Cynic

The cleric (who happens to be the ministerial/teaching figure who has had the most significant, long-lasting, and positive effect on me) of a church I attended about 15 years ago seemed to be have been quite impressed with Gene Scott. At the time, I had never seen or heard Scott, but when the cleric mentioned Scott's money-raising tantrums and rationalization of an upper-crust lifestyle, I smelled a loudmouthed, big-feeling, Wierwillian SOB and quipped to him that it was I (rather than he) that ought to be the one in danger of winding up as a follower of some fellow like that. (I don’t remember the fellow mentioning Scott’s name to me, again.)

FreeAtLast, I think your attitude in the face of adversity has been to this point rather amazing. May God sustain you and grant you his grace and mercy.

There are two forms of Monarchianism, one of which (“Dynamic Monarchianism”) is rather consistent with Socinianism. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053310/Monarchianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchianism

Danny, You possibly scored worse than Marcion himself would have scored.

Disclaimers: I think the reason I scored 33% towards being a stinking Pelagian is that I blew my answer to the question about God's grace being an aid to help one come to him. I took an affirmation that God's grace is an aid in bringing men to him as an affirmation of some poorly worded description of monergism, rather than as the affirmation of synergistic view of salvation that is probably intended (i.e. saying that God graciously aids those that come to him leaves it unsaid that a man's coming to God originates with God, and is administered by God who makes willing those whom he effectually calls to himself). I found one of the Christological questions very difficult to answer as worded (there was a question that seemed to indicate a choice between Christ having a human mind or a divine-human mind. I would cautiously opt for two minds, one utterly divine and one utterly human, united in one person who is one agent who has one self-identity, with the divine and human minds informed to different extents and in different manners). Although some stuff at the following link goes beyond what is biblically indicated concerning the great mystery of incarnate Son of God, I am in cautious agreement with it due to doctrinal necessities that appear to rise and rest on what is biblically indicated. I expect that what is said will, at best, ultimately prove to be have been imperfectly said. Why then say it? Or, why then support it? Because of the great abysses of serious Christological errors that have assaulted the church throughout history. Hilary of Poitiers seemed to have well sensed something about both the importance and inferential nature of orthodox Christology in stating, "The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said.” http://entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Incarnation.htm I would be very interested in seeing Mark O'Malley's comments on the Christological issues being considered.

By asserting the Fox News guy has “biases” and labeling him a “right-wing Republican,” while characterizing the CNN fem as “gutsy,” I was, of course, satirically playing the Democrats’ advocate – attempting to illustrate a (mis)labeling tactic used by Democrat operatives to smear critics and make supporters into seemingly respectable figures. Satori, Your avatar looks familiar. Were you once president of a National Organization for Women chapter? A waitress in a Unitarian Universalist coffee shop?

Satori, That Fox guy clearly has biases that go with being a right-wing Republican with a cushy income, but why do you have to be so vicious and mean-spirited that you pick on a gutsy female CNN reporter who is apparently so gifted with judicious composure and analytical abilities that she reports that “President Bush didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid; he made it....”?

A contractor from Ohio, a contractor from Pennsylvania, and a contractor from West Virginia died and appeared at St. Peter’s Gate, seeking entrance to Heaven. Peter said to the fellow from Ohio, “We need some paving done around here. How much would you charge to do it?” The Ohio contractor looked at the condition of things around the entrance to the gate for a while. “Four thousand dollars,” he said. “That doesn’t sound bad.” “How about you?” Peter said to the fellow from Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania fellow asked for a tape measure, a pen, a pad, and a calculator. After some minutes of measuring and figuring, he said, “When on Earth, I would have charged forty-three hundred dollars to do this job.” “That’s not bad, either,” said Peter. “And how about you?” Peter said to the contractor from West Virginia. “Twelve thousand dollars!” said the West Virginia contractor without a moment’s hesitation. “That seems rather high,” said Peter. “How did you arrive at such a figure?” “It was easy,” said the West Virginia contractor. “Four thousand dollars for you, four thousand dollars for me, four thousand dollars to get the guy from Ohio over there to do the work.”

