Cynic

I don't know what to say. So sorry, Kit.

The following comments on the progressive nature of the biblical revelation of God as tri-personal is from “The Trinity,” by Loraine Boettner.

See: http://www.jude3.net/boettner_trinity.htm

In regard to all of the great doctrines of the Bible we find that revelation has been progressive. What is only intimated at first is set forth clearly and fully as time goes on. The obscure hint in the Old Testament is found to coincide perfectly with the fuller revelations in the New . . .

"The Old Testament," says Dr. Warfield, "may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged" . . .

In the very first chapter of Genesis, as well as in many other places, we find that the names of God are in the plural, Elohim, also Adonai; and with these plural forms of the divine name singular verbs and adjectives are usually joined,-a remarkable phenomenon in view of the fact that the Hebrew language also contained the singular term El, meaning God. Along with the plural name, God sometimes uses plural pronouns in referring to Himself: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26, 27) ; "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (spoken of Adam after the fall) (Gen. 3:22) ; "Come, let us go down, and there confound their language" (at the tower of Babel) (Gen. 11:7) ; "And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" (Isa. 6:8). In these verses we have counsel within the Trinity, God speaking with Himself. He is not taking counsel with, nor asking advice of, the angels, as some have suggested; for the angels are not His counsellors [sic], but His servants, and, like man, infinitely below Him in knowledge. In the Divine nature itself, the Bible teaches us, is to be found that plurality of personal powers which polytheism separated and sought to worship in isolation.

The following is from Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, by Geerhardus Vos (page 356, 2000 edition). Scripture references are, of course, from the Gospel of John.

The Logos is ‘the true light’, that embodiment of the quality of light of which all other lights in the world are but copies and derivatives [1.9]. On the same principle Jesus calls himself ‘the true bread’, ‘the true vine’, [6:32, 33; 15.1]. The adjective that is used in such statements is not the ordinary form alethes, but the stronger form alethinos. One might say that the entire supernal sphere is made up of ‘alethinities’. The objectivity of the concept becomes most apparent by observing that this heavenly truth is, as it were, condensed, incorporated in the heavenly Logos: He is the truth, not, of course, because He is veracious and reliable, but simply, because He has the reality of heaven in Himself. Almost a definition of the idea in this sense is found in connection with ‘the true bread’ [6:32, 33]: ‘My Father gives you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is He which comes down from heaven and gives life unto the world’. Even to God himself can the predicate alethinos be applied [17.3]. He is the only God having the reality of the essential Godhead in himself.

“The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus. If a drunkard, he may abstain from drink for utilitarian purposes, but he cannot do it out of love for God. All of his common virtues or good works have a fatal defect in that his motives which prompt them are not to glorify God, — a defect so vital that it throws any element of goodness as to man wholly into the shade. It matters not how good the works may be in themselves, for so long as the doer of them is out of harmony with God, none of his works are spiritually acceptable. Furthermore, the good works of the unregenerate have no stable foundation, for his nature is still unchanged; and as naturally and as certainly as the washed sow returns to her wallowing in the mire, so he sooner or later returns to his evil ways.”

Loraine Boettner, Total Depravity

( http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html )

The following is a quotation from a work by John Owen called, Vindiciae Evangelicae; Or, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined. John Owen has been given the moniker by some of the “Hammer of the Socinians” for his successful critique of and opposition to Socinian dogma that had then risen on its hind legs in England. Owens's arguments seem to ring as loudly in their content today against the teachings of Wierwille, TWI spinoffs, and Anthony Buzzard as they did against those errant teachings that denied Christ's deity in Owens's day.

1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance) doth no way

prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son. Where Christ,

as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or God, spoken

personally of the Father, it argues not in the least that he is not partaker of

the same nature with him. That in one essence there can be but one person

may be true where the substance is finite and limited, but hath no place in

that which is infinite.

2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office in Christ doth not in the

least take away equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature

and essence. A son of the same nature with his father, and therein equal

to him, may in office be his inferior, his subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ as mediator to any dignity

whatever, upon or in reference to the work of our redemption and

salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential [axia (value}], honor, dignity,

and worth, which he hath in himself as “God blessed for ever.” Though he

humbled himself and was exalted, yet in nature he was one and the same,

he changed not.

4. The Scripture’s asserting the humanity of Christ with the concernments

thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby deny his deity,

than, by asserting his deity, with the essential properties thereof, eternity,

omniscience, and the like, it denies his humanity.

