tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2911817179740958891..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: ModestyPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8806897669880806302007-05-18T22:09:00.000-07:002007-05-18T22:09:00.000-07:00While Menno certainly did speak of Jesus becoming ...While Menno certainly did speak of Jesus becoming a man "in" Mary, nowhere does he deny the orthodox view of the Incarnation (ie-fully human AND fully divine). Maybe you are aware that Menno himself wrote a critical response on Arianism? He also wrote the following:<BR/><BR/><I>We believe and confess that this same eternal. . . Word, Christ Jesus, which was in the beginning with God and which was God. . . born of the incomprehensible Father, before every creature. . . did in the fullness of time become. . . a mortal man in Mary</I> Complete Writings, 492<BR/><BR/>and:<BR/><BR/><I>he was truly human and not a mere phantasm</I> CW, 794<BR/><BR/>You are finished with me, and I'm thankful that a man of your calibre should even spend time with a lowly person such as myself. <BR/><BR/>Your example to humbly teach those less intelligent than yourself, your scholarly reserve, and above all, your clear answer to my question about how to practice modesty have been instructive.<BR/><BR/>Sorry Cent, I guess I forgot to read the "Don't feed the trolls" sign. Duly noted for next time around. What a turkey trail, although to my defense, I always tried bringing it back to modesty, and never received an answer. I suppose there never was one, just a desire to needlessly display credentials and generate controversy.<BR/><BR/>Enjoying the return of your series! Keep up the good work, all of you.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57642856082179718072007-05-18T19:09:00.000-07:002007-05-18T19:09:00.000-07:00matt wrote:"Reformedhero, I said I wouldn't post a...matt wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Reformedhero, I said I wouldn't post again, but your allegations about Simons are over the top! Have you ever read Menno Simons? Or have you just heard his (uninformed) critics? (BTW, you probably know that an argument based on an appeal to your degree or place of learning is in fact a logical fallacy.)"<BR/><BR/>I read the primary sources and scholarly secondary sources while sitting for my Ph.D. at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. You asked, I answered. The answer is a "logical fallacy" (lol) and is "puffed up". Insanity! I'm thankful I never based any arguments on where I attended university. You're bearing false witness again.<BR/><BR/>One of the "uninformed critics" is Harold O.J. Brown (Ph.D., Harvard University), in his classic scholarly work, <I>Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church</I>. Dr. Brown writes:<BR/><BR/>"A number of the radicals, including not only Thomas Munzer (ca. 1489-1525) and Melchior Hoffmann (ca. 1495-ca. 1543 but also Kaspar Schwenkfeld (1489-1561) and Menno Simons (1496-1561), both of whom founded churches that exist today (the Schwenkfelder Church and the Mennonite Church), advocated the concept of the heavenly flesh in order to spare the deity contact with our sinful human flesh. Menno spoke of Jesus as born "in" Mary's body, but not "of it". Brown continued, "To have done so would have made him part of Adam's sinful race, an intolerable thought (although precisely the point of orthodox Christology and the orthodox doctrine of Christ's vicarious atonement!)." (Harold O.J. Brown, <I>Heresies</I>. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984, 1988, p. 328).<BR/><BR/>Other "uninformed critics" documented:<BR/><BR/>"Fortunately, Menno's teaching on the incarnation did not abide long with his followers. Seventy-one years after Menno's death the Dutch Mennonite Confession of Faith (1632) dropped the explicit affirmation of the celestial flesh but this component of Menno's Christology continues to embarrass modern Mennonites." (Carrigan, "Menno Simon's Incarnational Christology." see also, John C. Wenger's introduction to "Menno's Incarnation," in <I>The Complete Works of Menno Simons</I>, Scottdale: Herald Press, 1956, p. 784.).<BR/><BR/>Matt continued:<BR/><BR/>"If your depiction of Menno Simons is not bearing false witness, not sure what is."<BR/><BR/>I realize such a comment is simply a product of the depth of your ignorance of the subject.<BR/><BR/>Matt, you <I>are</I> ignorant of Church history and even the foundation of your own sect. But that is not your central problem, as no one is omniscient and laymen outside of the field can't be expected to be masters of these subjects. Your problem is repeated, unrepented sin and abusive behavior. I am finished with you.