Cynic

From http://www.christianeducational.org/timeline.htm , the following is one of the entries for the year 1993:

“To enhance his ability to serve the Body of Christ, John Schoenheit began working part-time on a Master’s of Divinity at the Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. His tuition was paid by a supporter. “

From RTS Charlotte’s website ( http://www.rts.edu/site/academics/degree_p...mdiv/index.aspx ):

“A degree from Reformed Theological Seminary indicates that the graduate has completed the requirements for the course of study. Although the M.Div. degree meets the standard educational requirements for ordination in most denominations, the degree does not certify that the graduate necessarily possesses all the biblical qualifications requisite for the ministry or adheres to the Reformed faith. Graduation from Reformed Theological Seminary with either the M.Div. degree or diploma should not in itself be construed as a recommendation for the ministry.

“Ecclesiastical bodies and pulpit committees are responsible for applying their own requirements for ordination to determine the doctrinal soundness, suitability, and readiness for ministry of a particular graduate.”

*****

If the folks at RTS are going to admit Socinian/Unitarian polemicists to the seminary, they need, at the very least, to intensify quite significantly their disclaimer.

It is simple to be born again ... it is synonymous with the word "saved" as used in the Bible. See Romans 10:9 ... "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

I agree with DogLover and I learned that in twi.

DogLover gave the *correct* definition -- as accepted by many "Christian" outfits...

To make a long story short -- docvic taught that when you accept Jesus as your Saviour (Romans 10:9),

then God creates within you spirit once again -- now you are a 3-part being again.

Body, Soul, AND Spirit -- ie --- *born again*.

Cynic,

Just wanted to let you know that-if there was a reason you took us to that discussion-

I for one didn't see it even with the bolding.

My reason for posting the log of the IRC discussion is that, showing that faith follows regeneration, Gottchalk's argument shows also that getting born again (which is to be regenerated) is not something that happens because one directs oneself to Christ in accordance with Romans 10:9, but is something that turns to Christ those in whom regeneration has taken place.

"Gottschalk's" website is http://solagratia.org .

Regeneration (being born again) is not synonymous with salvation, which is a rather broad term. Salvation has past, present and future aspects. Those who have been been saved, are yet being saved and will yet be saved. Salvation includes a settled forensic (legal) justification, an accomplished and a progressive sanctification, a bodily redemption, an eschatological justification, a deliverance from the wrath of God, and a grant of life in the eschatological kingdom.

Regeneration is God’s making alive a spiritually dead man and is theologically sometimes said to be included in salvation. There is biblical language, however, that presents regeneration as instrumental to salvation (Titus 3:5).

It is God’s act of regenerating his elect that brings one to faith (which is a gift of God) in Christ. Faith does not appropriate God’s regenerating activity.

I used to oppose the notion that regeneration precedes faith, but the case made by “Gottswrks” (aka: “Gottschalk”) for regeneration being causally prior to faith in the following IRC discussion (which I have edited by bolding some text and deleting various posts and messages) changed my mind.

Start of Status Window buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:37:44 2001

*** Connecting to houston.tx.us.starlink-irc.org (6667)

Start of #prosapologian buffer: Sun Aug 26 02:39:11 2001

*** Now talking in #prosapologian

*** Topic is 'God is Sovereign Over All Things

(Rooster) The following article addresses the

Reformed view of regeneration (http://www.faith

alone.org/journal/2000ii/Anderson.htm). Does

anybody know if there has been a Reformed

response to this issue?

(Charis) Rooster: Who wrote it?

(Rooster) David Anderson, Pastor of Faith

Community Church in the The Woodlands, TX

(Charis) Rooster: I asume he believes that one

must have faith prior to regeneration..

(Charis) assume too

(Rooster) charis... He writes, "We have grappled

in this discussion with one of the crucial

differences between what is called Reformed

Theology and Dispensational Theology, that is,

regeneration as it relates to faith in the

ordo salutis and the impact this crux

interpretum has on one’s understanding of

Total Depravity."

(Charis) Rooster: Would you agree that one must

be "Born Again" prior to receiving faith?

(Rooster) Charis, good question... not sure I'm

persuaded that saving faith is received.

(Rooster) but haven't quite thought through all

the issues.

(Charis) Rooster: Would you say we contribute

faith to the process of salvation?

(Rooster) I would say that faith is a human

response (not a contribution).

