BR/>Frank, <BR/><BR/>I'll try to turn on the fog-lights as soon as I have more time . . . off to work.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161726420354117962006-10-24T14:47:00.000-07:002006-10-24T14:47:00.000-07:00Frank I just spent 40 min. repsonding to your poin...Frank I just spent 40 min. repsonding to your points, and stinkin blogger dumped it when I tried to publish it. I'll answer your points in a post at my site at a later date. But there really is nothing to be sorry about ;~).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161721043573043492006-10-24T13:17:00.000-07:002006-10-24T13:17:00.000-07:00Bobby:You are getting foggier and foggier.Here's a...Bobby:<BR/><BR/>You are getting foggier and foggier.<BR/><BR/>Here's a question intended to clear up the cloud of questions and hypotheses you are prividing at this point:<BR/><BR/>John 1:1 demonstrates something about Christology and Hermaneutics proper in describing Jesus Christ. You may have to explain what that something is in order to answer this question, but riddle me this: is the message of John 1:1 dependent of a <I>Jewish</I> understanding of the Messiah, or is it dependent on something else altogether?<BR/><BR/>If you can answer that question at all, you will have simply taken your views expressed in this thread about when "our" understanding of what Scripture is for and when the basis for handling it the way "we" do was formed and tossed them out the window.<BR/><BR/>The premises for the hist/crit model of hermeneutics are implicit in the NT and in the OT -- and are foundational for handling Scripture at all. To say otherwise is to overlook the purpose and methods of writing the NT authors implemented in their works. Sorry.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161720106816569252006-10-24T13:01:00.000-07:002006-10-24T13:01:00.000-07:00Paul D.,"you're just plain wrong . . ." so there ;...Paul D.,<BR/><BR/>"you're just plain wrong . . ." so there ;~). <BR/><BR/>It's easy to make an assertion, Paul, but let me just say you haven't dealt with my assertion that Aristotelianism has been the defining feature of Western theology. This isn't even a debatable issue . . . all Christian theologians would recognize the "thomistic" character of western theology. How does this imply that I'm denying the perscipuity of the scriptures (I hold to both the inner and outer clarity of the scriptures, Paul, do you [?]--I'm an full innerantist).<BR/><BR/>All I'm asking is what impact has Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas had on our understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. And has it been fruitful or detrimental to our articulation of Theology proper, anthropology, soteriology?<BR/><BR/>What are you so afraid of Paul? Why are Christians, of all people, afraid to engage the truth--wherever that leads? We all know that if we are truly seeking the truth it will inevitably lead us to Jesus, and not some liberal/PoMo epistemology that denies the reality of the Jesus of Faith.<BR/><BR/>Paul, maybe if you understood a little bit of Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas' integration of his categories with Christian theology, you would be more discerning, and better equipped to cultivate a deeper more intimate realationship with Jesus Christ. At least that's what drives me in my study of such mundane tedious things such as the history of ideas and historical theology presents us with. <BR/><BR/>Be a man Paul, and quit cowering in your comfortable static tradition . . . be willing to "grow" (cf. John 17:3)in your knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161703636409550982006-10-24T08:27:00.000-07:002006-10-24T08:27:00.000-07:00As I said, I was just asking a question about Team...As I said, I was just asking a question about TeamPyro's posting policy. This question stems from the fact that, as soon as the poster in question shows up, and seemingly before any untoward posts on his part (here at Pyro, at least), Frank proposes an 'experiment' intended to elicit not-so-friendly feelings toward the person in question. <BR/><BR/>If you want to base your warning and expulsion policy on goings-on outside the realm of your own blog, that's fine. But at least be clear and up front about it. That's all.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161702437053985392006-10-24T08:07:00.000-07:002006-10-24T08:07:00.000-07:00Luke:If what you're saying is that we ought to liv...Luke:<BR/><BR/>If what you're saying is that we ought to live in a box here and not recognize the behaviors of people who have proven themselves frankly untrustworthy at other blogs when it comes to mainatining reasonable (note: I think "civil" is asking too much of many people, but at least one should expect from himself what he expects from others) dialog.<BR/><BR/>The real irony I see in your recent concern here is that somehow we (TeamPyro) ought to offer informed opinions -- but we (TeamPyro) should not let information guide our actions. If a person is behaving badly all over the place, and we see that in their posts, and they come here and start playing the same notes on the same instrument in the same overture, <I>and they get fair warning,</I> it's up to them to find a new sheet of music.<BR/><BR/>That's all I have to say right now. If something else comes up, I'll let you all know.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161699488358462672006-10-24T07:18:00.000-07:002006-10-24T07:18:00.000-07:00Howdy,I completely understand where Frank was comi...Howdy,<BR/><BR/>I completely understand where Frank was coming from when he banned the person in question. When the primary purpose of your blog (the banned commenter's blog)is to publish hit pieces about the character and integrity of a Pastor in the church of Christ (Doug Wilson), one who is duly recognized by the people of God as His gift to a particular local church, such a person should be called to account for it. Now, I disagree with Pastor Wilson quite hardily on several key issues. Be that as it may, to my knowledge he is an honorable Christian brother who is not under church discipline for a scandalous sin that has disqualified him for the ministry...