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79143700105124539492007-05-18T17:02:00.000-07:002007-05-18T17:02:00.000-07:00If it's teampyro, you gotta believe it's gonna be ...If it's teampyro, you gotta believe it's gonna be extra whatever you've ever had before.opinion-minionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16675745361652426760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82989517195341620092007-05-18T16:48:00.000-07:002007-05-18T16:48:00.000-07:00Opinion-minion, bless you for disagreeing with gra...Opinion-minion, bless you for disagreeing with graciousness and sincerity. Are those Aspirins extra-strength?Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57524012175080857272007-05-18T16:23:00.000-07:002007-05-18T16:23:00.000-07:00Quick note, I posted a kind of sort of response po...Quick note, I posted a kind of sort of response post that, hopefully, managed not to attack anyone personally, or give anyone a headache for the rest of the day. (Can we get Teampyro customized bottles O' Aspirin goodness?)<BR/><BR/>http://muddlehouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/modesty.htmlopinion-minionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16675745361652426760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74384096684520126652007-05-18T14:40:00.000-07:002007-05-18T14:40:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82171252459237653122007-05-18T14:34:00.000-07:002007-05-18T14:34:00.000-07:00Reformedhero, I said I wouldn't post again, but yo...Reformedhero, I said I wouldn't post again, but your allegations about Simons are over the top! Have you ever read Menno Simons? Or have you just heard his (uninformed) critics? (BTW, you probably know that an argument based on an appeal to your degree or place of learning is in fact a logical fallacy.) I would sincerely refer you to his Complete Writings, available through Herald Press.<BR/><BR/>Never in my life of studying Mennonite theology have I encountered the following:<BR/><BR/>anti-trinitarianism<BR/>rebellion against the civil magistrate <BR/>denial of the incarnation<BR/>extra-biblical 'revelations' and false prophecies <BR/>communism <BR/>bigamy <BR/>"open" marriages<BR/><BR/>If you want to brand all Anabaptists by Hut et. al., then you may be on to something. But to do that would be the same as me branding all Reformed folk by PCUSA or all evangelicals by Brian McLaren. Have you ever studied Mennonite theology *first-hand*?<BR/><BR/>As far as rebaptism is concerned, only the first generation of Anabaptists were rebaptised as they viewed their Catholic baptism as invalid. Since the Reformation, the rest of us Mennonites have received only one baptism, that being upon confession of faith. If you want to see the Statement of Faith of my denomination (Evangelical Mennonite Conference), here's the address:<BR/><BR/>http://www.emconf.ca/<BR/><BR/>Your use of Matthew 7:6 on myself seems to indicate that you yourself are guilty of the very charges you put against me. If your depiction of Menno Simons is not bearing false witness, not sure what is. I will assume that you have no answer to the modesty question. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, where my tone has been uncharitable, I apologize in Christlike humility. I am sorry.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-87960754904178471222007-05-18T14:15:00.000-07:002007-05-18T14:15:00.000-07:00Just curious Cent,Was this guy (Reformed Hero) a m...Just curious Cent,<BR/><BR/>Was this guy (Reformed Hero) a made up personality to see how people would react? Like an object lesson in what happens when you feed trolls?<BR/><BR/>What did Paul say? "Knowledge puffs up..."<BR/><BR/>Wow.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17516716489764936532007-05-18T13:15:00.000-07:002007-05-18T13:15:00.000-07:00Matt uttered:"If you'd like to close your ignoranc...Matt uttered:<BR/><BR/>"If you'd like to close your ignorance gap about the Anabaptists/Mennonites, I'd refer you to Balthasar Hubmaier and Menno Simons (the man from whom we have our name)."<BR/><BR/>I've had more than enough of your abuse. I don't have an "ignorance gap" concerning the Anabaptists. My lectures on Church history were rigorous and detailed, at one of the finest universities in the world.<BR/><BR/>The Anabaptists were a bad movement by any measure. Your founder, Menno Simons, denied the incarnation of Jesus Christ, perpetuating the ancient heresy of Valentinus. He actually denied that Christ received his human body from Mary. He also was a sort of proto-Herb Armstrong with his repeated false prophecies on the "imminent" return of Christ (not eschatological speculation, but false <I>prophecies</I>).<BR/><BR/>Regarding Balthazar Huebmaier, Zwingli demolished his aberrant position (i.e., "rebaptism") as it amounts to recrucifying Christ (Hebrews 6:1-6).