(Charis) Response to what?

(Rooster) A response to the truth of the gospel.

You are either persuaded that it is true or

you are not.

(Charis) Rooster: But what about 1Corinthians

2:14?

(Charis) ~niv 1cor 2:14

(Latreuo) 12 1Corinthians 2:14 The man without the

Spirit does not accept the things that come

from the Spirit of God, for they are

foolishness to him, and he cannot understand

them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(NIV)

(Charis) And John 3:3?

(Charis) ~niv joh 3:3

(Latreuo) 12 John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, "I

tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom

of God unless he is born again. [17]" (NIV)

*** Joins: Gottswrks

(Cynic) One problem I've got with the

regeneration-precedes-faith dogma is that

faith itself is a gift of God.

(Charis) And of course Ephesians 2:8-10

(Charis) ~niv eph 28-10

(Charis) ~niv eph 2:8-10

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you

have been saved, through faith--and this not

from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- (NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:9 not by works, so that

no one can boast. (NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 Ephesians 2:10 For we are God's

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do

good works, which God prepared in advance for

us to do. (NIV)

(Gottswrks) philippians 1:29 is better

(Charis) And Titus 3:5

(Charis) ~niv titus 3:5

(Latreuo) 12 Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of

righteous things we had done, but because of

his mercy. He saved us through the washing of

rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (NIV)

(Charis) ~niv phi 1:29

(Latreuo) 12 Philippians 1:29 For it has been

granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to

believe on him, but also to suffer for him,

(NIV)

(Charis) Rooster: Even repentance must be

granted by God before one can repent.

(Charis) ~niv act 11:18

(Latreuo) 12 Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they

had no further objections and praised God,

saying, "So then, God has granted even the

Gentiles repentance unto life." (NIV)

(Gottswrks) and acts 13:48

(Charis) The Scriptures clearly show that

salvation from Regeneration to faith to

repentance is all of God.

(Cynic) The argument that regeneration must

precede faith seems (at best) to be rank

speculation about a soteriological order with

which God grants salvation.

(Gottswrks) cynic - i would dispute that it is

simple speculation - it is exegetically

derived from Scripture as fact

(Charis) Cynic: Very good. :)

(Cynic) And implies weird things such as there

might be regenerated unbelivers walking around.

(Cynic) unbelievers, too.

(Gottswrks) the order of the decrees is

irrelevant, incidentally, with regard to the

actual order of man's conversion

(Gottswrks) cynic, we're not asserting that

there is a time lag between regeneration and

faith - just that one is the necessary

recondition of the other

(Charis) Cynic: Are you a faith to regeneration

kinda guy? ;)

(Gottswrks) precondition

(Cynic) Where is such a thing exegetically

derived from in Scripture?

(Gottswrks) just as faith is a necessary

precondition to justification

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: You're wrong...Faith is an

INSTANTANEOUS product of regeneration

(Cynic) I don't know that I can seperate the two.

(Gottswrks) cynic, lets turn to 1 john

(TheJavaMan) There are no unregernerate

believers or visa versa

(Gottswrks) now let me get you to look at a few

verses

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 2:29

(Latreuo) 12 1John 2:29 If you know that He is

righteous, you know that everyone also who

practices righteousness is born of Him. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) cynic - do you see that verse says

that everyone who practices righteousness *is*

born of God

(Gottswrks) the tense of that verb is perfect

representing completed action in the past

relative to the action of the main verb

(Gottswrks) therefore regeneration precedes

practicing righteousness - do you see that

here?

(Cynic) I would certainly admit there is a work

of the Holy Spirit prior to one's coming to

faith, but I dispute that it can properly be

called effected regeneration.

(Gottswrks) cynic - are you following me here?

(Cynic) So far, yes.

(Gottswrks) eveyone who practices righteousness

has been born of God right?

(Cynic) Yes.

(Gottswrks) the born of God precedes praticing

righteousness.

(Gottswrks) ok, lets look at another verse

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 4:19

(Latreuo) 12 1John 4:19 We love, because He first

loved us. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) oops

(Gottswrks) ~nas 1john 4:7

(Latreuo) 12 1John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one

another, for love is from God; and everyone

who loves is born of God and knows God. (NASB)

(Gottswrks) same idea

(Gottswrks) the born of God here is perfect tense

(Gottswrks) and obviously we don't really love

util after we're born again - right?

