Cynic

Torquemada’s thread has me thinking about sending off a letter to the UMC church I joined when I was 13, informing its leaders that I have become a member of a church in another denomination and should be removed from the rolls – if, after a number of years have passed since I’ve even been inside that UMC church, I’m still on the rolls. For some reason, I like GSC’s resident zealous Romanist. If I were an ex-RC, however, I might tell him to take the RCC’s religious relics, its prayers to Mary and various saints, his suggestions and parochial self-pity (an implicit parochial self-pity, at least, about the poor widdle RC church being victimized by Jack Chick-types and ex-RCs), and go mortify himself.

My attempt to construct a syllogism representing Wierwille’s explanation of John 1:1 was quite flawed. I did not think of the identity-switch that Wierwille used to base his denial of the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. Wierwille’s PFAL reasoning concerning John 1:1 seemed predominately focused on circumventing the “In the beginning was the Word” clause, and could be syllogistically stated as follows: If the Word who existed in the beginning as a divine actor was the Son of God, Genesis 1:1 would not make mention of God only [as a divine actor]. Genesis 1:1 makes mention of God only [as a divine actor]. Therefore, the Word who existed in the beginning as a divine actor was not the Son of God. Wierwille’s major premise was a monument to the impressionableness of TWI’s religious teenyboppers. Their acceptance of Wierwille's explanation of John 1:1-3 placed a number of New Testament scriptures behind an interpretive veil through which they did not communicate to Wayfers in language as language is normally understood.

Didn’t Scott use our resident Marcionite to do some Aramaic translation work for him?

The following example of a valid argument should help get at what sonofarthur is talking about: If it has rained in the past month, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas; It has rained in the past month; Therefore, G-rth is involved sexually with two geese and 15 male llamas. The above argument is logically valid. It is in the form of a syllogism known as Modus Ponens. Although the argument is valid, it is not necessarily sound. The problem with it is that its major premise is questionable. Similarly, Wierwille’s argument against the meaning of John 1:1 implicitly involved the following syllogism: If the Word actually existed in the beginning, Genesis 1:1 would have made mention of the Word as well as making mention of God. Genesis 1:1 does not make mention of the Word as well as making mention of God. Therefore, the Word did not actually exist in the beginning. The above syllogism is in a form known as Modus Tollens. As sonofarthur has pointed out, the problem with such an argument is not in the chain of inference. The problem is that the major premise (which Wierwille implicitly asserted) was flagrantly contrived and without any real basis. See: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mp http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m9.htm#mt http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/s7.htm#sound http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006030717964 http://papyr.com/hbp/logic5.htm

Sonofarthur, If you haven't come across these guys, you might find typing the following Christian philosophers’ names into a search engine interesting: Cornelius Van Til John Frame (John M. Frame) Greg Bahnsen (Greg L. Bahnsen) Alvin Plantinga

Lisa, I’m very sorry that your father is gone. LG was a clear and solid thinker. Although he was an atheist and I a Christian theist, we had developed a level of mutual respect. He conducted himself honorably. He even posted in my defense a few times. I’ll miss him.

What The Hey, Sonofarthur's assumptions were not erroneous; the argument in your previous post was errant. It went:

What The Hey, By myopically focusing on one clause of a scriptural statement, your argument infers its way to an unscriptural and quite irreverent implication concerning the Lord.

T-Bone, I don’t read Greek, but there is another rendering of Revelation 13:8 appearing in some English Bible versions. That rendering would seem to parallel language used in Revelation 17:8.