“Every sin is an act of cosmic treason, a futile attempt to dethrone God in his sovereign authority.” -- R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

Happy Birthday, Shellon!!!

ClayJay, Sunesis,

Did you make it into the threads that were moved?

George,

You should have behaved; it could have been six days.

Actually, it seems that GSC is now being hosted on a different server, and it took time for the changed location of the domain name to “propagate” over the internet. My ISP apparently incorporated the change this afternoon, though I managed to get to the forum a little sooner using anonymouse.org .

Let’s try a few things before getting around to considering nefarious possibilities.

I’m no geek, but I once had problems for several weeks accessing the main page of a major search engine. The problem turned out to be in my router, and was corrected after I merely unplugged the thing for about 10 seconds, then plugged it back in.

If that fails in your case, you might try using a different browser (e.g. IE instead of Firefox, Firefox instead of IE).

If you want to cut right to the chase, try a different computer with a different internet connection.

Let us know how it turns out.

I was able to access the four moved topics that appear on the first page of the open forum when I was logged in to GSC, but could not access them when I was logged out.

Hey, O’Malley. LTNS. Nice to see you posting.

Amen!

Cynic,

You had a post deleted for a personal attack, NOT because you were promoting your website. You have insinuated otherwise

Pawtucket,

I did not respond to your comment two years ago, because it seemed to me at the time to do so might lead rather quickly to the deletion of this thread. Responding to your post, however, was never so much a question of will I or won’t I as it was question of when.

I did NOT insinuate I had any post deleted because I was promoting a website at GSC. I indicated in my post that my then-recent inclusion of my website’s URL in my signature line and under my avatar was a precautionary action I was taking due to my possible suspension from GSC. A thoughtful reader should have inferred that my announcement of my website followed (rather than preceded) some situation that existed between one or more GSC moderators and me.

For everyone's information, the situation was that Modgellan had issued me my "one warning that casting aspersions on a moderator WILL result in suspension of your posting privileges," after I had quipped that a moderator who had deleted an exchange I had with Rocky and Garth in the Politics forum was a "functionally codependent moderator."

I am on Facebook as Mark C. Bowles.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Mark-C-Bowles/100000206097815

I am so mad I can't see strait. You tell me if you think this is ethical.

My pastor wants to start an adult/elder day care so that we can become all the seniors best friend. The reason he wants to do this is so that they will put the church in their will. This is a reirment area with lots of seniors who are ignored by their children or who have no children.

He also feels that the youth don't need money spent on them because tha church will never get it back.

I loathe church gimmicks, but this is one of the more squalid of them. The pastor should read the four gospels.

I hope I would be out of there, but am aware I have stayed put in places longer than I should have.

I just saw this, and am shocked.

Sorry, Dooj.

About the most recent "Sower"

"Our Contender article, “Should Women be Silent in the Church?” by John Schoenheit demonstrates through examination of the textual and cultural evidence that women’s silence is not God’s will. As John says, “The weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35, which says women should be silent and not speak in the church, was not part of the original God-breathed Word, but was written by a copyist who had strong feelings about women’s participation in Christian meetings.”....

Here is a link to a response Richard Gaffin made to a piece by another theologian concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34:

http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=447

The piece to which Gaffin was responding:

http://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=440

Due to viewing 1 Cor. 14:34 contextually in a way that does not prohibit women from engaging in any manner of uninspired speech (including uninspired prayer) in the churches, Gaffin's suggestion (i.e. that the prohibition might be against women participating in authoritative evaluations of prophecy) makes for a more plausible position than his opponent's.

Darby NEVER taught of a "pre-tribulation rapture."

I am utterly unfamiliar with Darby’s works, but the following seems to indicate Darby DID (at some time, at least) promote the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture of the church.

[ From http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/PROPHET/11007E.html - bolding mine]

In Revelation 12: 10-12, it is said, "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea!" Now I do not take this as the rapture, because I believe it had taken place before, and is pointed out in the timeless rapture of the man-child, for the church is one with Christ, and shall rule the nations as He. But I find a positive revelation, that three years and a half before the close (that is the last half-week of Daniel), Satan is cast down, the accuser of the brethren is no longer in heaven, the triumph of those accused is come - their trial passed; they had been in trial and conflict, and had overcome, and conflict is ended for dwellers in heaven. It begins, and with great wrath of Satan, for the inhabiters of earth. There had been persecution, there had been death. For one class it had now ceased, and for another it was just going to begin. And note, this is exactly the epoch spoken of by Daniel, which the Lord refers to as the tribulation such as never was since there was a nation; nor have I the smallest doubt that the woman represents the Jews.