(Gottswrks) everyone who loves has been born aga

(Gottswrks) again

(Gottswrks) the new birth precedes the ability

to really and truly love

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: How can you believe faith

precedes regeneration when the Scriptures

clearly teach: "There is NONE righteous, NO,

NOT ONE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who understands;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.

(TheJavaMan) They have ALL gone out of the way;

(TheJavaMan) They have together become

UNPROFITABLE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who does good, NO,

NOT ONE.

(TheJavaMan) Their throat is an open tomb;

(TheJavaMan) With their tongues they have

practiced DECEIT;

(TheJavaMan) The poison of asps is under their

lips;

(TheJavaMan) Whose mouth is full of cursing and

bitterness.

(TheJavaMan) Their feet are swift to shed blood;

(TheJavaMan) Destruction and misery are in their

ways;

(TheJavaMan) And the way of peace they have not

known.

(TheJavaMan) There is NO FEAR OF GOD before

their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

(Gottswrks) cynic are yo with me so far?

(Jason) stop spamming

(TheJavaMan) Cynic: still believe dead men can

have *saving* faith?

(Jason) or whatever you call it...

(Gottswrks) the apostle john has been very

careful in 1 john twice now to indicate that

we love and practice righteousness after

having been born again

(TheJavaMan) Jason: are you talkin' to ME???

(Gottswrks) cynic?

(Charis) The new birth, or regeneration, is God

giving us the spiritual life that enables us

to do what we must do (repent and believe),

but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.

When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it

means that man's mind, heart, and will are all

spiritually dead in sin.

(Gottswrks) cynic?

(Gottswrks) is cynic msging someone?

(Cynic) My argument is not that dead men can

respond in faith to the gospel. It is that

Scripture attests that faith is itself the

gift of God, without metaphysical underpinning

thought necessary concerning regeneration.

(Gottswrks) cynic - i am making an exegetical

argument here - are you with me?

*** Quits: Charis

*** Gottswrks is now known as Gottschalk

(Cynic) Gottschalk: I understand the argument,

but it seems to depend upon making "regeneratio

n" the enabler of "faith" and "repentance."

Faith and repentance, however, are themselves

gifts of God.

(Gottschalk) cynic - i was hoping to demonstrate

to you that Scripture clearly indicates that

regeneration precedes faith - and that it is

not simply a logical argument

(Gottschalk) cynic - i haven't gotten to the

relevant verse yet

(Cynic) Go ahead.

(Gottschalk) do you know any greek btw (just

curious since i mentioned the greek perfect

tense - and sinc it is relevant to this

argument)?

(Gottschalk) its not essential - but it is

helpful

(Cynic) No. I do know what the perfect tense is.

(Gottschalk) ok, anyway - the greek perfect

tense represents completed action in the past

with ctinuing results into the present

(Gottschalk) it is often translated with the

english helping verb "has"

(Gottschalk) therefore in the 2 verses i just

cited - i would translate hose verses as:

...you know that everyone who pravctices

righteousness HAS BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) and also...everyone who loves HAS

BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) which we both should agree with

(Gottschalk) the born again there precedes the

action of the main verb

(Gottschalk) now look at 1 john 5:1

(Gottschalk) ~nas 1john 5:1

(Latreuo) 12 1John 5:1 Whoever believes that Jesus

is the Christ is born of God, and whoever

loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

(NASB)

(Gottschalk) same perfect tense

(Gottschalk) whoever believes that Jesus is the

Christ HAS BEEN born of God

(Gottschalk) the HAS BEEN born of God precedes

the action of believing grammatically

(Gottschalk) and the apostle john has been very

careful twice in this epistle to relate the

time of the "born again" and our actions

subsequent to it

(Jason) Chalk, does that mean that "everyone"

and "righteousness" and "love" mean that

absolutely no one can practice any kind of

righteousness at all without having been born

again, or does it mean that if we know people

are practicing righteousness, they must be

born again?

(Gottschalk) we obviously love after having been

born again (1 John 2:29)

(Gottschalk) and we obviously practice

righteousness after having ben born again (1

John 4:7)

(Gottschalk) and accoding to John we even

believe after having been born again (1 John

5:1)

(Gottschalk) thats not a logical argument

(Cynic) Gottschalk: that is a very compelling

argument (the only exegetical argument, in

fact, that I have ever seen on the issue.)