<BR/><BR/>In my relatively short Christian experience, there have been disaffected members of my church who left, not for doctrinal reasons, but because of their own sin. Then they start bad-mouthing the Pastors (the most godly men I've ever known), and figuratively speaking try to burn the church down on their way out. Now, if one of them set up a web site to mock the Pastor, point out his every supposed inconsistency, put the worst spin on the Pastor's intentions and motives for whatever he does, should I give him a hearing? Absolutely not! Why should we give Metzler a hearing? He should be rebuked. The internet gives him an outlet to vent his sin, and other people (unknowingly in many cases) give credence to what he says. Now, he is not refuting theological positions with biblical argumentation in a spirit of charitableness, mind you. He is making Doug Wilson out to be a wicked man. So, I have no sympathy for his behavior or his blog. <BR/><BR/>The other thing I have found to be quite insidious with guys like Metzler, is that they attempt to portray a very respectable, courteous tone and demeanor when dealing with people. This lends an air of respectability to their own person and to what they say. That's the diabolical part. So when you come out strongly against them like Frank did, you look like the harsh and unkind one and they look innocent and victimized. Worms like that need to be exposed...<BR/><BR/>Well, all that rambling is to say I don't think Frank or Phil has acted in a manner inconsistent with a Christian testimony (they're not the ones soiling a good man's reputation), yet the "victim" wants to turn others against them. What Char posted was very insightful and true.<BR/><BR/>And besides that, some people walk around with sore toes just waiting to stub them...<BR/><BR/>And finally, Phil's last comment is right on the money. If he's posting his position on a blog he should very well have seriously studied the Scriptures on the matter before making his views public. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. So, you can be teachable, yet firm and stable in your theology. Who would respect Phil if he started questioning his doctrinal positions based upon the comments of weirdos like me who spend too much time reading blogs? Well, that's my .02. Sorry for clogging up your blog....Aaron Millshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12330589396201996009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161684957334187572006-10-24T03:15:00.000-07:002006-10-24T03:15:00.000-07:00To our dear PyroManiacs,I have written a post on m...To our dear PyroManiacs,<BR/><BR/>I have written a post on my blog that says what I want to say about your blog. I see you guys as a positive influence in Christian Blogdom.<BR/><BR/>The post is called <A HREF="http://williamdicks.blogspot.com/2006/10/pyromaniacs-bunch-of-mean-spiritied.html" REL="nofollow">Pyromaniacs a bunch of mean-spiritied bullies?</A><BR/><BR/>God bless!William Dickshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01211201729445913360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161665657040988622006-10-23T21:54:00.000-07:002006-10-23T21:54:00.000-07:00Incidentally, since we have some reading-comprehen...Incidentally, since we have some reading-comprehension-challenged lurkers who like to mix their theology with copious amounts of lager, let me make something clear: <BR/><BR/>I never said my doctrine is beyond correction. What I said was that if I have studied an issue carefully, I'm probably not going to change my mind the first time my opinion is challenged by a serial smart-alek who thinks virtually nothing is clear or certain and who admits that he himself has never held to any one worldview consistently for longer than 18 months at a time.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161655065277098682006-10-23T18:57:00.000-07:002006-10-23T18:57:00.000-07:00Char, upon further review of your original comment...Char, upon further review of your original comment to which I referred, I realize that you did not paint with as broad of a brush as I made you out to do.<BR/><BR/>You are correct that it was ungracious of me and I apologize.Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042761082770423304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161648598621273972006-10-23T17:09:00.000-07:002006-10-23T17:09:00.000-07:00I am a minion? Well I am already the happy minion ...I am a minion? Well I am already the happy minion of someone on the art sites I frequent...<BR/><BR/>This is simply what I have seen over and over again with this and other blogs. It is indeed a game, an attempt to win people over not through good or biblical argumentation (which they usually don't have) but through tugging on the heartstrings of others and playing the victim. I have dealt with this personality enough to recognize it when I see it. I've seen many here. <BR/><BR/>I do respect the person with different opinions and strong biblical reasons for them. I don't agree with everything the Pyros believe, so sometimes THEY are the ones obviously wrong and I'm still okay with them. :)<BR/>However I see more and more of the other type; people who can not make a sound argument, but think all should bend for them so they don't feel bad. <BR/><BR/>Reach waay back in your memory: remember Phil's Jury Duty post? Remember the comics? Now tell me there has never been a dissenting commentor who fits the MO of the perpetual victim who takes offence at <I>anything</I>. These people would have been (deservedly) eaten alive in any serious debate in past ages. Today, they are the powerful ones. There is something wrong with that picture.