Evan, More than in any post I have ever made anywhere to anyone, I hope I can say something here to you that hits home. The Holy Spirit is identified in Scripture as a divine person, but he is so identified more sparsely than the Father and the Son. 1 Corinthians 12: 4-6, Ephesians 4:4-6, and 2 Corinthians 13:14, for instance, identify the three divine persons, naming them and juxtaposing them in a way that indicates distinction from one another. The Holy Spirit really cannot be a renaming of the Father in such passages. I am speculating, but I think your problem might have at least two significant elements. The first element is a negative one: A metaphor is lacking by which we can think about the person of the Holy Spirit in terms of something in our own experience. There is something communicated to us about personhood when Scripture speaks to us about the Father and the Son, because we understand something about fathers and sons. Similarly, we recognize (without engaging in much thought about it) an aspect of personhood in various terms (e.g. creator, king, judge) Scripture uses to refer to God . But what is spirit? The word does not elicit an analogy to a person in our experience. Thus, theologians and apologetes generally demonstrate the Holy Spirit's personhood in an inductive fashion, showing that the Holy Spirit has personal qualites, and thus personhood, by citing scriptures that indicate he speaks, directs, can be grieved or lied to, etc. Secondly, Wierwille put some aberrant ideas about a distinction between the Holy Spirit and holy spirit into Wayfers’ minds. Wierwille, as you know, taught there is a Holy Spirit who is the giver, and holy spirit which is his gift. In Wierwille’s pneumatology, the gift holy spirit is not really even a singular entity, since it is an impersonal whatever that is created in each individual Christian at the new birth. Wierwille’s pneumatology entails numerous holy spirits, since it involves individual creations within multiple Christians. What becomes of these things when Wayfers die, and the creations in them go back to God? Do these creations retain individuation? Or, do they become de-individualized and absorbed into a single collective? I think whatever in Wierwille’s position was not a mere parroting of Bullinger probably was informed by the way in which Wierwille viewed the new birth. My own view, which I hold somewhat tentatively, is that regeneration might involve the creation of a new human spirit or a reconstitution of a fallen human spirit, but is certainly not a creation of what Scripture is referring to when Scripture uses the words Holy Spirit. What comes about or is reborn in man at regeneration is part of man, and is to be continually renewed through the work of the Holy Spirit into the image of the Lord whom man beholds. In a new, or perhaps reconstituted nature, Christians can partake of the communicable attributes of God, but remain creatures who are in no ontological sense what God is. The Holy Spirit is a singular person who indwells all the regenerate, and, among other things, relates the deep things of God and the deep things of man. A helpful analogy concerning how the single person of the Holy Spirit indwells all Christians might be a single ocean's filling of all crevices, trenches, caverns, etc. that exist in the ocean’s floor.

Concerning the distinction of wills observable in Jesus' prayer in the garden of Gethsemane being some supposed defeater for the deity of Christ, someone should point out that historical Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus Christ has two, divine and human, wills, similarly as he has two, divine and human, natures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism As for the charge that Christological matters involve or ultimately arrive at something too speculative, Hilary of Poitiers possibly answered well: "The heretics compel us to speak where we would far rather be silent. If anything is said, this is what must be said."

Sonofarthur, Scripture clearly indicates the eternal existence and deity of the Son. Welcome to GSC, Trinitarian comrade. ***** Recommended reading for all: Erroneous Views Concerning The Person of Christ (Loraine Boettner) Definition of Chalcedon (in an article on the Council of Chalcedon at Wikipedia) The Incarnation of Christ (Brian Schwertley)

Response I think Sunesis is correct in painting the problem of false believers as one that is rather ubiquitous among Christian churches and denominations. It seems likely that a church that attains more than a few members or that continues for a significant time will experience false believers entering the congregation. There are unbelievers who are church members and there are even whole denominations that are possibly more likely to attract clerics who are unconverted than to attract converted clergy. Even doctrinally orthodox churches and denominations are not immune to unbelievers rising to the pulpit, as well as sitting down in the pews. The problem of false believers in the church is one that historically has been rather well recognized. Reformed theology generally has viewed the problem of false believers in terms of a distinction between the visible and the invisible church, though it should be noted that some Baptists quite strongly oppose a visible/invisible church distinction. The invisible church is Christ’s true church, consisting of all who are elect and who have been effectually called to Christ and regenerated. Its membership is unknowable to earthlings prior to the consumation of redemptive history. The visible church is a covenant community consisting of professing believers and their covenant children. Some in the visible church are members of the invisible church. Not all persons in the visible church, however, are of the invisible church. There are some outside the visible church who are in the invisible church, similarly as there are some in the visible church who are not elect and who are not genuine believers. As I understand it, the Reformed view has a bit of a twist concerning false believers. It holds that all who are in the visible church are, in some sense, in the New Covenant. The visible church is a covenant community that receives the New Covenant ministry of the preached Word and sacraments (i.e. baptism and the Lord’s Supper). All in the visible church community are in the New Covenant in an externally identifiable aspect, though not all in the community are partakers of the New Covenant in its highest (i.e. spiritual) aspect. This view allows both for the recognition of the absolute security expressed in Scripture for those who are really Christ’s and for understanding the ultimate apostasy of those who are not Christ’s. A number of otherwise difficult scriptures can be viewed meaningfully if an external (communal) aspect of the New Covenant is recognized.