(Gottschalk) its completely exegetical

(Gottschalk) too often we calvinists rely only

on logical forms of arguemtn

(Gottschalk) i appeal to my calvinists brethren

to make the thrust of their appeals to

Scriputre

(Gottschalk) logic has its place

(Gottschalk) but let us loo to the Word and let

us do so with care

(Jason) Gottschalk...perhaps we believe and are

simultaneously born again at the same time,

and saying that we only believe after having

been born again is only to emphasis the fact

that you can't have one without the other

(Cynic) I checked out 1 John 5:1 in Strong's (no

offense), and it does have it as the perfect

tense.

(Gottschalk) jason - i believe that as far as

time they do occur (for all intensive

purposes) at the same time

(Gottschalk) yet we are speaking in terms of one

being the necessary precondition of the other

(Gottschalk) just s faith and justification

occur at the same time

(Gottschalk) yet faith is the necessary

precondition

(Gottschalk) it occurs prior to justification

(Jason) ok

(TheJavaMan) Jason: But it is regereration that

produces faith, and not visa versa

(Jason) but...

(Gottschalk) sorry jason - im not good enough to

carry on simultaneous convos at once :)

(Cynic) You have me just about convinced

(subject to a more comprehensive study, of

course).

(Gottschalk) i appreciate you taking the time to

listen respectfully to my arguments cynic

(Jason) what if regeneration is defined as

clearing away the sin that blocks the will's

ability to choose good?

(Gottschalk) if we woud all just listen and

dialogue with respect we could avoid all the

clutter that arguemnst produce and we could

progress in our understanding of the Word -

learning from each other

(TheJavaMan) regeneration literally means

"bringing back to life"

(Gottschalk) i myself am guilty of not doing

this all too often

(Rooster) Gotts - I once asked a Greek teacher

about 1 John 5:1. He replied, "A participle's

tense does not carry aspect, that is, it

doesn't say anything about the nature of the

action. [The word in 1 John 5:1] is an

articular participle and it functions as a

noun."

(Gottschalk) rooster - the aspect is not at

issue here - its the TIME of the participle

(Gottschalk) and the time is admittedly a

secondary issue with regard t the nature of

Greek particples

(Gottschalk) primarily it is aspect that is

emphasized

(Gottschalk) yet the time of a Greek participle

is related to the action of the main verb

(Jason) ok, so nobody answered my question...

(Gottschalk) and besides - the apostle john has

used a similar constructiontwice in that very

epistrle

(Jason) what if "prevenient Grace

(Jason) "

(Gottschalk) and aboviously the action of the

verb occurs after the perfect tense in those

two cases

(Gottschalk) forgive my typing

(Gottschalk) rooster look at 1 John 2:29

(Jason) is God's action of clearing away the sin

which distorts our choices in order for us to

be able to make the same choice that Adam was

faced with

(Gottschalk) also look at 1 john 4:7

(TheJavaMan) Jason: WHAT?????????????????????????

???????????????

(Jason) *if, not "is"

(apollos) Jason: Where do you find any

scriptural support for that ?

(Gottschalk) both utilize e perfect tense with a

participle

(Jason) hey, i'm just asking questions...don't

yell..."boo hoo!"

(apollos) What is your question based on ?

(Gottschalk) and in both it is obvious that the

action of the main verb occurs after the

actionof the participle

(TheJavaMan) Jason: Look, again, in a nutshell,

dead sinners will NEVER have a saving trust in

Christ, so they need to be "brought to life"

to believe, because, again, the Scriptures

teach: "There is NONE righteous, NO, NOT ONE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who understands;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.

(TheJavaMan) They have ALL gone out of the way;

(TheJavaMan) They have together become

UNPROFITABLE;

(TheJavaMan) There is NONE who does good, NO,

NOT ONE.

(TheJavaMan) Their throat is an open tomb;

(Gottschalk) now is it likely that the same

author used that identical construction in 1

john 5:1 with no sense of time?

(TheJavaMan) With their tongues they have

practiced DECEIT;

(TheJavaMan) The poison of asps is under their

lips;

(TheJavaMan) Whose mouth is full of cursing and

bitterness.

(Jason) it's based on what seems to me possible

interpretations of all the scriptures i've

seen posted just now...

(TheJavaMan) Their feet are swift to shed blood;

(TheJavaMan) Destruction and misery are in their

ways;

(TheJavaMan) And the way of peace they have not

known.