<BR/><BR/>I will also say I think it is interesting that gordon cloud's reading of what I said disingenuously suggested I was making a blanket statement about all dissenters when I clearly said I was not. Where is the grace and charitable reading? Apparently it only has to go one way and does not apply to the Mean People.<BR/><BR/>Ah maybe I should just get with the times:<BR/><BR/>Don't you people know JESUS WAS NEVER MEAN! And he NEVER called people NAMES! <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>...Well except the times he was and did, but we don't think about them.Charhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00590850703882621173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161647842962988232006-10-23T16:57:00.000-07:002006-10-23T16:57:00.000-07:00I've been thinking about this, and I wonder how th...I've been thinking about this, and I wonder how the apostle Paul would be received today by some of folks here.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288648996304246570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161642527248697692006-10-23T15:28:00.000-07:002006-10-23T15:28:00.000-07:00Col 1:19-23 “For it pleased the Father that in Him...Col 1:19-23 “For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— if indeed you continue in the faith, GROUNDED and STEADFAST, and are NOT MOVED AWAY from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister." <BR/><BR/>The word “steadfast” in Greek is “ “hedraios” and also means “settled". If you are unsettled in your faith and see that others are settled in their faith, do you have any foundation for judging them at all? <BR/><BR/>Rom 16:25-27 "Now to Him who is able to ESTABLISH you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures HAS BEEN made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith— to God, alone wise, be glory through Jesus Christ forever. Amen."<BR/><BR/>The word "establish" in Greek is "sterizo" and means "to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix". As much as some struggle with this, God "IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH YOU". This promise is said repeatedly in the Scriptures in many ways. If you are double-minded you will be unstable in all of your ways and in this you may wish that others, who have "an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast", would cut their anchor and join your being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine which comes and goes within every generation, as will the "emergent" doctrine. Get settled in the unchanging Word of God and "Truth of the Gospel" and you will know why some speak with confidence and authority which is often seen as arrogance by those who have not done their studying well and are not yet settled. <BR/><BR/>Some have been diligent to present themselves approved to God, workers who do not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Because these men are contending "earnestly for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL delivered to the saints", those who are not yet settled will be offended by the steadfastness of their faith. If they bear the fruit of the Spirit as was exemplified by the founders of our faith, and in doctrine they show "integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, sound speech that cannot be condemned" then what can you honestly say about them?<BR/><BR/>2 Thes 3:3 "But the Lord is faithful, who WILL ESTABLISH you and guard you from the evil one." <BR/><BR/>James 5:8 "You also be patient. ESTABLISH your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand." <BR/><BR/>All quotes from nkjv (emphasis added)Dennis Elslagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02062505999764363210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161641924476923282006-10-23T15:18:00.000-07:002006-10-23T15:18:00.000-07:00Paul,Luke clarified my point more succinctly than ...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Luke clarified my point more succinctly than I was able to. When Paul penned the words in Timothy, the ones you cited, had the inter-relationship between Christ's humanity and deity been articulated as we have them now (i.e. Chalcedon); no! That's my point, given the relational nature of God's character, we shouldn't expect to have all of the i's and t's dotted and crossed. Our knowledge of God is dynamic and growing--I'm not saying that I don't believe that there isn't any established truth about God's character and nature--I'm just saying given His trinitarian nature the "way" we engage Him and do theology should reflect His dynamic nature.<BR/><BR/>And I also do believe, as Luke pointed out, that indeed many of us come from differing confessional interpretive traditions--thus our committments to such traditions will not allow us to dialogue with eachother in a fruitful manner, unless we are willing to recognize this reality and thus jettison our sectarian tendencies (the body of Christ is much larger than MacArthur's dogma will allow).