<BR/><BR/>The Anabaptists were a messed up, sub-Christian and in many, many cases, outright non-Christian aberrant movement. I recognize (along with Zwingli, for example) that some of the Anabaptists were Christians, but as a movement, the things that made the Anabaptists <I>Anabaptists</I> (anti-trinitarianism; rebellion against the civil magistrate; rebaptism; denial of the incarnation; extra-biblical 'revelations' and false prophecies; communism; bigamy; "open" marriages, etc.), amount to it being a bad thing. As another writer put it, "What was good in them, did not originate with them. What originated with them, was not good."<BR/><BR/>Regarding your other "questions," based upon your repeated bearing of false witness, arrogant condescension and abuse, and refusal to learn, I stand upon Matthew 7:6.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32096950266721994212007-05-18T08:58:00.000-07:002007-05-18T08:58:00.000-07:00Reformedhero said: Regarding the Anabaptists, if y...Reformedhero said: <BR/><BR/><I>Regarding the Anabaptists, if you are ignorant of the history of the radicals (i.e., the Anabaptists), then so be it.</I><BR/><BR/><I>All you've demonstrated is that you are without personal integrity and are ignorant of Church history, nothing more.</I><BR/><BR/>Speaking of irony, maybe you didn't read my blogger profile, but if you had, you'd see that I am myself an orthodox Mennonite (read: Anabaptist). I am aware, Reformedhero, that there are lunatic-lefy Mennonites out there, but to say all Mennonites are lefty heretics is to brand all Reformed people by the PCUSA.<BR/><BR/>If you'd like to close your ignorance gap about the Anabaptists/Mennonites, I'd refer you to Balthasar Hubmaier and Menno Simons (the man from whom we have our name). Of course, given your air or humility, I'm sure you know more about Menno Simons' theology than even he did, so there's probably nothing for you to learn. <BR/><BR/>Back to my question, which you dodged, is there any way to *practice* what we believe to be true without becoming legalistic? Or is Christian faith primarily (or exclusively) about giving intellectual assent to doctrines without any change in lifestyle? How can we ever practice modesty, in your view? (honest question, not looking for a fight).<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your response, and will add that I will not continue this any further. Once I've read your answer, I'm done on this thread. We've gone far afield enough as is.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28683282578707961132007-05-17T20:51:00.000-07:002007-05-17T20:51:00.000-07:00Matt:You're looking for a fight. In any case, you ...Matt:<BR/><BR/>You're looking for a fight. In any case, you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Some things don't need to be refuted, merely shown! The irony is much too rich!"<BR/><BR/>This mocking comment is in reference to my properly stating the historical fact that the Anabaptists were largely a non-christian, vis., heretical, movement. So were the Arians before them. This is not "calling into question" the salvation of another Christian but simply making an objective historical statement. As such there is zero irony and zero contradiction on my part. Just entrenched ignorance on your part.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the other groups/movements you listed (including its redundancy, i.e., Baptists, Baptist polity, credobaptists....), <I>I never once stated or alluded</I> they were not Christians. You are bearing false witness. Repent.<BR/><BR/><I>I stated</I> that it is not proper to refer to some of those groups as being under the aegis of Reformed theology as they simply don't fall under that category if the term Reformed is used in its normal historic and doctrinal context.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Anabaptists, if you are ignorant of the history of the radicals (i.e., the Anabaptists), then so be it.<BR/><BR/>Matt continued:<BR/><BR/>"Let me get this straight, Reformedhero, in your quest for Christian open-mindedness,"<BR/><BR/>I never stated that I'm on a "quest for Christian open-mindedness." You must be thinking of someone else or yet again you're bearing false witness. You're on a tangent and simply making stuff up as you go along.