(TheJavaMan) There is NO FEAR OF GOD before

their eyes." (Romans 3:10-18)

(Cynic) pav (3956) {EVERYONE} o (3588) {THAT}

pisteuwn (4100) (5723) {BELIEVES} oti (3754)

{THAT} ihsouv (2424) {JESUS} estin (2076)

(5748) {IS} o (3588) {THE} cristov (5547)

{CHRIST,} ek (1537) tou (3588) {OF} yeou

(2316) {GOD} gegennhtai (1080) (5769) {HAS

BEEN BEGOTTEN;} kai (2532) {AND} pav (3956)

{EVERYONE} o (3588) {THAT} agapwn (25) (5723)

{LOVES} ton (3588) {HIM THAT} gennhsanta

(1080) (5660) {BEGAT,} agapa (25) (5719)

(5725) {LOVES} kai (2532) {ALSO} ton (3588)

{HIM THAT} gegennhmenon (1080) (5772) {HAS

BEEN BEGOTTEN} ex (1537) {OF} autou (846)

{HIM.}

(Cynic) From a downloaded Interlinear with

Strong's numbers.

(TheJavaMan) Cynic; yes!!!...but *WHO* will

believe???

(Gottschalk) thanks cynic

(TheJavaMan) Steph: LOL

(apollos) Jason: I must have missed it. Which

scriptures say that we are returned to the

state of Adam to make the same choice ?

(Gottschalk) the believing there is a presnt

participle

(Gottschalk) the born again is perfect tense

(TheJavaMan) BRB

(Jason) ok, java...i asked you not to do that

again...i get the idea, i've read it

before...you know? anyway...i'm not saying we

can do this stuff without God's Grace, i'm

saying, couldn't we NOT do it, even with God's

grace? how do these verses show the

irresistable quality of God's Grace? not

prevenient Grace, at the moment that we can

have faith...

(Gottschalk) the time of the participle (the

present tense "the one who believes") is

dependent upon the main verb (has been born

again)

(Cynic) Compelling.

(Gottschalk) and again what makes it even more

compelling to me is that John uses tat exact

same construction twice before

(Jason) ad a "but" in there after that last

comma...

(Gottschalk) 1 john 2:29 & 1 John 4:7

(Gottschalk) and in both cases everyone agrees

that "the one who loves" and "the one who

practices righteousness" occur *after* being

born again

(Jason) i suppose i made my point a little too

strong by saying we were given the same

ability that Adam had...but i hope you get my

point, nonetheless...

(Gottschalk) and john even asserts that the one

who believes *has been born again*

(Jason) i've never talked with anyone about

this, so expect me to miss some obvious point

that could obliterate any case i'm trying to

make...

*** Quits: Rooster

(Gottschalk) but i do understand our brothers

argument which assert that faith precedes

regeneration - and there are some who do so

who still affirm the fact that salvation is a

sovereign act of God - thy just have God

giving faith to men through the effectual call

(apollos) Jason: I don't get your point clearly.

can you restate it

(Jason) i'll try...

(Jason) ok, we're corrupted by sin to the point

that we can do nothing but sin...right?

(Gottschalk) yet i personally do not find that

argument compelling - and i think that the

argument from 1 john is difficult to overcome

(apollos) ok

(Jason) ok, we are so corrupted...yet we still

have a will that works, right?

(Jason) anyone listening to me?

(TheJavaMan) no

(Jason) no what

(TheJavaMan) no--no one is listening to YOU :o)

(Jason) well boo hoo

(TheJavaMan) lol

(Gottschalk) so anyway - i think that we should

argue that for all intensive purposes -

regeneration and faith occur simultaneously -

but that Scripture seems to indicate that one

is the necessary precondition of the other

regeneration being prior to faith ie)

(Gottschalk) and there is a scripture that

indicates that the time is simultaneous

incidentally

(Cynic) Subject to more reading and chewing, it

certainly appears so.

(Gottschalk) think about it

(Gottschalk) if you have any questions or if

something occurs to you after this about the

arguemtn from 1 john, let me know

(Gottschalk) you can email me if you want

(C777) ~niv John 1:12-13

(Latreuo) 12 John 1:12 Yet to all who received

him, to those who believed in his name, he

gave the right to become children of God--

(NIV)

(Latreuo) 12 John 1:13 children born not of

natural descent, [3] nor of human decision or

a husband's will, but born of God. (NIV)

(Jason) it still works in that we can still

choose, although what we choose now is

necessarily always evil

(apollos) Jason: are you referring to the debate

on impeachment ?