WordWolf, Did the Son exist eternally? Or, did the Son’s existence have a beginning? Hebrews 7:1-3 Micah 5:2

My statement about not probably not buying a Taurus with 138,000 miles on it might have helped motivate Garth to go out and get one. :]

duplicate post

I’m on my third Ford Taurus (a company 2006 SE). The second Ford Taurus was a 2002 SES that was bought used, and that got traded at about 175,000 miles. IIRC, the repairs on the car through that point, excluding stuff such as tires and fluid changes, had run about $4,000, and I was informed the car had broken springs when traded. Overall, I liked the car quite well. It rode and handled nicely -- so nicely that it is the favorite among the cars I have driven. Trouble points on Tauruses, from my experience, are brakes (pad-life isn’t bad, but the cars seem prone to developing warped front rotors), the suspension, and the fuel pump. I probably would not buy a Taurus with 138,000 miles on it (particularly since I put more than 40,000 miles a year on car). It’s hard to beat the deal you can sometimes find on a late model Taurus, however, even with less than 20,000 miles on it. I came across one website (I can’t remember which one) of a company that sells cars for several auto-rental companies, and that was advertising late model Tauruses with around 15,000 miles on them for about $8,500. The drawback was that you had to get to New York or New Jersey to get one, and, once there, you had to rent the car you wanted to buy in order to test drive it. A similar car around these parts is hard to find under $13,000. IMO, the keys to getting a deal on a car are: 1. Being able to wait for a deal (sometimes deals just don’t seem to be out there). 2. Being able and willing to travel to get a car. My favorite website for car shopping is http://www.autotrader.com . Tips: 1. Watch out for deals that seem too good to be true (it seems usually to mean that the car is damaged, or was damaged and now has a salvage title). 2. Run a Car Fax on any used car you are considering buying. 3. Check the safety and reliability ratings (I check them at the auto section at http://www.msn.com ) for the model and year (the ratings can vary from year to year on a particular model) of a car you are interested in. My suggested mode of transportation, however, for Socinian, Unitarian, or anti-theistic miscreants (particularly those driving regularly on freeways with heavy, high-speed tractor-trailer traffic) can be viewed at http://powersports.honda.com/scooters/mode...p;ModelId=CH807 . :]

I wonder whether John the Baptist’s questioning of Jesus actually indicates that John had begun having doubts about Jesus’ identity and had sent his disciples to get Jesus’ assurance that he was the Messiah. Suppose there is a church which has Sunday morning services that begin promptly at 11:00 AM. One Sunday, however, the church’s minister does not appear at the expected time, but remains in the church’s office, speaking over the telephone with several anguishing people. A quarter-hour or more passes. One of the parishioners becomes quite irritated that the minister has failed to appear at the lectern. He goes and asks him, “Are you the preacher, or are we still waiting for him to get here?” The parishioner’s question is rhetorical. It strongly presupposes the factuality of what it seems to question. In posing it, the parishioner is not seeking to be reassured about the minister’s identity and/or office, rather he is accosting the minister over the minister's apparent tardiness towards his expected ministerial function and duty. Jesus’ answer for John seems more pointed if understood as a rebuke to impiously made criticism than if understood as an answer to a doubtful question about Jesus’ identity. Jesus enumerates classes of works (that Jesus has done/is doing for various classes of suffering figures), and pointedly declares that blessed are those who are not offended in him. In my opinion, the mindset prompting John’s question possibly could consist of a very strong and unwavering sense of Jesus’ identity, coupled with a valid but myopic view about Jesus’ messianic activity. If John’s question is something critical, irreverent, and rhetorical, as I suggest, it would seem that John, through his disciples, is accosting Jesus for what John perceives as messianic inactivity (i.e. not having yet having made that sacrifice by which Jesus will take away the sin of the world). This view of the John’s-questioning-of-Jesus incident is speculative, of course, but it allows for: 1. The concluding point of Jesus’ answer for John being rather strongly right-back-in-John’s-face, rather than something more obscure; 2. An unwavering consistency in John’s recognition of Jesus that seems to fit well with Jesus’ descriptions of his forerunner (e.g. an unshakeable figure), whose ministry had been, of necessity, Christologically rich (John 1:26-36, 3:26-36) as it pointed to the Kingdom of God and inaugurated the preaching of the “semi-eschatological” age (Luke 16:16). ************************* Although I have presented another notion of what might underlie John’s question (i.e. I think it highly possible that John is driven by something closer to myopia and impatience than to “perplexity”), I think the following contains noteworthy commentary from a redemptive-historical interpretive viewpoint – particularly as it concerns the realized eschatological significance of Christ's appearance into time.

