tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8901500105045923798..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Desert-Island ExegesisPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43363650479257197462010-07-24T18:48:11.990-07:002010-07-24T18:48:11.990-07:00"after checking this site out for some time n..."after checking this site out for some time now it does come off as having an air of arrogance to it."<br /><br />Funny, I have come to Teampyro for a few years now, and don't see arrogance at all. I see the truth spoken in love.<br /><br />At times the iron on iron sharpening shall cause some heat, but it is always good heat.<br /><br />And yes these three amigos are still in their flesh, just like you.<br />And so we eat crow, don't we, like you say, at times.<br />But it is rare that I see that here.<br /><br />That's what I have seen over the few years I've been blessed to learn from Phil and his team mates.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67686638148013053392010-07-22T11:04:35.078-07:002010-07-22T11:04:35.078-07:00In all honesty to you Habitans in Sicco, Phil and ...In all honesty to you Habitans in Sicco, Phil and the rest at Pyromaniacs, I think we could all eat a little bit of crow from time to time. Maybe it was unfair of my first post here to seem so judgmental but after checking this site out for some time now it does come off as having an air of arrogance to it. A bit of ummm, self-confidence if you will. <br /><br />(Not to mention all of the really cool graphic affects).<br /><br />So, why all the added adjectives? Why not simply state your meaning?Horace Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091187820113799746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48405555584052316362010-07-22T10:52:14.500-07:002010-07-22T10:52:14.500-07:00Habitans in Sicco,
Thanks, I'm just getting s...Habitans in Sicco,<br /><br />Thanks, I'm just getting started. It's hard to keep up with all of the theological elite but one has to start somewhere.<br /><br />I also find it ironic that a Calvinistic apologist feels the need for sarcastic "name play" in his identity.Horace Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091187820113799746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66222448803083487032010-07-21T17:49:12.622-07:002010-07-21T17:49:12.622-07:00@Phil Johnson
Thank you!@Phil Johnson<br /><br />Thank you!Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41105677057454531842010-07-21T17:43:09.354-07:002010-07-21T17:43:09.354-07:00Horace Jones said: "The word "arrogant&q...<i>Horace Jones said: "The word "arrogant" seems to stand out to me. I find your rebuttal and the use of this adjective ironic . . ."</i><br /><br />On the other hand, who could ever credibly deny the charge of arrogance? A spirited defense of one's own humility is instantly and comically self-refuting.<br /><br />So let me play your game: I find it ironic that you went to all the trouble of creating a brand-new persona at Google's blogger just so that you could make this one comment accusing Phil--because he posted a gorilla picture.Habitans in Siccohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13666311435942322569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15949258218488966142010-07-21T17:30:24.967-07:002010-07-21T17:30:24.967-07:00Sir Aaron: "Obviously Sola Scriptura came out...<b>Sir Aaron:</b> <i>"Obviously </i>Sola Scriptura<i> came out of the Reformation in contradiction to the RCC. But the RCC also held that the average man could never understand Scripture. Learned theologians were needed. Do you believe that the "desert island" idea is a reaction to the aforementioned RCC position? And how would you articulate the difference between our position and what the RCC held?"</i><br /><br /><b><i>Sola Scriptura</i></b> is about the sufficiency and authority of Scripture as the supreme test of every truth-claim. It's <i>not</i> a claim that Scripture is the only source of truth, and therefore it doesn't require us to limit our study to Scripture alone.<br /><br />But it does set Scripture above every other source, teacher, or ecclesiastical office. It recognizes that Scripture is more sure than any human teacher or spiritual authority. And THAT's what makes it different from the Catholic system.<br /><br />In Romanism, the church's magisterium (not Scripture) is the final court of appeal for every truth-claim.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25396249730313002302010-07-21T06:27:20.257-07:002010-07-21T06:27:20.257-07:00The word "arrogant" seems to stand out t...The word "arrogant" seems to stand out to me. I find your rebuttal and the use of this adjective ironic in this sense:<br /><br />You: "A less-than-admiring reader writes:"<br /><br />Why not simply say, "A reader writes:?<br /><br />And then this is followed up by a cartoon of an ape reprimanding a woman choosing some books to read.<br /><br />Can one denote arrogant sarcasm here?<br /><br />It's okay to believe in a position, defend it, and argue the point, but which of the two natures does a less than humble response represent?Horace Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091187820113799746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44532372995828924812010-07-20T23:26:09.037-07:002010-07-20T23:26:09.037-07:00I suppose he can read and understand Greek, reads ...I suppose he can read and understand Greek, reads the original manuscripts, and does not share his insights with anyone else. He needed man to translate for him. He needed man's ability to publish to bring the Word to him. He cannot share his insights with others since that's hypocritical to his thinking he should not learn from others' insights.Mark Economouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16799733712327057900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38939642986708620572010-07-20T17:29:55.951-07:002010-07-20T17:29:55.951-07:00Phil Johnson:
I'm disappointed that you'r...Phil Johnson:<br /><br />I'm disappointed that you're leaving the thread to its own fate. I feel I asked a legitimate question that was directly related to the topic. (8:11 7/19)Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55294092955041397112010-07-20T17:05:20.906-07:002010-07-20T17:05:20.906-07:00Matt said Do not get me wrong -- there is an eleme...Matt said <i>Do not get me wrong -- there is an element of both doctrines in the Bible</i><br /><br />How do you have just an element of election or assurance? Are people just 51% elect? Are we to be just partly assured?<br /><br />Is this "element" speak an attempt to take some middle ground on a doctrine like election, which is mentioned over 26 times in the NT alone? If you don't agree with Calvin, why not just say you agree with Arminius, or Pelagius on the issue?mikebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947509425403456046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86218091567615047252010-07-20T10:14:00.584-07:002010-07-20T10:14:00.584-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9934651630367485252010-07-20T10:13:44.219-07:002010-07-20T10:13:44.219-07:00"The fact is the John Calvin was a tyrant who..."The fact is the John Calvin was a tyrant who brutally oppressed anyone who disagreed with him." -Matt<br /><br />Where is this fact documented, if you don't mind me asking?<br /><br />Calvin was a great theologian. I have read he was a wonderful husband, who loved and cherished his wife, who died early in life.<br /><br />Also, many hated Calvin, I believe, and of course mocked him and lied about him.<br /><br />Also, I believe Phil already addressed an earlier remark against Calvin like this.<br /><br />Finally, Calvin was a man, like us. Like King David even, a man after God's own heart. But look at David, and you see a most dispicable sinner, and rotten man, who trusted and loved the Lord.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67672138168933319942010-07-20T07:08:02.022-07:002010-07-20T07:08:02.022-07:00How many people have received a false gospel throu...<i>How many people have received a false gospel through conditional election and the possibility of loss of salvation? Plain and simple - that's salvation by works and not grace and it's not the gospel. It's called legalism.</i><br /><br />Not my idea to go off track, as warned, but here is a comment that can't be ignored and makes my previous point: this is a <i>fundamental</i> misunderstanding of Arminian theology. It's that kind of careless calumny that "stirs up" a reaction, just as a Calvinist would be rightly stirred by a false statement about his home turf. <br /><br />Out of deference to Phil, I won't go on.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56728015679966451592010-07-20T04:07:19.433-07:002010-07-20T04:07:19.433-07:00Matt: How many people have received a false assura...<b>Matt</b>: <i>How many people have received a false assurance of salvation through the doctrine of election and eternal security?</i><br /><br />That people will turn the grace of God into licentiousness isn't anything new. It's called libertinism. Hence all the warnings to be Biblically sure that one is saved. <br /><br />How many people have received a false gospel through <b>conditional</b> election and the possibility of loss of salvation? Plain and simple - that's salvation by works and not grace and it's not the gospel. It's called legalism.olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73375126774165218672010-07-20T01:28:02.672-07:002010-07-20T01:28:02.672-07:00It is about far more than just Servetus. Calvinis...It is about far more than just Servetus. Calvinists would like to think that it started and ended with him because they can then dismiss it as an aberration regarding a heretic (as if even that justified the killing of another man). The fact is the John Calvin was a tyrant who brutally oppressed anyone who disagreed with him. But some will say he wrote doctrinal works, he created schools, he sent out missionaries! What of it? Have not the Mormons and the Catholics done the same? And they have thus condemned millions to Hell by their false doctrine.<br /><br />How many people have received a false assurance of salvation through the doctrine of election and eternal security? Do not get me wrong -- there is an element of both doctrines in the Bible, but that is not the full picture. In 1 John, the apostle tells us not to look at a point of decision or election but to look at the fruit in our lives: a life that <i>practices</i> righteousness and does not practice sin (I John 3:7-8). Paul tells us to test ourselves to see if we are of the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). Peter tells us to be diligent to "make our election sure" (2 Peter 1:10). <br /><br />We dare not ignore these passages or the warning they contain. There are numerous passages that exhort us to endure, to hold fast to the faith -- not to the surety of our salvation but the faith that God's testimony is sure, that God is holy, righteous, and true.Matt Aznoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01886592758527878686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68291647087565238942010-07-19T20:21:19.541-07:002010-07-19T20:21:19.541-07:00Matt, it would do you some good to read what Spurg...Matt, it would do you some good to read what Spurgeon said about Calvinism.