(Jason) no...it was one about religion and

government

(Gottschalk) cynic here's my email - i have to

go for a bit

(Gottschalk) [deleted by Cynic]

(C777) Human will is enslaved by sin. It will

always choose the sinful path.

(Cynic) Thanks, Gottschalk.

*** Gottschalk is now known as Gottsaway

(Gottsaway) np thanks for the chat

* Cynic is trying to figure out how to save this

session, without having had logging activated.

(Syz|Lurks) In mIRC, Cynic?

(Syz|Lurks) Click on the window icon in the

upper left

(Cynic) Yes.

(Syz|Lurks) Buffer-)Save

(Cynic) Can't find buffer or save.

(Syz|Lurks) Did you find the menu? It's the

little icon left of #Pros

(Cynic) Ah hah.

1 John 5:1

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...generation.html

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...gism_short.html

What appears at the above links is quite distinct and distant from Wierwille's teachings maintaining that man can be born again by the synergistic acts of himself and God.

What began as Parliamentary Resolution 10507 became compromise legislation that continues funding for sniper instruction but mandates that the Copains d'âne (i.e. "Butt Buddies”) sensitivity training series be integrated into all shooting exercises.

I have a distaste for Reconstructionists, though, for his contribution to apologetics, I do hold Greg Bahnsen in rather high esteem.

Happy Birthday, BB!

when he was dead and gone, i did suggest to craig how loving it would be NOT to continue to follow in his footsteps and to stop that kind of stuff (i thought of craig as a a bit more meek and i knew he had been raised up by the father in the word dah dah dah) he wiped the floor with me. oh well

i have only ever had a problem with a spiritual father man of god type using that position especially when the person shared their heart and soul fully about their background and how screwed up they were

What a couple of amoral, manipulative and vicious opportunists.

Although I was never into sitting around listening to audio tapes, I recently bought an mp3/wma player in order to take advantage of my approximately-one-hour-each-way/five-days-a-week commute.

There are some nice free resources on the Internet:

1. The best site I have come across for links to free audio is http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/arti...opic/audio.html . Among the links at this site are links to the audio of some seminary courses at Covenant Theological Seminary. In a bit more than two months, I have listened to nearly four complete seminary courses (you don’t get credit for this) from CTS -- a seminary affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America.

( http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/default.asp has links to robust offering of free CTS courses )

2. Another site is http://ccel.org/index/mp3.html . Driving and listening to someone read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God,” I sensed some of the uneasiness that reportedly caused Edwards’ listeners to grab onto chair rails and building columns. ( http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/mp3/...Angry%20God.mp3 )

As for literary stuff, the http://ccel.org/index/mp3.html site also has links to audio versions of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina and Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground.

3. There is www.sermonaudio.com , which has sermons and lectures by numerous speakers.

4. A cyber-acquaintance of mine offers some readings (mostly sample sections of larger works) of some recent and contemporary Christian philosophers, including Cornelius Van Til, Alvin Plantinga and John Frame.

( http://radioapologia.com )

Nice link, OFM.

Return safe.

As for real Republican women some in the GOP are apparently bragging and salivating about:

http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/index.html

Hills lost a nephew in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, and seems to be getting a bit understandably miffed at conspiracy theories and revisionist shyyyyt

Good to see you posting, Hills.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) is the largest of the three Presbyterian groups with 2.3 million members and 11,000 congregations.

What “three” Presbyterian “groups” is the UPI writer talking about. The statement makes no sense. There certainly are more than three Presbyterian denominations. In addition to the PCUSA, there are:

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA);

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC);

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP);

The Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America (RPCNA);

The Korean-American Presbyterian Church

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)'

The Bible Presbyterian Church;

The Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States;

The Cumberland Presbyterian Church (This group denies unconditional election and IMO should drop “Presbyterian” from its name).

(The above list is not exhaustive. There are more.)

And from Italy:

Say it ain’t so (at least that it was your evil twin), Silvio.

Actually, I should have written 7.0.5346.5 (note the additional decimal point) and also added Beta 2.

I waited 30 of them.

