tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8816084930164086570..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Perseverance of the SaintsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-85703521487670553502012-04-20T04:16:04.881-07:002012-04-20T04:16:04.881-07:00What would you make of this statement?;
"We ...What would you make of this statement?;<br /><br />"We persevere in faith and its fruits because we have new hearts that are in union with Christ and preserved by God for us. But we are eternally secure on the basis we were justified - which is not on the basis of a new heart, works,fruits, or foresight of them - including faith. God justifies the *un*godly with a righteousness wholly outside of them, brought to them upon faith."Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28963593312298002562010-12-20T08:37:59.773-08:002010-12-20T08:37:59.773-08:00Why are we still baiting the atheist troll who doe...Why are we still baiting the atheist troll who doesn't know how the <br />"No True Scotsman" fallacy works nor how epistemological relativism works?<br /><br />Give it up, people. The man is unteachable quicksand. Get out while you still can.Halcyonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12264274336322086961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70893552210639545542010-12-19T19:49:40.052-08:002010-12-19T19:49:40.052-08:00'Using that standard of evidence (that ignores...'Using that standard of evidence (that ignores years of first, second, and third hand accounts of behavior and belief) then it cannot be claimed by anyone, ever, at any time that anyone is a "true Christian." '<br /><br />I am not sure what accounts of Barkers genuineness you have seen me sluff off. But with regard to Barker's own profession of faith, I have heard it, and I would counsel anyone with a similar profession to take pains to examine why they had come to Jesus, because the reasons he gave are wholly insufficient and not representative of a genuine heart felt conversion. <br /><br />'So which is it? Either the ridiculously high standard of evidence or the talk about "true Christians" has to go.'<br /><br />If you want to get down to the brass tax of standards by which we should examine ourselves then I don't think they need be ridiculously high at all. <br /><br />IOD, would you consider yourself to be a former Christian, if so, why did you come to Jesus in the first place? If your conversion experience was anything like mine then I can tell you exactly why your were set up to leave the faith.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67285206539311216032010-12-19T17:09:33.480-08:002010-12-19T17:09:33.480-08:00How do you go from my statement that hermeneutics ...<i>How do you go from my statement that hermeneutics are a wildly divergent and subjective arena (as is evidenced by the myriad of Christian denominations and sects) to saying I endorse full blown epistemic relativism?</i><br /><br />Well, because I've given you at least 3 different passages and statements made by the apostles or Christ himself, that state that a Christian is "one who remains to the end," OR "they went out from us because they were not of us, for if they were of us they would not have gone out."<br /><br />The response that I hear is that well it all just depends on your hermeneutic, I don't know that you're given to full blown epistemic relativism, but at least as it relates to the Bible you seem far enough along that if the Bible says "A Christian is someone who endures to the end." You tell me "These aren't the words you're looking for." I go ... Okay.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7216795080142745652010-12-19T15:49:51.445-08:002010-12-19T15:49:51.445-08:00Gov 98,
How do you go from my statement that herm...Gov 98,<br /><br />How do you go from my statement that hermeneutics are a wildly divergent and subjective arena (as is evidenced by the myriad of Christian denominations and sects) to saying I endorse full blown epistemic relativism?InTheImageOfDNAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012071268444128871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15305641960281947102010-12-19T14:58:47.736-08:002010-12-19T14:58:47.736-08:00But that is only one way that it is defined-- usua...<i>But that is only one way that it is defined-- usually by conservative Protestants. Christians define who is and what constitutes a Christian. That’s the thing DJP, the “Bible” can be used to give the above definition of Christian as much as it can for most others—it all depends on your hermeneutical framework. Of course, you’ve collapsed your own hermeneutics into what constitutes “biblical” for you so as to think there is some sort of objectivity to it, but that’s my point.</i><br /><br />I get that postmodern and its anything can fit with any hermeneutical framework sounds cool and all, but we know, WE Know...that it just sounds cool, but its Not true. The problem is, that speaking of logical fallacies like No True Scotsman necessarily accepts as true, a genuine meaning of words and language, if we didn't you could NOT accuse anyone of committing any logical fallacy because there would be no basis of which to accuse, you don't know if the words that I use just happen to mean exactly what I say they mean.