I’d probably be in this discussion, but should avoid the stress of what would probably be an extended dogfight for a few weeks. T-Bone, Slay and eat!

These were YOUR words: You represented John 17 as having "Jesus PRAYING to God that we be one with him in the SAME manner that HE is one with God." That is irrelevant to your previous assertions. I "put" no words in your mouth. You wrote them.

Yes, he does. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...=49;8;47;15;31; People have a duty to repent, but those bound in sin and error do not want to repent. You are much more full of yourself than full of a sound argument. Jesus' John 17 prayer is not that his disciples will become one with him in the same sense that he is one with his Father. His prayer is that they become one with one another, similarly as he is one with his Father. The oneness Jesus is asking for seems to be oneness in some relational sense rather than oneness in the sense of shared being or ontological equality.

I’m convinced that people who accepted Wierwille’s denial of the eternal existence and deity of Christ become free of their error only if God sovereignly grants them repentance. Their problem with the person and nature of Christ seems to involve fundamental assumptions that hold them and steer their interpretive processes to suppress, distort, and deny what is clearly revealed of Christ in Scripture. A simple reading of the Gospel of John, for instance, does not reveal the jesus described by Wierwille and TWI splinter groups. It reveals the Word and Son of God: eternally existing in the unique nature of God, becoming flesh, doing works which his Father prescribed for him to do, testifying of his own descent from Heaven, and appealing to his Father to glorify him with the same glory he had in his Father’s presence before the world began. Following are links to what I think are some capably written pieces concerning the eternal existence of Christ, the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity. A Brief Definition of the Trinity http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Oneness Theology http://aomin.org/CHALC.html John 1:1 – Meaning and Translation http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ http://aomin.org/EGO.html The Pre-existence of Christ http://aomin.org/The_Pre_Existence_of_Christ.html The Nature of God – The Tri-Unity of God http://aomin.org/natureofgod.html The Prologue of the Gospel of John http://aomin.org/prologuejohn.html

I’ve probably got a wee bit or more of Irish ancestry, but I did wear orange one year on St. Patrick’s Day.

Sudo, Thanks. The ibuprofen wasn't getting all the pain today, and a quarter-can of Diet Coke seems to have helped quite a bit.

I quit three packs a day nearly 5 years ago, and did not have much problem doing it – particularly after urges for a cigarette pretty much waned after a few months. No patch for me (I figured I’d just wind up smoking and doing patches), but I found breathing secondhand smoke (twice daily during the workweek) effective for getting rid of whatever happened to be going on physically with me and a lack of nicotine. I think the reason I don't have an urge for cigarettes is that I remember too well the chronic cough and alarming chest sensations that accompanied my last three or four months of smoking. On a less victorious note, I quit coffee yesterday morning, and have been popping ibuprofens since yesterday afternoon to fight off the headaches.

Well, at least JE could manage to express some coherent thoughts.

T-Bone, An Internet acquaintance of mine did a few posts on his blog a while back on the “guidance” issue. You possibly would enjoy them: http://christianmind.blogspot.com/search?q=Friesen

"Father" Mitchum could handle a pack of pluralists, perverts, or closet Unitarians trying to enter a diocese, the clergy, or his parish.

I find it rather easy to be an a_sshole but if I were a Romanist, even I probably couldn't bring myself to lecture Excathedra about her opinion of the RCC.

Mark, In the Mass, do RC communicants partake of the bread only, while the priest alone partakes of the wine? Or, does the laity partake of both the bread and the wine?