<br />http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm<br /><br />As for Servetus, this explains it all:<br /><br />http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/7412mikebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06947509425403456046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4272059326967020642010-07-19T19:02:03.384-07:002010-07-19T19:02:03.384-07:00Did you mean to write Do commentaries and study ai...Did you mean to write Do commentaries and study aids violate the principle of VERSE 27?<br /><br />Hope you're back is healing quickly!Caleb Kolstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16430229005942296570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26254982445956712312010-07-19T17:41:53.719-07:002010-07-19T17:41:53.719-07:00Frank said:
I'm waiting for the day the non-C...Frank said:<br /><br /><em>I'm waiting for the day the non-Calvinists will be ready to do so. In fact, I have a standing offer, beginning right now, to engage any and every non-Calvinist on their pet peeve about Calvinist systematics at my nearly-dormant DebateBlog.</em><br /><br />I'll debate you, although I'm "Evangelical" <em>Calvinist</em>; which may disqualify me from being a debater at the debate blog.<br /><br /><strong>My Thesis</strong>: <em>That Classic Calvinist theology is dependent upon neo-Thomistic thought; thus making it distinct from Scriptural thought, per se</em>.<br /><br />I might want to polish that thesis statement a little; but it captures the gist of what I would want to debate you upon.<br /><br />Bobby G.<br /><br />PS. I agree with Phil on Sola Scriptura.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4956658578866914012010-07-19T16:46:47.802-07:002010-07-19T16:46:47.802-07:00I was attempting to post as a Calvinist who is sta...I was attempting to post as a Calvinist who is starting to question long held views. In retrospect, I was further off topic than I realized, but my point was to show that leaning too much on the teachings of men can lead us into doctrinal error that takes us away from the true message of the Bible. We Calvinists are almost as bad as the Catholics sometimes in revering our teachers and their books over God and His Word. It is this tendency that brings forth the desire of some of us to return to the plain scripture and set aside, at least for a while, the writings of men so that we can get back to the core of the Gospel. Sometimes you just can't see the forest for the trees, and you forget certain principles that are important that are not a part of the popular dogma.<br /><br />I'm sorry that I messed up your thread. If I post again, I will try to stay closer to the topic at hand.Matt Aznoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01886592758527878686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64588394267564306742010-07-19T14:58:11.017-07:002010-07-19T14:58:11.017-07:00Frank Turk: "I think I unintentionally killed...<b>Frank Turk:</b> <i>"I think I unintentionally killed this thread.</i><br /><br />That's OK. It was doomed from the first comment and needed to be euthanized. Look back at the comments the first time I posted this in January 2007. The resulting mess in the meta was even worse then.<br /><br />I'd quote some of the errant comments to document and analyze the main reasons this topic always gets driven off track, but that would only stir up more Arminian resentment.<br /><br />Instead, let me just point out that my initial post set forth precisely zero arguments in favor of Calvinism and said nothing whatsoever that could legitimately be interpreted as disparaging about Arminianism.<br /><br />In point of fact, I agree with whoever said John Wesley could teach most of us a few things, and some of Wesley's carping critics would do well to attack him less and read him more. (That is actually a corollary of the point my post was making.)<br /><br />The direction of the comment-thread vividly (albeit unintentionally) makes a completely different point, but since it's not exactly flattering to some of our Arminian regulars, I'm going to let it drop.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87540512698494309402010-07-19T14:56:08.575-07:002010-07-19T14:56:08.575-07:00Frank, no didn't. Oh, wait, yep.Frank, no didn't. Oh, wait, yep.Rob Baileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10893938431904825170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80579740253471037952010-07-19T14:31:14.135-07:002010-07-19T14:31:14.135-07:00Can I be guilty with you frank? :-)Can I be guilty with you frank? :-)Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87695439756080203982010-07-19T13:51:41.472-07:002010-07-19T13:51:41.472-07:00I think I unintentionally killed this thread. Sor...I think I unintentionally killed this thread. Sorry Phil!