<BR/><BR/>Matt continued:<BR/><BR/>"and in your crusade against theological rigidity,"<BR/><BR/>I'm not on any "crusade against theological rigidity," as I am staunchly committed to conservative, historic Reformed orthodoxy. As a Reformed and wholly Calvinist man and scholar I am wholly committed to Biblical doctrine. Indeed, it is my insistence on maintaining "theological rigidity" (i.e., Biblical orthodoxy) that I reject all man-made, arbitrary concepts like posting pictures that supposedly are examples of proper modesty when they are nothing more than subjective personal whims based upon cultural affinities -- period. <BR/><BR/>matt continued:<BR/><BR/>"Anabaptists<BR/>Baptists<BR/>Dispensationalists<BR/>Fundamentalists<BR/>Credobaptists<BR/>Reformed baptists<BR/>Premillenialists<BR/>Baptist polity"<BR/><BR/>Matt, you are bearing false witness and you are as such a liar. Not good. Ten Commandments ring a bell for you? I've never "taken out" the dispensationalists, the Reformed Baptists, the "premillenialists" (<I>I</I> referenced premillenial dispensationalists, <I>not</I> historic premillennialists -- a huge difference), the Baptists, etc. <BR/><BR/>I simply stated that to use the term <I>Reformed</I> in relation to any of those groups was technically not accurate. I clearly stated that "Calvinistic" would be more accurate as there is simply more to Reformed theology than soteriology. I <I>know</I> I wrote that as I just went over it.<BR/><BR/>I <I>did</I> write that the Anabaptists were largely not Christian -- they weren't! It was an heretical, radical movement that was not part of the Reformation proper -- you should read what Calvin had to say about the fanatics (his word) -- and all of the Reformers for that matter. Or any serious Church history.<BR/><BR/>Phil Johnson (of this blog) dubbed them the "lunatic fringe" of the Reformation at his <A HREF="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/anabapt.htm" REL="nofollow">Hall of Church History</A> web project.<BR/><BR/>And due note that Phil Johnson is <I>sympathetic</I> to the Anabaptists, yet he must concede the following points: "Anabaptists rejected the Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone. They denied the forensic nature of justification and insisted that the only ground on which sinners can be acceptable to God is a "real" righteousness wrought within the justified person."<BR/><BR/>So Matt, is rejecting <I>sola fide</I> a central issue or not? Can a group of professing Christians deny justification by faith alone and still remain in the pale of orthodoxy? The Anabaptists taught a works righteousness because they incorrectly thought justification by faith alone was antinomian (just like Rome). Are you considering the swim across the Tiber?<BR/><BR/>The Anabaptists refused obedience to the civil magistrate; many of them openly practiced adultery and bigamy and "open" marriage; many of them denied the Trinity; a number of their leaders claimed direct revelation of the Holy Spirit and no need of recourse to Scripture and sound Biblical exegesis; moreover, they practiced a form of socialism and may properly be deemed proto-communists.<BR/><BR/>The history, beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists were in far too many things vile and bizarre. In other words, "the lunatic fringe."<BR/><BR/>So, out of your list of 8 categories (it was redundant) you only got one correct in reference to anything <I>I wrote</I>. In all the others you are publicly bearing false witness against me and openly lying in your attempt to mock and belittle me. <BR/><BR/>All you've demonstrated is that you are without personal integrity and are ignorant of Church history, nothing more.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13519413708215739192007-05-17T20:34:00.000-07:002007-05-17T20:34:00.000-07:00Why has it become such a trendy thing to answer co...Why has it become such a trendy thing to answer concerns from people by alluding to the fact that they "didn't read the post" and now even the "comments"? Why don't we give an honest answer to the concerns EVEN IF THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN STATED SOMEWHERE? It used to be that the Pyro's would tell people to go read the post if the person was totally missing the entire point...now if someone disagrees there's like 30 people ordering the disagreer (ok sorry that's not a word) to go read the post.<BR/><BR/>That being said, Reformed, while I agree on some of what you said and while modesty is an idea that is not given specific rules in Scripture...you cannot deny that the concept of modesty manifests itself, usually, in physical, material ways (clothes, makeup or lack thereof etc.) Therefore people , like it or not, are going to, in their own context and culture-influenced ways, attempt to at least loosely define what modesty looks like (in the opinion of this blog, it doesn't look like the second picture.) <BR/><BR/>By attacking this, it sounds as if you are attacking the idea of modesty (which I know you're not.) The post is about not intentionally causing our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble. Perhaps it was not made, in your opinion, in the most humble, Scripturally based way. Is it worth it to attack this noble exhortation simply b/c it does not conform to your idea of modesty (speaking of allowing postmodernism to creep in)?lawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269079315500219992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16484794808768095442007-05-17T19:37:00.000-07:002007-05-17T19:37:00.000-07:00Matt continued:"Let me be as clear as I possibly c...