<br /><br />BUT the Bible already addresses this point, in 2 Corinthians 4 "the truth commends itself to every person's conscience." When you say "Christians define what Christians are." You state something that is an impossibility, because only something greater can define the lesser, a group of people who claim to be Christians do not make them so, nor do they make anyone else so because the Universalist Church (or any other Catholic etc.) proclaims it so. Either the Bible defines it or it doesn't. IF Christ claims that believers are those that endure, then it should be clear that true believes are those who endure. But if I call myself the President of the United States, I don't make it happen unless the People make it happen (or more accurately the Electoral College), nor does it matter if a group of people calling themselves the Presidents of the United States proclaiming them as such it would make no difference, the greater defines the lesser. Christ is the one who calls people true or not, and he has told us some definitional requirements. Now maybe you would deny that Christ is greater, I understand that you would, but that is to disagree about presuppositions, not to commit a logical fallacy.<br /><br />"Remember then what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent." Rev. 3:3a.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91917983165720280562010-12-19T14:49:24.029-08:002010-12-19T14:49:24.029-08:00Johnny Dialectic:
So in other words, just so I do...Johnny Dialectic:<br /><br />So in other words, just so I do not misunderstand you, it's all on us to persevere? I'm just trying to get a handle on your position...Douglas Kofi Adu-Boahenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13111110757315994466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31138897944304777362010-12-19T14:42:31.690-08:002010-12-19T14:42:31.690-08:00So, someone who claims to be a believer, yet denie...So, someone who claims to be a believer, yet denies the atonement, vis a vis, the perfection of the blood of Christ, Hebrews 10, can just kiss Hebrews off, because it wasn't addressed to them? Does it make much sense that Hebrews 7 tells us that Christ makes our salvation perfect through his intercession and not our own if as some say we can do something to lose it? What good is the blood of his intercession if it requires a sacrifice by us?<br /><br />I guess if anyone wants to so narrowly define the audience, then any portion of the Scripture can be used to negate the general application evident in it. In that case, since all the OT/NT is primarily addressed to believers, that is they are given for rebuke, reproof, training in righteousness, our admonition, and not to outsiders, we should say there is no benefit to them? Then too, if we are too exclude audiences other than the primary one, then when Paul addresses Timothy, we are to say that the Scripture is only able to make him wise for salvation, but no one else? And, if that is not generally applicable to believers, it surely is not applicable to non-believers. Or, is it the case that the Word is binding on all believers and non-believers alike, as Jesus said about his words being the Judge in the last day? <br /><br />Such that it is, Hebrews instructs both to repent and believe. I still am amazed that so called Christians would believe that the blood of Christ is a common thing that cannot save perfectly and still claim a right to it. And I have to ask along with the writer to the Hebrews, with what will they be sanctified seeing that they have rejected so great a salvation?Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64571240531002595752010-12-19T14:35:24.635-08:002010-12-19T14:35:24.635-08:00sikis izle
sikis izle
erotik resim
sapık
salak vid...<a href="http://www.citirkizlar.org" rel="nofollow" title="sikiş izle">sikis izle</a><br /><a href="http://www.lotila.com" rel="nofollow" title="sikiş izle">sikis izle</a><br /><a href="http://www.erotikresim.org" rel="nofollow" title="erotik resim">erotik resim</a><br /><a href="http://www.sapik.tv" rel="nofollow" title="sapık">sapık</a><br /><a href="http://www.malessegi.com" rel="nofollow" title="salak videolar">salak videolar</a><br /><a href="http://www.erotikresim.org" rel="nofollow" title="ünlülerin resimleri">ünlülerin resimleri</a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05784020055314979189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26307560643903254202010-12-19T14:30:24.957-08:002010-12-19T14:30:24.957-08:00DJP,
The reason I hadn’t responded to you before ...DJP,<br /><br />The reason I hadn’t responded to you before is demonstrated by that juvenile ultimatum you just gave. <br /><br />But anyway, to answer: What is a Christian?<br /><br />John 3:16 “whoever believeth” is a good place to start. Acceptance of “Christ’s gift” such as referred to in Titus 3:5 is another. John 3:3-8, Ephesians 2:5-8, etc ad nauseum. I would say that sincere acceptance of those things -- “personal relationship with Jesus” --and all that jazz together with behavior consistent with the beliefs makes for a “Christian”. During the time these conditions are met, one is indeed a "Christian". <br /> <br />But that is only one way that it is defined-- usually by conservative Protestants. Christians define who is and what constitutes a Christian. That’s the thing DJP, the “Bible” can be used to give the above definition of Christian as much as it can for most others—it all depends on your hermeneutical framework. Of course, you’ve collapsed your own hermeneutics into what constitutes “biblical” for you so as to think there is some sort of objectivity to it, but that’s my point.<br /> <br />There was quite the interesting study recently that showed that “god” has opinions that mirror that of the individual believer—and god even changed his mind when the subjects changed their minds! It is not a large step to see that the same goes for defining “Christian”. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/01/0908374106.abstract<br /><br />Given this, why should I care about you, or anyone else committing the No True Scotsman fallacy in this arena? It is to point out the utter inconsistency, ad hoc nature, and self-serving aspects of the entire enterprise of defining "true believers".InTheImageOfDNAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012071268444128871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30307975526183866892010-12-19T14:12:26.963-08:002010-12-19T14:12:26.963-08:00JD