Ahhh, the sights and sounds of megalomania in the morning.

Response Garth, What is your “witness” worth? You claim to have believed. Believed in what? You lurked around the fringes of Christian faith, among Wayfers and CES devotees. At best, it would seem the beliefs you had involved a Unitarian misrepresentation of the God of Scripture and a christ who lacks the scriptural Christ’s divine nature, divine attributes, and eternal existence. Despite your claim to “know” your former dispositions with respect to “Christian faith,” the issue here is something you know nothing about: God’s regeneration of sinners and gift of saving faith and repentance. On man’s side of things it is difficult even for the regenerate to be certain whether they have genuine/saving/biblical faith or have some combination of emotionalism and intellectual assent. Jesus said that no man can come to him except the Father draw him, and that every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to the Son (read John, chapter 6). In saying those things, Jesus appeared not to be reinforcing, but rather challenging and undercutting whatever kind of faith was possessed by the multitude following him. His words did not woo followers; they drove many away. Genuine, or saving, faith is a gift of God. It is not something the un-drawn can produce of themselves; it is alien to man’s inherent nature. Jesus once told Peter that Satan had desired to have him, but that Jesus had prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail. It appears from Jesus’ words that Peter had been approaching a crisis for which he did not have the wherewithal to persevere. Peter’s crisis was preempted by Jesus’ intercession and whatever divine preserving activity it secured from the Father. Jesus allowed none of his own to be lost. God does not act towards the elect in a single salvific event, then withdraw himself and let things play out. Those who ultimately depart from the faith were never really in it (1 John 2:19). You have departed from the fringes of Christian faith and from professing anything somewhat resembling that faith. You now boast and glory in your autonomy, and exalt yourself in morally preening judgment of the God of Scripture. It is that God, however, who ultimately will be glorified in all his creatures, and who will be glorified in disposing of your rebellion -- either by demonstration of his mercy and grace in converting you, or by demonstration of his wrath in eternally destroying you. Men cannot know the decretive will of God. I do not assume you will not be regenerated and converted. If God draws you towards his Son, and ignites in your soul faith and repentance, however, it will not lead to some reconstitution of your former self.

I think Greasy Tech is correct about the posting of e-mail or other private messages being off-limits. I have received very few private messages on this board, and none of the messages I have received have been nasty or juicy. The notice I recently added, and that is appearing at the bottom of my posts is preemptive and precautionary, and I'm not kidding around with it.

Response The spat about a poster posting another poster’s PM that’s going on in the “Letter from John Lynn” thread is the proximate reason for my notice. No one, however, has PM’d me recently, unleashed a tirade in a PM to me, or written something juicy that is worth publicly posting.

Response Chas, My point needs further development, but it is not that someone who has been truly regenerated, effectually called by God, and given the gift of faith can ultimately fall away into eternal perdition. It concerns one's assurance about having received regeneration, faith, repentance justification and everlasting life. Those who have been truly regenerated and effectually called by God will persevere, due to God's grace and working in them, unto the end. Their ultimate perseverance, however, does not mean they cannot for a time fall into serious sins. Sinners become justified by the instrumentality of faith alone, not faith plus progression in sanctification. Those who have been justified by faith, however, will progress in sanctification.