<I>Matt continued:<BR/><BR/>"Let me be as clear as I possibly can - modesty as a prinicple is irrefutably biblical. The specific application of that principle will vary from one place to the next, or over time. This fact does not nullify that the modesty principle exists."<BR/><BR/>Mazal Tov! Matt, we're agreed. If you had actually read in context and in a thoughtful manner you could have realized that is exactly what I have consistently maintained. Teach the premise, don't put up culturally conditioned photos and say "this is good" and "this is bad." It's sophomoric and open to be blasted apart.</I><BR/><BR/>So we're agreed that modesy in the abstract is a biblical principle. Is there any way whatsoever to *apply* modesty in the real world? In other words, is it possible in 21st century North America to practice modesty at all? Or is "modesty" something that we profess with our mouth and do nothing about? I'm still not following your logic. My understanding of what you're saying is that we should believe in modesty in the abstract, but any concrete *practice* of modesty is legalistic, fundamentalist, intellectually shallow and dishonest, arbitrary, etc. Please tell me how you solve this dilema.<BR/><BR/>Reformedhero then wrote in a later post:<BR/><BR/><I>Baptistic doctrine is rooted in the Anabaptists, and they were not Reformed at all, and indeed, were mostly not even Christian.</I><BR/><BR/>and in the very same post:<BR/><BR/><I>However, it is also a psycho-social movement. The frequent holier-than-thou attitude, a very insular attitude, <B>the calling into question the salvation of those with whom you can't understand or interact with on an intellectual level</B>, the malicious attack of character, the setting up of extra-Biblical rules as somehow being Biblical, these are likewise typical of the social traits of American Fundamentism.</I><BR/><BR/>Some things don't need to be refuted, merely shown! The irony is much too rich!<BR/><BR/>Let me get this straight, Reformedhero, in your quest for Christian open-mindedness, and in your crusade against theological rigidity, you've taken out:<BR/><BR/>Anabaptists<BR/>Baptists<BR/>Dispensationalists<BR/>Fundamentalists<BR/>Credobaptists<BR/>Reformed baptists<BR/>Premillenialists<BR/>Baptist polity<BR/><BR/>How many people are thinking Christians other than yourself? Your plea against rigidity has been crushed in by its own weight.<BR/><BR/>Back to the original topic - is there any way to *practice* what we believe without being legalistic? Or is Christianity just about intellectual assent without a change of life?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10350390523818046990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9011209125205783002007-05-17T19:16:00.000-07:002007-05-17T19:16:00.000-07:00Reformed Hero, what I wrote earlier today—as...Reformed Hero, what I wrote earlier today—asking if you had been baptized in the Holy Spirit—was a stupid and sanctimonious thing to write. I'm sorry for my presumptuousness, and the judgemental nature of my comments. Furthermore, what I wrote are my words and mine alone; please do not hold them against anyone else on this blog. And please consider my last comment (just after Tom Chantry's) for what it is: a genuine attempt to understand your argument.<BR/><BR/>I'm no less blown away, though, by the slash-and-burn critique you've unleashed on this blog, and in light of your more recent comments regarding Reformed theology, I'm left wondering if you commented here at all, simply for the sake of picking on Reformed Baptists (which not all of us are, to boot—nor are all the folks on this blog Dispensationalists).Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-62975104081774646242007-05-17T19:00:00.000-07:002007-05-17T19:00:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83588309411350209562007-05-17T18:58:00.000-07:002007-05-17T18:58:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41689418577524058052007-05-17T15:55:00.000-07:002007-05-17T15:55:00.000-07:00After finally reading through all the posts and th...After finally reading through all the posts and the comments I feel ready to say a couple things. <BR/><BR/>RH said "What would you do, show them before and after pics of Miss Ryan?"<BR/><BR/>I think it was clear from the post that the author was not trying to set a standard of modest and immodest, but to show how certain forms of dress bring more or less attention to parts of the body that tend to be the major objects of lust in this American culture. He has admitted over and over that there are some cultural differences, but the point of the post was to encourage dress that is sensitive to framing the parts of your body that tend to cause lust, not setting a legalistic standard.