tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8997731372560537244..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Continuationism and Credulity, East and WestPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76081136760515393972009-08-04T07:38:53.473-07:002009-08-04T07:38:53.473-07:00Solameanie:
Everything must change, yo.
Except t...Solameanie:<br /><br />Everything must change, yo.<br /><br />Except this thread, which is now closed.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88243020034366415702009-08-04T06:52:53.502-07:002009-08-04T06:52:53.502-07:00Frank,
If you are a "different kind of ortho...Frank,<br /><br />If you are a "different kind of orthodox," does that also make you a "new kind of Christian?" If so, let me know and I'll order you a pair of Birkenstocks immediately. <br /><br />Just wondering. ;)Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36989026775466211702009-08-04T06:16:40.679-07:002009-08-04T06:16:40.679-07:00Chad,
Oh, I'm still trying to work it through...Chad,<br /><br />Oh, I'm still trying to work it through myself. (That's why my first reply was so long--I was pointing out strengths & problems on both sides!)<br /><br />"<i>The fact remains that around the whole discussion of what the perfect is Paul says that <b>somethings will pass but that faith, hope and love abide</b> and there is it clear he is not speaking of the eternal state for as we have already seen, faith and hope have no part in the eternal state.</i> [bold added]"<br /><br />So, this is the (possibly wrong, possibly right) assumption I was trying to point out.<br /><br />You're reading it as, "Some things will pass away, but then faith, hope, and love <i>will</i> remain. (And, by the way, love is the greatest.)"<br /><br />The other possibility is, "Some things will pass away, like prophecy. And right now, we have faith, hope, and love abiding with us--but love is the greatest, because it will never pass away."<br /><br />And those two possibilities each have the issues I talked about before.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46475333087759111442009-08-04T06:08:22.097-07:002009-08-04T06:08:22.097-07:00Kent --
As I said in my e-mail, if after these 4 ...Kent --<br /><br />As I said in my e-mail, if after these 4 examples and the other three I have given your privately you don't see yourself as telling lies, I don't hold out hope for you to ever repent of your sin.<br /><br />You can: Christ will accept it from you when you come around. I will follow Christ's lead. But until then, don't expect me to treat as as any more or any less than an unrepentant liar.<br /><br />Sorry. I know it's going to egt in the way of your commenting around here, but so be it.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68919217006106546622009-08-04T06:05:25.731-07:002009-08-04T06:05:25.731-07:00PR --
Why I enjoy the Charismatic discussion so m...PR --<br /><br />Why I enjoy the Charismatic discussion so much.<br /><br />PR: I am looking forward to some creative hermeneutics on 1 Cor 14:2 and the explanation to why the need to ‘interpret’ a tongue that can be understood?<br /><br />FRANK: Read a little more of that chapter, dude. Paul tells you why.<br /><br />PR: Yes, but Paul is talking about CORPORATE prayer. I'm talking about PRIVATE prayer.<br /><br />Do you not see that Paul was talking about CORPORATE prayer in 1 Cor 14:2 as well, PR? So when you cited that passage, you were either also tlaking about CORPORATE prayer or else you were mishandling the passage?<br /><br />You may change the subject, but that takes your first argument off the table. Therefore, kasdc olkdsfl oien ek pwmfe dkd until you put up your first argument for your case.<br /><br />TAQUILA!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60087098537258082752009-08-04T05:19:35.064-07:002009-08-04T05:19:35.064-07:00Scott, so would you agree that there are no more &...Scott, so would you agree that there are no more "apostles of Jesus Christ" (or "apostles of the lamb") today?<br /><br />The gifts of apostles and prophets were clearly part of the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), a foundation that has already been laid.greglonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59015281364880448372009-08-03T23:27:01.212-07:002009-08-03T23:27:01.212-07:00Phil and Cent,
Thanks for the responses. I'v...Phil and Cent,<br /><br />Thanks for the responses. I've been away from the computer all day and haven't gotten to look back any sooner.<br /><br />This apparently is an issue I need to think through a little more deeply, because sometimes I think, "That's harsh" and then I go read Galatians...<br /><br />So anyway, thanks for the clarification, and I apologize if I was unfair. When I have a few moments, I'll go read the links. Thanks for supplying them.<br /><br />AndrewAndrew Farishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16500885575497425538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25559295221160769022009-08-03T22:46:20.778-07:002009-08-03T22:46:20.778-07:00Frank,
I'm happy to let all of those stand on...Frank,<br /><br />I'm happy to let all of those stand on their own, and let people judge them for themselves.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61504856949453023592009-08-03T22:14:19.243-07:002009-08-03T22:14:19.243-07:00Keep it up Frank. Mockery and recreational sarcasm...Keep it up Frank. Mockery and recreational sarcasm are easier than thoughtful exchanges. Also...I recommend Vodka over Tequila!John Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151182349424209838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89426804039968662952009-08-03T22:07:58.432-07:002009-08-03T22:07:58.432-07:00Oh brother -- PR, no sense arguing with you. If y...Oh brother -- PR, no sense arguing with you. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.<br /><br />liedc kqwjkj cljjd aq, aiknf ck qajc. TAQUILA!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73458025235697956442009-08-03T22:06:20.516-07:002009-08-03T22:06:20.516-07:00Oh really, Kent?