Part 1a – Assurance and Ex-Wayfers Among the snake oils PFAL devotees seemed eager to take and apply from Wierwille’s teachings was a sense of assurance about their salvation that was not adequately biblically informed. Several years ago at a high school reunion, I was in a rather casual conversation with a former LC whom I had gotten involved with TWI, when I decided to mention an atheistic ex-Wayfer who posted at WayDale and who now posts at this forum. The former LC and the ex-Wayfer reside in the same state (it is not Texas), and I was curious how the LC might theologically process the ex-Wayer’s turn to atheism. Informed that the fellow had become a professing atheist and was somewhat vocal in his rejection of Christian theism, the former LC maintained the fellow was “born again.” He based his confidence about the fellow’s regeneration and salvation on having heard the fellow “speak in tongues” during an Intermediate Class. Upon hearing the LC asserting this, I smirked and began wagging my head in indication that the fellow was not regenerate. The former LC took obvious affront to my head wagging, responding with some affirmative head nodding of his own. There is no scriptural indication that one will be saved from the wrath of God because one speaks in or has spoken in tongues – even if the speaking in tongues is deemed genuine rather than contrived. Peter speaks of making one’s calling and election sure, through what might be characterized as sanctification, growth and spiritual maturity (2 Peter 1:10). Neither Peter nor any other biblical writer mentions spiritual operations as having value towards assurance about one’s calling and election. In terms of time and effort, Peter’s exhortation concerning making sure of one's calling and election would seem to involve something more enduring than having at some time demonstrated (or having seemed to demonstrate) spiritual operations. More devastating to the notion that speaking in tongues is a sign that one has been called and elected to ultimate salvation are the words of the Lord Jesus himself (Matthew 7:21-23), who declared there will be some barred entry into the eschatological kingdom, despite having -- or at least seeming to think they have -- prophesied, cast out demons and performed mighty works in the Lord’s name. It seems interpretively far fetched to give speaking in tongues a special status with respect to being an infallible sign of one's regeneration and salvation that prophesy, casting out of demons, and miracles do not attain.

Justpassingthrough, You prefaced your quoting of the 1 Corinthians passage by writing, “Thus saith the Lord.” Immediately before that you wrote, “God says we are to speak a Word fitly spoken so here it is.” It is clear your post involves a claim that you are issuing a fitly-spoken message related to the goings on at this forum concerning STFI. All Scripture is spirated (breathed out) by God, but quoting Scripture does not in itself give your application of Scripture, your opinions and insights about situations, or your judgments and demands scriptural authority. Just about everyone around here should be aware of biblical indications of unbelievers and even the devil quoting and/or citing Scripture. I am wondering, due to the manner in which you delivered your demands, if you deem yourself: 1. a prophet/prophetess; 2. a bearer of a prophetic message. So you will have some idea of where I’m coming from: I’m Trinitarian, Calvinistic, quasi-presuppositional, middle-aged, skeptical about Pentecostal/Charismatic ministries, and pretty well past the point where it’s likely I’ll be intimidated by someone authoritatively posturing themselves as a “prophet” or an “apostle.”

IMO, Elizabeth and “Captain Crunch” have probably done to CES/STFI’s religious reproductive abilities what Paul Allen did to TWI’s.

False prophesies and false God-told-me-so predictions are not limited to TWI, CES/STFI and JAL's religious dominatrices: 1. I recall Evander Holyfield believingly talking about a fellow prophesying that he (Holyfield) was going to defeat Lennox Lewis. 2. I think Pat Robertson has three days remaining for a multitude of hurricanes to descend on and decimate portions of the United States –- else Pat will be known for an additional incident of falsely predicting a future event.

IMO, Elizabeth's counterattack has been played out capably. I’d advise against picking or otherwise winding up in a catfight with Ms. Snow White.

JAL doesn't mention that the authenticity-problem afflicting the “prophetic” practices in which CES/STFI practitioners have apparently widely been involved is a qualifier for death-by-stoning under the Mosaic covenant's judicial terms (see "Disclaimer"). A sect given to prophalying (falsely prophesying) isn't going to cure its ills merely by rejecting flagrantly self-serving and/or nasty portions of its adherents' prophalying, and doing a group hug. Disclaimer: Don’t worry. I’m an armchair apologete -- not a theonomist. Mark C. Bowles (“Cynic”)

Concerning problems with Luther's Christology, the following is from http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/christol.htm : Luther's alleged (I haven't read enough of Luther to offer an independently informed synopsis) and apparently quite serious Christological problems involved departure from what was aptly and formally recognized at Chalcedon (451 AD) -- not a departure from recogition of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity per se. Recommended Reading: The Definition of Chalcedon