<BR/><BR/>Something else that came to mind when the "naked Africans" argument came up was the idea that Adam and Eve were naked and were ashamed. Then God Himself covered them with animal skins (I am sure he used a larger animal like a lamb and not a couple of squirrels for covering either) ;). Just because some cultures think it is okay to be naked, doesn't excuse Christians in that culture from trying to cover up as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>Please let me know if I haven't offered anything intelligent to this conversation and I will discontinue my posts. God bless.Adam Pohlmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15210485721737132675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33601152571137175072007-05-17T15:33:00.000-07:002007-05-17T15:33:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75999500021538683202007-05-17T15:20:00.000-07:002007-05-17T15:20:00.000-07:00Tom wrote:"OK, I'm going to say this and be done w...Tom wrote:<BR/><BR/>"OK, I'm going to say this and be done with this thread. I meet some but not all of your definition of "Reformed."<BR/><BR/>Tom, it's not <I>my</I> definition of Reformed (not quotes, as it is a real theological term that represents a quite well-defined branch of the Christian church). That is post-modernist infection creeping in on you.<BR/><BR/>Reformed and covenant theology are synonymous. As R. Scott Clark (D.Phil., Oxford University), professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, CA) succinctly put it:<BR/><BR/>"Covenant or federal theology is so of the essence of Reformed theology that to revise its covenant theology is to revise the substance of Reformed theology. <BR/>Classical Reformed theology teaches three covenants: the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), the covenant of works (foedus operum) and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). <I><A HREF="http://www.wscal.edu/clark/thesestheologicae.php" REL="nofollow">Theses Theologicae</I></A><BR/> <BR/>Tom added:<BR/><BR/>"But I pray God will preserve me from ever adopting any position, theological or otherwise, which requires me to incessantly denigrate the intelligence of anyone who differs with me"<BR/><BR/>I truly appreciate those words, as I have suffered a great deal of abuse here, from misrepresenting my position, to character attacks, to low-level mocking (like you did to me), to outright denying my salvation! I'm glad you are coming around to what you and others have done.<BR/><BR/>God bless.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22676977888654114972007-05-17T15:19:00.000-07:002007-05-17T15:19:00.000-07:00Okay, I'm just going to try to understand your arg...Okay, I'm just going to try to understand your argument, Reformed Hero. No confrontation, no subterfuge, no desire to draw out. I'm just curious, and hoping for some semblance of reconciliation.<BR/><BR/>Are you saying, when all is said and done, that you agree with everyone else here; that your only disagreement fundamentally (so to speak) is that people know how to dress modestly, so if they don't do so, it's because they choose not to do so, and it's not anyone's place tell others what modest dress means as if they don't know?<BR/><BR/>If so, couldn't you just have made that clearer in the first place? That would have been a legitimate point of argument, and this whole confrontation could have been avoided.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74140136385446674642007-05-17T14:59:00.000-07:002007-05-17T14:59:00.000-07:00the calling into question the salvation of those w...<I>the calling into question the salvation of those with whom you can't understand or interact with on an intellectual level</I><BR/><BR/>OK, I'm going to say this and be done with this thread. I meet some but not all of your definition of "Reformed." That doesn't bother me. And I don't see any reason to question your salvation. But I pray God will preserve me from ever adopting <I>any</I> position, theological or otherwise, which requires me to incessantly denigrate the intelligence of anyone who differs with me. <BR/><BR/>May God teach us humility.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56001362498982196542007-05-17T14:56:00.000-07:002007-05-17T14:56:00.000-07:00Daryl wrote:"rh..."adults know how to dress modest...Daryl wrote:<BR/><BR/>"rh..."adults know how to dress modestly"...if that's true, then way too many are just ignoring what they know and putting themselves on display on purpose...even in the church."