So, when Jesus addressed His disciples, which ...JD<br /><br />So, when Jesus addressed His disciples, which included Judas, He wasn't really speaking to Judas?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44915436600063805642010-12-19T13:11:40.433-08:002010-12-19T13:11:40.433-08:00Donsands, no, I don't think the Book of Hebrew...Donsands, no, I don't think the Book of Hebrews is addressed to Judas Iscariot or the "non-elect." It is very clearly addressed to believers only.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47254509344293850882010-12-19T13:10:43.553-08:002010-12-19T13:10:43.553-08:00Douglas, there is no such phrase as "persever...Douglas, there is no such phrase as "perseverance of the saints" in the Bible. "Perseverance" is there, of course, and we find, e.g.<br /><br />Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Tim. 4:16)<br /><br />YOU need to persevere... (Heb. 10:36)<br /><br />IOW, it's something we are commanded to do. <br /><br />I don't see any basis for bootstrapping in the eternal security doctrine into those basic commands. (I.e., God will make sure the elect persevere, etc.)James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-27151429521299145842010-12-19T12:58:10.630-08:002010-12-19T12:58:10.630-08:00Image of DNA — your next published comment that wi...<b>Image of DNA</b> — your next published comment that will not be deleted will be the answer to my question. Here it is a second time:<br /><br />So how does the Bible define a Christian, IOD? Please be thorough, and please do your own work, rather than copy and paste what someone else has said.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25978740729870670032010-12-19T12:37:46.082-08:002010-12-19T12:37:46.082-08:00Would it help, if you saw that Christ himself said...Would it help, if you saw that Christ himself said that endurance is a fundamental test of genuine faith?<br /><br /> “You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."<br /><br />Matthew 10:22Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39459586018360098662010-12-19T12:32:10.469-08:002010-12-19T12:32:10.469-08:00It is more akin to Barker being granted official S...<i>It is more akin to Barker being granted official Scottish citizenship when he became a Christian and now that he has renounced his citizenship you are going back and trying to whitewash history by saying that he was never really a citizen when there is verifiable evidence to the contrary.</i><br /><br />Um okay you find me the passage in the Bible that says once someone makes any claim to be a Christian they are a True Christian, then you are right. <br /><br />On the other hand if you actually see in Scripture that many will say "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy, cast out demons, do wondrous miracles," and Christ will respond "Depart from me ye evildoers for I never knew you," then maybe you should consider (possibly) that I am right.<br /><br />I do not think any local church can grant any person genuine saving faith, it does not happen, instead God grants genuine saving faith. There is no doubt in Heaven as to who is genuinely saved and who is not, there is only uncertainty here on Earth.<br /><br />A person who departs from the faith was never genuinely saved to begin with, it was something else. If I buy a tree from home depot and it says "Apple" I am going to believe it's an Apple Tree for a long time, but if the tree bears Figs, I'm going to realize that I (and Home Depot) were wrong. (Home Depot being for this example the local church). I'm not going to tell the tree "You had an apple tag on you once" and expect that to change a thing. Why? Because I'm not idiot.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81978035837156377582010-12-19T12:04:51.555-08:002010-12-19T12:04:51.555-08:00Joel,
Using that standard of evidence (that igno...Joel, <br /><br />Using that standard of evidence (that ignores years of first, second, and third hand accounts of behavior and belief) then it cannot be claimed by anyone, ever, at any time that anyone is a "true Christian." That is, until you get into Heaven and are high-fiving around the celestial water-cooler. Now if you want to use this standard of evidence that is perfectly fine with me; however it renders any talk or speculation on earth about what constitutes a "true Christian" incoherent drivel. <br /><br />So which is it? Either the ridiculously high standard of evidence or the talk about "true Christians" has to go.InTheImageOfDNAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012071268444128871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61811267039443371812010-12-19T10:27:46.399-08:002010-12-19T10:27:46.399-08:00Once again IOD offers only contradiction and now a...Once again IOD offers only contradiction and now argument. What specific evidence was there that Barker was ever a true believer? Give and example please.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24332657874148478832010-12-19T09:47:38.422-08:002010-12-19T09:47:38.422-08:00Gov98,
Your analogy doesn't fit.