See also:

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/PROPHET/11006E.html

****

Steve,

The concept that post-lapsarian humans born by natural generation are afflicted with an indwelling, inescapble proclivity and bondange to sin is certainly scriptural. Pelagians, Faustus Socinus and Christadelphians denied/deny this (the denial fits well with the mere-man Christology of the latter two).

mpt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"

Apparently, Socinians attempted to affirm the reality of sin while denying original sin.

Here is one description of Socinian views about human sin nature and original sin I found at http://www.swordofthespiritbibleministries.com/RJSonnet/RJSonnetNOTES/RJS Notes DS1 Doctrine of SIN_Part1.pdf :

Finally, the Socinian doctrine is stated in the Racovian Catechism, p.

294:

And the fall of Adam, since it was one act, could not have had the

power of corrupting the nature of Adam himself, much less that of his

posterity. We do not deny, however, that from the constant habit of

sinning the nature of man has become infected with a certain fall and

excessive proclivity to sinning. But we deny that this is per se sin, or

of that nature.

While I find that statement incoherent, it seems at first glance to be a possible attempt to affirm the reality and presence of sin, while denying that the progeny of Adam (by natural generation) stand guilty before God due to Adam's sin, and are necessarily sinful in their own selves because of an inherited (post-lapsarian) Adamic human nature.

*****

Post-lapsarian = after the Fall

Steve,

The concept that post-lapsarian humans born by natural generation are afflicted with an indwelling, inescapble proclivity and bondange to sin is certainly scriptural. Pelagians, Faustus Socinus and Christadelphians denied/deny this (the denial fits well with the mere-man Christology of the latter two).

Paul wrote:

“but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:23 – NASB)

*****

Quiz for the Day

Identify the person who famously wrote:

“What has Athens to do with Jerusalem, or the Academy with the church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our doctrine originates with the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that men must seek the Lord in simplicity of heart. Away with all who attempt to introduce a mottled Christianity of Stoicism and Platonism and dialectic!"

My husband is reading Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments by Vos.....right now :)...

I am reading Henry A Virkler's Hermeneutics....are you familiar? It has been very helpful in understanding some of the theology that I read here at GSC. Although, much still eludes me!

Geisha,

:)

I read Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments about five years ago, when I was in the process of leaving a church I had been attending and finding a new one.

I have never heard of Virkler, but I found that his book was reviewed at John Frame and Vern Poythress site ( http://www.frame-poythress.org/poythress_articles/1982ReviewVirklerHermeneutics.htm ). Maybe you could post a short synopsis or review of it.

I am presently reading The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosiac Covenant, edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen -- all of Westminster Seminary, California. One longstanding irritation I have had with Covenant Theology is

the practice of some covenant theologians to characterize the Mosaic covenant soley as an administration of the covenant of grace and ignore some plain statements in Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Well, it seems I have not been as alone in harboring a dissenting view as I had thought. The contributors to this book (who are all highly likely to be covenant theologians) are expressing their own theological dissent.

Question: Is your husband an ex-Wayfer?

Good topic, Jeff. Bullinger and Wierwille's dispensationalism manufactured discontinuity between the Gospels and the remainder of the New Testament. I agree that there is one eschatological event for God's elect referred to in the Gospels and the Pauline epistles.

Driscoll apparently did participate in a "converging" or "convergent" conference held by a Baptist seminary, though I doubt women were barred from the affair.

I wasn't at the conference (no women were allowed, probably not even to fix lunch) and so I don't know if Mr. Driscoll actually did this or not.

WG,

Again, the Wittenburg Door piece is satire. It is replete with fictitious conferences, fictitious statements and actions attributed to Driscoll, a fictitious pro-Driscoll blogger, a fictitious church in Kentucky, and a fictitious anti-Driscoll website (try googling the conferences, the Kentucky church, and the anti-Driscoll Wordpress blog). There was no conference mentioned in the piece from which women could have barred.

Here is a link to the subject piece (“Mark Driscoll Kicks His Own A$$”):

http://tinyurl.com/46bfn7

The level of factuality in Wittenburg Door pieces (though WD does do interviews and occasional somewhat serious exposes) can be assessed by reading:

“Virgin Mary Found on Back of Grand Theft Auto”

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/virgin-mary-gta

“Victorious Secret: Lingerie for Overcomers”

http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/victorious-secret%3A-lingerie-overcomers