<BR/><BR/>I agree completely. I must add that, and I am not attempting to read hearts, but from my experience <I>many</I> people that attend church on a regular basis are simply religious. I do not detect any concern for or knowledge of doctrine and this spills over into their conduct. They are malicious, bearers of false witness, liars, abusive, and full of self-glory. They mix and dabble with all sorts of notions and parade it around as Biblical; they are immersed in post-modernism; they mix New Age tendencies and humanist practices and pretend it's Christian. So the attire problem is no surprise and is the least of their problems.<BR/><BR/>Adults -- non-Christian adults -- know how to dress modestly (devout Muslim women, for example), <I>if they want to dress modestly</I>.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73661898689895665322007-05-17T14:52:00.000-07:002007-05-17T14:52:00.000-07:00Daryl wrote:"In any case, it just occurred to me t...Daryl wrote:<BR/><BR/>"In any case, it just occurred to me that reformedhero (who is probably no more reformed than many if not most of the others around here...)"<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm confessional and subscribe completely to the Westminster Confession of Faith. I am completely Reformed and covenantal in my theology without any qualifications. Maybe you're not using the term in its normal, historic theological definition?<BR/><BR/>It is likely, from what I have read from throughout this blog, that most here are not Reformed but simply Calvinistic. There is a difference. There is more to Reformed theology than Soteriology. <BR/><BR/>In short, one cannot be a dispensationalist and Reformed; it is simple confusion. Can one be a "Reformed Baptist"....well, no, though I know that name has stuck. Baptistic doctrine is rooted in the Anabaptists, and they were not Reformed at all, and indeed, were mostly not even Christian. Moreover, Reformed theology <I>is</I> Covenant theology, so, again, that rules out Baptists and dispensationalists. Though, happily, some of these folks do hold to some of the truths contained in Reformed theology. <BR/><BR/>I know they don't want to have their "Reformed" title questioned, but it is nonetheless the truth. So, a dispensationalist, baptistic person that claims to be Reformed is a real misuse of terminology. They should just say they are (somewhat) Calvinistic in their soteriology.<BR/><BR/>Daryl added:<BR/><BR/>"(By the way, "Fundamentalist??" who is that supposed to be describing??)"<BR/><BR/>Many of the persons chiming in on the thread, the author of the piece. If I'm not mistaken, MacArthur's non-denominational church belongs to the IFCA denomination. The Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America. It is typified doctrinally by dispensationalism, baptistic polity and an emphasis upon things that are novel as if they were historic orthodoxy (premillennial dispensationalism, for example).<BR/><BR/>However, it is also a psycho-social movement. The frequent holier-than-thou attitude, a very insular attitude, the calling into question the salvation of those with whom you can't understand or interact with on an intellectual level, the malicious attack of character, the setting up of extra-Biblical rules as somehow being Biblical, these are likewise typical of the social traits of American Fundamentism.Reformed Herohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06690076775280838152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25241475955664902892007-05-17T14:15:00.000-07:002007-05-17T14:15:00.000-07:00oh sorry, one more thing...rh..."adults know how t...oh sorry, one more thing...<BR/><BR/>rh..."adults know how to dress modestly"...if that's true, then way too many are just ignoring what they know and putting themselves on display on purpose...even in the church.Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17617313792473662792007-05-17T14:13:00.000-07:002007-05-17T14:13:00.000-07:00I'm tired...this whole thing if out of control...I...I'm tired...this whole thing if out of control...<BR/><BR/>In any case, it just occurred to me that reformedhero (who is probably no more reformed than many if not most of the others around here...) seems to have missed the point of the pictures way back at the beginning of all this.<BR/>Perhaps I missed it but it sure seemed to me that in his blog Cent was saying "be modest, be kind in your dress and for those who claim that you you can't identify modesty, here's a photo...have a look...now try and tell me that you can't identify which is modest and which is not" Seems like he anticipated the very objections that Art and reformedhero would come up with and posted a couple of photos to prove a point.<BR/><BR/>I admit my tone towards reformedhere has been at bit edgy, I'm sorry but this is getting silly. The original blog was clear.<BR/><BR/>(By the way, "Fundamentalist??" who is that supposed to be describing??)Darylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296029404229769941noreply@blogger.com