<BR/><BR/>IN ChristBobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161637117367451152006-10-23T13:58:00.000-07:002006-10-23T13:58:00.000-07:00Pheh. After reading through this, I don't know whe...Pheh. <BR/><BR/>After reading through this, I don't know whether I feel tired or cranked. <BR/><BR/>After years of involvement in apologetics, I have heard the charge of "arrogance" and "immutability of position" ad nauseum. In our current culture both inside and outside the church, to be certain of anything and to argue your position forcefully is tantamount to committing the unpardonable sin. <BR/><BR/>If it was possible for me to send people back in time, I'd send a host of complainers to the Socratic Club at Oxford headed by C.S. Lewis. You would see robust, masculine debate along with a good deal of mother wit. (Ladies, I use "masculine" to make a point here..don't be insulted..and the fact that I'd even have to SAY that is instructive) You might even hear (horror) drollness, sarcasm and occasionally even a caustic remark or two. Did both camps get in a snit and go home sulking? Did they protest how "mean" their opponents were? Hardly. In fact, most of them enjoyed the exchange immensely. <BR/><BR/>I hope I never intentionally wound or hurt a brother or sister out of a spirit of malace or true arrogance. However, I will not apologize for arguing a position with clarity, nor occasional sharp wording when necessary. Considering how the apostles and prophets phrased certain things, I feel I am in excellent company. <BR/><BR/>The old adage is "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I think that applies here. If someone is going to advocate a doctrinal position that falls short of biblical orthodoxy, you are going to be challenged. Expect it and get over it. It is generally the mindset of the cult leader who bridles when someone challenges their theology.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161636965838973002006-10-23T13:56:00.000-07:002006-10-23T13:56:00.000-07:00Paul,actually that little comment was a rhetorical...Paul,<BR/><BR/>actually that little comment was a rhetorical joust at djp, since he said that of one of my comments on the prior article to this one sounds deep, is silly.<BR/><BR/>Most theologians would take what I just said seriously, i.e. that Artistotelianism has so imposed itself upon western theology, that the God it produces doesn't look much at all what the God of the Bible looks like. <BR/><BR/>Why don't you respond to my assertion on the impact that Aristotelianism has had upon theology, rather than engage in the typical evasion that characterizes almost all of my few interactions that I've ever had on this blog.<BR/><BR/>Raja,<BR/><BR/>thanks, I'll look you up again. I took a look at the Boars Head, an interesting forum, I read your most recent post there--have you cut ties with TMS (i.e. as an institution).Bobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161630429083749292006-10-23T12:07:00.000-07:002006-10-23T12:07:00.000-07:00I'm still at Soylent Green, Bobby. I'm also at the...I'm still at Soylent Green, Bobby. I'm also at the Boar's Head Tavern, an establishment which I still can't figure out what's generating controversy among other conservative bloggers. It's really more like a bulletin board than a blog. There are people there that I'd probably disagree with about almost everything, some of which is rather serious. But they're smart, fun conversation partners.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161626719338619512006-10-23T11:05:00.000-07:002006-10-23T11:05:00.000-07:00Raja,I don't believe God changes either, in His es...Raja,<BR/><BR/>I don't believe God changes either, in His essence. My point was that His essence is defined by his intra-relationship which is charged with dynamism, which should and does impact the way we do theology--i.e. our interaction with the text of scripture. I'm glad you're out there blogging still too, Raja, where do you blog at now-a-days?<BR/><BR/>Paul D.,<BR/><BR/>With what I just said to Raja in mind, immutability is a category provided by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, not the Bible (I still believe in the "changlessness of God")--immutability is tied to another category, impassibility, which is tied to God's "actual inifinity", which is tied to God as the unmoved-mover, which is tied to the idea that God is a monad and singular (i.e. denigrates and does not emphasize the relationality of our trinitarian God).<BR/><BR/>Actually Paul was highly dynamic and trinitarian in His theology contra the static thomistic theology that the western tradition has been shaped by in general.<BR/><BR/>In ChristBobby Growhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06831009618873548948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161615854686792682006-10-23T08:04:00.000-07:002006-10-23T08:04:00.000-07:00Since I began reading TeamPyro, I haven't so much ...Since I began reading TeamPyro, I haven't so much been concerned with the tenor of the responses, more with what I take to be a failure to take opposition seriously enough. <BR/><BR/>I think this is what the blueraja is getting at. Often serious crticism--conducted in sincerity, on decent biblical and other reasonable grounds--is either ignored or mis-represented and promptly swept under the rug. I could provide links to several comments I've made (particularly in relation to Dan's series on Straw Men and Slippery Slopes) in which I articulated sincere questions and doubts about inerrancy, only to be ignored. This reinforces the perception that TeamPyro is more willing to chalk up disagreements to postmodern premises (or whatever) on the part of those disagreeing, than to actually engage in meaningful debate.<BR/><BR/>I also have a question concerning the posting policy. My question is whether or not an individual's reputation or observed behaviour *elsewhere*, on another blog, puts them behind in the count when they show up here and start posting. Is TeamPyro in the habit of basing their warnings and expulsions, at least in part, on the behavior of the poster in forums other than TeamPyro's? <BR/><BR/>The reason I ask is b/c Frank's expulsion of a certain commenter last week seemed to derive at least part of its justification from this sort of policy. I'm not saying such a policy is indefensible, though it does strike me as at least somehwat problematic. Thanks.Luke and Rachaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00065798398185249423noreply@blogger.com