1. I never condemned you.
[QUOT...Oh really, Kent?<br /><br />1. I never condemned you.<br /><br />[<a href="http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/2008/04/opening-statement-and-first-question.html" rel="nofollow">QUOTE KENT</a>]<br />I am confident that my opponent will reveal greater trust in merely human statements of history and science than he does what God’s Word says about its own preservation.<br />[UNQUOTE]<br /><br />I am sure it was said to commend me -- and that's just in your intro.<br /><br />2. I never called what you believed heretical<br /><br />[<a href="http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/2008/04/a4-for-frank.html" rel="nofollow">QUOTE KENT</a>]<br />This represents the historic position of NT Christianity on the doctrine of preservation, simply fleshing out what Scripture says on this doctrine but sharp contrasting with Mr. Turk's neo-orthodox conceptual Word of God.<br />[UNQUOTE]<br /><br />I am sure that contrasting "orthodoxy" with "neo-orthodoxy" is comparing "best" to "not that bad", right, kent? You didn't mean that I held an unorthodox position: you meant I held a position of a different kind of orthodoxy.<br /><br />Right? Not heretical: differently orthodox.<br /><br />This one is my favorite:<br />3. I never compared you to Bart Ehrman as it related to the gospel.<br /><br />[<a href="http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/2008/04/opening-statement-and-first-question.html" rel="nofollow">QUOTE KENT</a>]<br />He changed a few of God’s Words, caused uncertainty in Eve, so that what God said wasn’t authoritative to her any longer—you know the rest of the story.<br /><br />Satan continues using the same strategy. Modern agnostic, Bart Ehrman, illustrates this by testifying of his apostacy in his Misquoting Jesus ...<br /><br />Yet, that is the position that Mr. Turk takes in opposition to my affirmation. <br />[UNQUOTE]<br /><br />So you're right: you didn't compare me to Ehrman -- you compared me to Ehrman -and- Satan. BTW, you compared me to Satan in your e-mails this evening, and I enjoyed it as much today as I did back in 2008. Thanks for helping me relive that.<br /><br />And last but not least:<br /><br />4. I never accused you of denying the gospel.<br /><br />Now, before I get to the quote where you do this, even if there is no direct quote for this one, if I am taking human wisdom over God's wisdom (1), believing in something which is contrasted with orthodoxy (2), and on-par with Satan and Ehrman (3), isn't the right conclusion here that I'm denying the Gospel? Isn't it a fair deduction?<br /><br />Let's not stick to fair deductions: let's see what Kent has actually said:<br /><br />[<a href="http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/2008/05/closing-statement.html" rel="nofollow">QUOTE KENT</a>]<br />Now the Bible was no longer holy, but a corpus of ancient writings to be assessed by secular criteria; therefore, instead of judging the culture, Scripture itself was judged. Now instead of the Christian reading, understanding, and the church teaching with authority, they all needed the scholar, someone competent according to a new secular creed.<br />[UNQUOTE]<br /><br />"a new secular creed" if one believes that the text of the NT requires some work to be recovered from -all- of the manuscript evidence? That's not denying the Gospel, Kent? You're saying there's no connection between this statement and my views which you also called "heterodox" in the same leg of this exchange?<br /><br />Please. Get a grip on yourself. You're wrong about all 4 of your denials. If your approach wasn't so systematic, I'd write it off as ignorance. But I suspect you know exactly what you're doing.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55364730341071230412009-08-03T21:52:07.634-07:002009-08-03T21:52:07.634-07:00FT Paul's entire argument in 1 Cor 14 is again...FT <i>Paul's entire argument in 1 Cor 14 is against speaking in tongues in a mindless way.</i><br /><br />Yes it is, but in the context of <i>corporate</i> NOT private prayer. If he objected private prayer then he is clearly contradicting himself (v.v. 2,15)John Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151182349424209838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25544523561456835972009-08-03T21:40:00.571-07:002009-08-03T21:40:00.571-07:001 Cor 14:5 is your answer, PR. If you read down t...1 Cor 14:5 is your answer, PR. If you read down the paragraph -- not even the page -- you'd find it pretty easily.<br /><br />"The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, <i>unless someone interprets</i>, so that the church may be built up."<br /><br />Paul's <i>entire argument</i> in 1 Cor 14 is <i>against speaking in tongues in a mindless way</i>.<br /><br />You note here can't be even remotely serious since you don't even take Paul at his word -- why should you take me at mine?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34558712722170631102009-08-03T21:37:24.968-07:002009-08-03T21:37:24.968-07:00Frank,