Barring a cabal at the technical levels of GSC, I think the problem is in IE 7.05346.5. The direct link works for Netscape. It also works for IE, if I turn off IE’s pop-up blocker, rather than overriding it by pressing the ctrl key when clicking on the link. Odd thing is that overriding the popup blocker results in IE properly opening the link I provided to Mark’s post.

Note that this occurred in the PCUSA, which is the largest among a number of Presbyterian denominations in the United States.

Although it seems likely that all denominations have their sets of issues and problems, stuff like this has not arisen in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) or the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).

----------------------------

Following is a link to a report on this at The Layman Online, published by some folks in the PCUSA who are generally critical of stuff that has occurred in their own denomination.

http://layman.org/layman/news/2006-general...is-received.htm

Due to some apparent GSC glitch (or a Jesuit cabal), the link I provided to Galen's post no longer works directly, but goes to the top of the page that contains Galen's post.

Thanks, T-Bone. That's it!

From what I know, Wierwille’s description of the preemptory manner in which the council was conducted seems essentially accurate.

There are some problems, however, with Wierweille's piece:

1. As GSC's resident Roman Catholic polymath pointed out one time, Cyril did not invent the term theotokos (i.e. “God-bearer”) that is rendered sometimes “mother of God.” Nestorius was not opposing some theological innovation of Cyril's.

(see http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=190635 )

2. Cyril’s uncle was the patriarch of Alexandria and mentored Cyril’s education that reportedly went from classical through theological studies. I cannot presently refute Wierwille's charge that Cyril was a former believer in pagan deities, but am quite skeptical about it. Wierwille's charge is possibly sustainable, but it doesn't fit well with Cyril being mentored by his uncle Theophilus and the little I have found mentioned about Cyril's eary years in pieces such as these:

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Cyril_of_Alexandria

http://www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926713-8.pdf

3. Wierwille’s characterization of the issues involved in the christological controversy (the issue was the person and natures of Christ -- not an issue of Marian dogma) is, at best, so vacuous as to be misleading.

_______________________________________

While preparing this response, I came across a post by Galen containing a somewhat extensive quote of the subject Wierille piece:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...mp;#entry117637

Maybe he got it from reading those Jack Chick cartoons...

Mark,

You seem to be much more acquainted with Jack Chick's stuff than I am.

After reading your post, I did find on Chick's site a charge that Jesuits killed Lincoln ( http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0180.asp ).

Although such an allegation has the odor of a crackpot rather than that of probable history, I would like to know what you and your Romanist pals did to Elvis.

:)

I'm pretty sure it was in written materials. Maybe it was in some other book by Wierwille.

I am looking for the section of JCING in which Wierwille mentioned some bishops using a slower means of transportation to a council in which they were condemned largely in absentia.

From the quite little I know about church history (which is probably some significant number of times that which Garth knows about it), the church council in which such an event occurred was the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431), led by the at-times theologically brilliant but infamously underhanded Cyril of Alexandria.

The Third Ecumenical Council, however, was not about Arianism, which had been previously condemned (beginning with the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea, 325), nor did the deity of Christ appear there as an issue of controversy. The preeminent issue before the council was christological, but it involved addressing the problem of Nestorianism rather than of Arianism.

I am wondering how and why Wierwille mentioned the subject incident. Was Wierwille accurately historicizing about an event occurring at another council? Did Wierwille conflate an event that occurred at the Third Ecumenical Council with events of the First Ecumenical Council (or with events of another council)? Or, if Wierwille was directly referring to something that happened at the Third Ecumenical Council, what was the subject matter in JCING that made reference to events of that council germane?

In JCING, Wierwille wrote something about a party of bishops conducting a church council and condemning another party of bishops before the latter arrived.

Could anyone provide an exactly worded citation from JCING?

I am particularly interested in the locations, dates, names and (especially) the controversy with which Wierwille identified the incident as occurring.

Elementary, my dear Greasespotters:

Right click on the picture of the ducks in Cowgirl’s post,

left click on properties;

copy the url of the photo and paste it into IE address bar,

go to the main directory of the site ( http://www.ndow.org );

click the search link located at the top right portion of the page;

scratch yourself;

having noted that “6thplace” in url of the photo suggested a contest had taken place, type the words “contest results” into the search engine box;

start clicking on and examining the results.

(From a cold start, I think it took somewhere around three minutes.)