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35122275846670175552010-07-19T12:56:58.341-07:002010-07-19T12:56:58.341-07:00OK -- with the discussion well back on the rails, ...<i>OK -- with the discussion well back on the rails, Gov98 has asked a good question: isn't minimalist theology enough?<br /><br />Let me say this plainly: it is certainly enough to save you. It is hardly enough to then get up and live as if Jesus was a real person.<br /><br />For example: let's say that I go to work now that I am a Christian -- should I have gone to work? Shouldn't I be living as if the end is near and that it's coming like a thief in the night? Should I do anything except prepare myslef for the end right now?<br /><br />Let's say that I read my Bible and realize that I should go to work: when I get there, do I only eat with my Christian friends to seek to abstain from the world, or do I make friends with unbelievers and sometimes eat lunch with them and yoke myself to them for the sake of earning a living?<br /><br />The faith of a mustard seed will save you. That much theology, though, barely gets you out of bed in the morning.</i><br /><br />I guess I think that Scripture says that we are supposed to be living for the future all the time. Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven. We miss however, that living for the future is lived in the present.<br /><br />Paul of course tells us, that one that does not provide for his family is no better than a heathen. But that is not just about the here and now, that is true about eternity. Christians have a real duty to live and work in the now, but to make sure that the now is engaged in future investment.<br /><br />Should you be in business partnership with unbelievers...dangerous questions I reckon that there will be some room for Christian Liberty, is it dangerous to be partnered in business with an unbeliever...absolutely, so what does Scripture teach in other areas, to Count the Cost, be wise, be discerning. If you go into business with an unbeliever, you must be prepared to yield all your rights to the one who demands your cloak, can you do that? If so, then perhaps some business partnership is acceptable, if not, oh count the cost.<br /><br />Is employment forbidden in Scripture? No! In fact the opposite is taught, work as if for the Lord, not for men.<br /><br />I know you know this, the answers are all in Scripture, I use wise pastors and teachers and books as guides to save me time, but the principles are there if I'm willing to work at understanding them, but the Bible is clear, using sharp tools is wise which brings success(Ecclesiastes 10:10), that doesn't mean that the having the sharp tool excuses me from doing the work, it just takes less effort.<br /><br />I'm going to slow down here and allow for input.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41095287421490988912010-07-19T12:38:55.206-07:002010-07-19T12:38:55.206-07:00But that's not the actual desert-island exeget...<i>But that's not the actual desert-island exegete position. You have redefined the position outside of the context of Phil's correspondent, and hence outside of the scope of his response. The correspondent was not just lifting up the desert-island exegete as the best way, but was also denigrating any use of lesser, fallible, non-biblical authorities.</i><br /><br />Maybe we are both reading the same post but seeing different highlights or takeaways from it. I'll just highlight why I think what I was saying was a fair interpretation of what Phil said.<br /><br /><i>My interlocutor objected, saying he doesn't think doctrine is an exacting science. He told me, "I always ask, 'If an unbeliever stranded on a desert island with nothing but a Bible read this text, what would he get from it?' I think that's the <b>best</b> test of one's interpretation."</i><br /><br />He didn't say only, he didn't say all others were wrong, but that one is better than others. This test...that I believe the interlocutor is referring to, might be referred to as the plain language doctrine. It's pretty extensive in constitutional theory, what does the plain language of the constitution mean. Similarly what does the plain language of Scripture mean. This doesn't object to the idea that there are going to be place where it doesn't fit because the plain language isn't easy, but the point is that where it works plain language is best.<br /><br />I think that is true. If an unbeliever or believer could look at us and say with a straight face "I do not think those words mean what you think they mean," as a general rule, we have gone astray with our theology.<br /><br />In Phil's post, There was then a <b>second</b> person mentioned from a post long ago. Who stated that a willingness to go back to teachers and books, and confessions to an "endless" degree (this assertion may rightly be questioned but for the purpose of criticizing the logic of the individual we should assume his premise) indicates huge red flags as to his theology.<br /><br />I think this...(if you assume the assertions I do not think they accurate, but if you assume them) is correct. A person who consistently appeals to people or systems instead of Scripture is raising red flags. That's not to say that that person is wrong, but appealing to Scripture one can never go wrong.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.com