1. I never condemned you.
2. I never call...Frank,<br />1. I never condemned you.<br />2. I never called what you believed heretical.<br />3. I never compared you to Bart Ehrman as it related to the gospel.<br />4. I never accused you of denying the gospel.<br /><br />People, yes, are welcome to read the debate to check that out. Those are false assertions you are making. I also don't appreciate some of your adjectives, but readers will have to judge. We both know who has the home court here, but that shouldn't mean that you can say whatever you want.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50191506987516553332009-08-03T21:31:14.724-07:002009-08-03T21:31:14.724-07:00As a fully fledged charismatic (in experience but ...As a fully fledged charismatic (in experience but not in theology) I couldn’t agree more with your thesis regarding the office of the apostle today and pseudo-miracles dominating charismatic circles suffering from the Christian celebrity syndrome. Any healing TODAY I would agree is not because of the ‘anointed’ person who prays but in spite of them. It is a direct, sovereign and merciful act of God.<br /><br />However, your take on tongue speaking is moving from the ridiculous to the absurd. Sorry for the ‘tone’ fellas (Turk, Johnson & Co) but you are just too cocky and defiant and you invite confrontational polemics (your turf, your blog, I know). Frank wrote: <i>I think people who babble to make a prayer they think God wants to hear are people who don’t understand that God spoke clearly in order to be understood. And I feel sorry for them.</i> I am looking forward to some creative hermeneutics on 1 Cor 14:2 and the explanation to why the need to ‘interpret’ a tongue that can be understood?<br /><br />It’s obvious that tongue speaking in church is pointless in terms of corporate edification, but in private prayer your spirit prays though your mind is unfruitful (1 Cor 14:14). “What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also” (v15)<br /><br />Phil said: <i>I think the vast majority of "speaking in tongues" is simply a learned behavior. I CAN DO IT.</i>Can you really? Any genuine tongue speaking charismatic should be able to speak “on call” if they want to, without any special “manifestations”. The gift is always there 24/7 it doesn’t come and go. We’re not debating whether one “should” but whether one “can” here. Here’s a challenge since it’s so easy. Do a continuous 5 min recording of imitating tongue speaking and post the audio file on your blog. Not ‘sounds’ but anything that resembles a language. It should be a breeze. <br /><br />If it’s “simply a learned behavior” I must be a genius then because I learned it in about 10 minutes flat at 11.30am March 19, 1987 and haven’t stopped since. Couldn’t string a few words together before that, because I too thought you can “make it up”. You are simply mocking things you don’t understand. A case of “confirmation bias” as Albert Mohler wrote in one of his articles.John Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151182349424209838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42516905572769795572009-08-03T21:26:07.635-07:002009-08-03T21:26:07.635-07:00Kent:
In every single answer you gave at D-Blog, ...Kent:<br /><br />In every single answer you gave at D-Blog, you condemned me as holding heretical views.<br /><br />Every. Single. One.<br /><br />You compared me to the likes of Bart Ehrman repeatedly. <br /><br />So whatever it is you think you did over there, you should go re-read it now that you're not defending yourself to see if you played the role you thought you were playing. The role you played was to accuse someone of denying the Gospel because he knows for certain that there are no two extant manuscripts of the NT which are identical in every way and that we must, therefore, do something with that.<br /><br />Here's the crazy thing, Kent: I think you believe you're an honest person. I think when you say things like I advocate for a "uncertainty spawned by modern criticism", you are doing the Lord's work. Yet anyone who has read even three random paragraphs from any blogging I have done about Scripture would laugh at you for saying something that intellectually ribald. <br /><br />Check your e-mail. I am sure it is on-topic.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21030555751435845962009-08-03T20:56:50.221-07:002009-08-03T20:56:50.221-07:00Frank,
There were several things in your last com...Frank,<br /><br />There were several things in your last comment that not only do not represent anything that I said in our debate, but are slanderous to the worst degree. And all of this has been totally off topic. I guess I shouldn't be amazed that you get away with it here.<br /><br />Solameanie,<br /><br />How about you were wrong. I didn't say anything about the text issue. I've always spoken on topic here. Always. And if it related to preservation (only one time that I remember), it was still on topic.<br /><br />I haven't checked the history, but if you did, you'd probably find that if the text issue came in more than once, it was Frank that brought it in, just like this occasion. He does a good job of acting like it's something he wants to talk about, for saying that he doesn't.