It is more ...Gov98,<br /><br />Your analogy doesn't fit.<br /><br />It is more akin to Barker being granted official Scottish citizenship when he became a Christian and now that he has renounced his citizenship you are going back and trying to whitewash history by saying that he was never <i>really</i> a citizen when there is verifiable evidence to the contrary.InTheImageOfDNAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012071268444128871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1947538796138490482010-12-19T07:30:42.896-08:002010-12-19T07:30:42.896-08:00Oh and great post, sir! :-)Oh and great post, sir! :-)Douglas Kofi Adu-Boahenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13111110757315994466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76589042318931517442010-12-19T07:29:08.342-08:002010-12-19T07:29:08.342-08:00Johnny Dialectic:
Just so we're clearly defi...Johnny Dialectic: <br /><br />Just so we're clearly defining terms, what does the term "perseverance of the saints" mean in your thinking?<br /><br />As someone who spent the majority of my early years as a believer holding to a similar position to yourself, I'd really like to get into it with you but I believe it is helpful for us to define our terms.Douglas Kofi Adu-Boahenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13111110757315994466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16565832686432183692010-12-18T18:10:52.672-08:002010-12-18T18:10:52.672-08:00This type of reasoning about "true Christian&...<i>This type of reasoning about "true Christian" or "true faith" is always applied retroactively and allows you to always accommodate disconfirming information. <br /><br />Dan Barker would have been considered a Christian when he was in the pulpit by you and anyone else and himself. But now that he's an atheist (or doesn't like Haggis to parallel the example) you modify that judgment to preserve this goofy ideal of the "true Christian".</i><br /><br />Right, because if you told me you were scottish because you were born in Scotland I would believe you because I don't really have any reason to disbelieve you. On the other hand, if you told me you were Scottish because you were born in Scotland and your mom said you were born in Queens and I pulled the public document attesting to your birth in the State of New York I'd think you were delusional or worse.<br /><br />The principle of which you speak is basic common decency, if someone claims to be a Christian, I don't examine them, because...they are to examine themselves to see if they be in the faith. If they engage in public sin, they are to be disciplined by the church, but I don't have some magic genuine saving faith decoder ring, (other than reading the book of James and I John), for such things like genuine love of the church, a love for God and his Word, and patient endurance in faith. Then if those things are not present, yes I get skeptical especially if someone disclaims their presence. <br /><br />Genuine Saving Faith is revealed by one's actions, like claiming to be an atheist and leaving the church would be pretty strong indications they were never genuinely saved to begin with. I John 2:19.Gov98https://www.blogger.com/profile/08591233575630981982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91647598889205308992010-12-18T17:28:01.241-08:002010-12-18T17:28:01.241-08:00Dan or Phil:
In John 10, Jesus said (my paraphras...Dan or Phil:<br /><br />In John 10, Jesus said (my paraphrase) "...they shall never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of My hand."<br /><br />If memory serves, "Perish" is middle voice. And if this be so, wouldn't be correctly rendered "destroy themselves"? <br /><br />Double "security" if you will. The true believer will not be taken from the Lord's hand but also will not lead themselves to ultimate destruction....? <br /><br />Just a question. Let me know!Tim Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06771868540726222826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20646309733301138242010-12-18T17:05:40.301-08:002010-12-18T17:05:40.301-08:00So how does the Bible define a Christian, IOD? Ple...So how does the Bible define a Christian, IOD? Please be thorough, and please do your own work, rather than copy and paste what someone else has said.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66725006878673345142010-12-18T17:00:45.289-08:002010-12-18T17:00:45.289-08:00Gov98,
This type of reasoning about "true Ch...Gov98,<br /><br />This type of reasoning about "true Christian" or "true faith" is always applied retroactively and allows you to always accommodate disconfirming information. <br /><br />Dan Barker would have been considered a Christian when he was in the pulpit by you and anyone else and himself. But now that he's an atheist (or doesn't like Haggis to parallel the example) you modify that judgment to preserve this goofy ideal of the "true Christian".InTheImageOfDNAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12012071268444128871noreply@blogger.com