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30114836745728825302009-08-03T20:38:06.314-07:002009-08-03T20:38:06.314-07:00I enjoyed this post; it helped clarify some of my ...I enjoyed this post; it helped clarify some of my own thoughts on charismatic gifts. I especially appreciated the point made about "selective" cessationism and that it exists on both sides of the argument. I'd like to suggest that there are no examples of believers being healed in the New Testament; all the healings that took place were of non-believers. Furthermore, all of the healings, without exception, were <i>immediate</i>; not one was "gradual" or over a period of time. I believe that God can and does heal miraculously today but I also believe that it will always be for His glory, in complete agreement with His Word and according to His purposes and plan, not ours.these3remainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04091166686506561986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82524769334750237832009-08-03T20:35:05.425-07:002009-08-03T20:35:05.425-07:00Frank your post at 8:33AM is, in the parlance of t...Frank your post at 8:33AM is, in the parlance of the younger generation, <i>epic</i>. Much appreciated.Jacobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084189036334133951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23379554901762489802009-08-03T20:17:01.489-07:002009-08-03T20:17:01.489-07:00Jug
I see your point and I've stated in the ...<b> Jug </b><br /><br />I see your point and I've stated in the past here on Pyro that I may be misunderstanding precisely what Paul means by the perfect. In my own study on this I've found those commentators that interpret the text the way I've posted here to be most consistent. Calvin however has a different interpretation.<br /><br />The fact remains that around the whole discussion of what the perfect is Paul says that somethings will pass but that faith, hope and love abide and there is it clear he is not speaking of the eternal state for as we have already seen, faith and hope have no part in the eternal state.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41537338604145215222009-08-03T19:18:17.663-07:002009-08-03T19:18:17.663-07:00Kent,
The reason I got a chuckle out of Frank'...Kent,<br /><br />The reason I got a chuckle out of Frank's remark is this: I have seen you in the past ask rather short, terse questions seemingly related to the topic at hand, only to somehow manage to divert the discussion to the Bible translation issue. It seemed to me that Frank was "heading you off at the pass." <br /><br />Of course, I could be mistaken about your intent in asking the question this time.Solameaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869424956571944997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51394975170271120762009-08-03T19:07:50.146-07:002009-08-03T19:07:50.146-07:00Why in Galatians did Paul say if he or even an ang...Why in Galatians did Paul say if he or even an angel preached a different gospel then they are accursed? The scriptures are infalliable not the apostles--In this sense, why would the Bereans be commended for 'searching the scriptures to see if those things were true'? Why search? An spostle said it, so you better believe it!<br />The apostles could not at will perform signs. Did they never pray and get back a negative answer?<br /><br />SOunds like the strawman created for a continuationist is likened to the strawman created for Calvinists. Variety and differences doesn't mean inconsitency or obvious proof for error.<br />COncerning tongues: you do know that not all continuatists believe they are really fast gibberish rather actual languages.<br /><br />A little more balance and honesty please.Julius Mickelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02453209929174513662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9567786625567592272009-08-03T18:19:48.182-07:002009-08-03T18:19:48.182-07:00Phil - sometime I would like to hear your expositi...Phil - sometime I would like to hear your exposition on what it means in Zechariah where it says that in the last days certain people would have visions and dream dreams (I'm sure you know what passage I'm referring to). I've always wondered about that passage, how they last days could have included the first century but not the 21st century (or the future). I've heard what some others have had to say on its proper interpretation, but would be interested in what you specifically have to say about it. Thanks much.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55656848701498700882009-08-03T18:16:18.288-07:002009-08-03T18:16:18.288-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53142179792871826112009-08-03T18:10:17.846-07:002009-08-03T18:10:17.846-07:00Chad,
"The thing is that the word for "...Chad,<br /><br />"<i>The thing is that the word for "perfect" is usually translated to me mean "complete: or "mature" and as far as I know never means "perfect in the eternal state".</i>"<br /><br />I'm not clear why you think that the "'perfect' has to do with completion, maturity, fullness, brought to its end" clarification argues <i>against</i> the other possibility. (I understand why it makes your version more feasible than it would otherwise be.)<br /><br />As though that makes "the perfect" <i>not fit</i> with the final, completed, mature, reconciled, glorified state of the final restoration of all things, where all the promises of God are fulfilled--the objects of our faith & hope?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.com