Cynic

Unfortunate event. Nice outcome!

T-Bone, I have not engaged in “equating” the statements I presented with Scripture. There is distinction between Scripture and those statements, perhaps somewhat similarly as there would be distinction between a volume containing all the published works of a composer and a short medley by a nightclub pianist that repeats some fragments and other somewhat altered fragments from the volume. There is proximity of content, however, between the statements and the testimony of Scripture. I do allow, however, that there is some interpretative activity involved in the mere selection of scriptures one attempts to retell. I do not understand why McGrath categorically characterizes doctrine as something alien from Scripture that serves as an interpretive framework for Scripture. Scripture itself communicates doctrine. Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 reiterate elements of redemptive history that Paul had previously announced and held up as things proper and obligatory to be believed. It seems likely from your previous post that, if pressed, you and your mechanic would recognize there is a doctrinal character to scriptural statements in their purely scriptural habitat. McGrath’s citing of a Victorian-era garden analogy to characterize doctrine as an ordered arrangement of biblical testimony outside of its original habitat suggests what McGrath is referring to as “doctrine” is solely the formulations of systematic theology. Systematic theology, as you seem quite aware, is a human product that presents or purports to present scriptural testimony in a topical fashion (e.g. what Scripture says about God, about Christ, about the Holy Spirit, about creation, about sin, about redemption, about the end of the world, et al.). Systematic theology is doctrinal by nature, but it does not exhaust everything that would properly be called doctrine. Systematic theological statements themselves differ in the extent to which they involve repetitions of biblical testimony, interpretations of biblical testimony, or speculation beyond biblical testimony. For example, the substitutionary view of the Atonement is more informed by scriptural testimony than is the Traducian Theory about how a human soul comes about in an infant. Enough of this. McGrath’s comments provide no place for Socinians to hide. Socinians can find no refuge in the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicated by a biblical writer. (I have actually maintained, a number of times, on ex-Wayfer forums that the Trinity is a biblically necessary doctrine rather than a biblically explicit one.) The danger for Socinians lies not in their rejection of the dogmatic formulations of ecclesiastical bodies or their distaste for the explications of Trinitarian theologians. The danger for them lies in their suppression and rejection of things explicitly revealed concerning Christ by Scripture.

T-Bone, Jesus was the Messiah promised in Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus suffered and died. Jesus made propitiation for sins. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus will return from heaven. Jesus will have his elect gathered. Jesus will render vengeance to them who know not God and who do not obey the gospel. The preceding paragraph consists of a topical collection of propositional statements based on indications of various scriptures. There is no single place in Scripture that states all that is affirmed by those statements. The statements have a historical/eschatological aspect and an aspect of communicating proper belief, thus are doctrinal in character. The statements elude McGrath’s rather Kantian account of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine, however, because they function to repeat biblical testimony, rather than to interpret it. I think it doubtful that you or McGrath could find many thoughtful and informed theologians, philosophers, teachers, accountants, mechanics, painters, barflies, or strippers either to conclude the statements are vacant of doctrinal content or to separate them from Scripture by characterizing them as a humanly constructed interpretive framework. You have cited McGrath to bolster your position that the Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1 I cited is man-made – and, thus, is doctrinally biographical of Trinitarians, rather than obligatory. In part, you are somewhat correct, since talk of subsistences, being, substance, nature and essence involves philosophical (ontological) categories that go some distance from what is biblically indicated, and even occasionally becomes an object of critical discussion among Trinitarians themselves (e.g. http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/...8/msg00032.html ). The problem for Arians, modalists and Socinians, however, is not that they disbelieve and oppose what is biblically inexplicit. The problem is that they, without exception, disbelieve and oppose what is biblically explicit. Their objections are objections against the biblically revealed Christ -- who existed eternally, who was (in some respect) distinct from God, and who was (in some respect) God. The Jesus in whom Socianian Wayfers and ex-Wayfers think they believe is a temporally beginning figure who did not exist in the beginning. He was not with God. He was not God. He did not come down from heaven, nor ascend to where he was before. He was not, and is not, what John’s gospel declares him -- the eternal Word and Son of God who became flesh -- to be. The issue for these folks is not an issue with systematic or dogmatic theology. The issue for these folks is an issue in and about themselves. It is whether they hold in their persons some grotesquely distorted and deficient view of Christ, or whether the Christ they have conceptualized will be deemed by the Father to be the Christ sent by Him and revealed by Scripture at all.

Trinitarian exegesis typically asserts the John 1:1 statement “the Word was with God” distinguishes the Word (Jesus Christ) from God in a personal sense, while the statement “the Word was God” qualifies that the Word (Jesus Christ) is God in an ontological sense. Contra modalism, the Son (the Word) and the Father (God) are distinct divine persons. Contra Arianism (and Socianianism), there is no subordination in nature between the Father and the Son. As D. A. Reed has maintained on ex-Wayfer forums: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three whos, yet one what. The Father and the Son are of the same essence, yet the Father is relationally God and Father to the Son. There is an order of relation and function among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- but no order of being. They are one being. There is no adequate analogy for this among created existents. Unitarian explanations of John 1:1 invariably render one or more of its propositions meaningless.

I think offering a distinction between Jesus being “the second person of the Blessed Trinity” and Jesus being “God” makes for something quite misleading. I opted for the "second person of the Blessed Trinity” alternative rather than the “God” alternative to avoid the modalistic implications of the latter caused by its being played as something distinct from the former. I wish now that I had not participated in this poll. Jesus is fully God AND God is tripersonal rather than unipersonal. I think the London Baptist Confession of 1689 put it rather well, confessing "Of God and the Holy Trinity": “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.” (Copied and pasted from http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc02.html )

The church I attend started as a house-based group, which is a scenario used by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church to plant churches. From the church's outset as a house-based group, it was served with some frequency, I am confident, by a "home missionary” who is a fully licensed minister in the denomination. The church presently meets in a small rented facility, and is served by a “pastoral intern”-- a seminary grad with pastoral and teaching functions who is overseen by the session of a larger, out-of-area church, while he pursues licensure in the denomination. The licensure process involves submitting a number of papers to and passing a series of examinations (oral, or predominately oral, I think) conducted by the presbytery. This isn’t some structureless group populated by form-fleeing pietists and freewheeling paleo-hippies. There is a traditional order to church services, and until the pastoral intern completes licensure requirements, no one but a visiting licensed minister – typically the “home missionary” – will be administering the Lord’s Supper.

Have a good one!

Folks, I have seen Garth, in rare instances in which he has had some factual advantage over a poster, demonstrate he is capable of doing a syntactic analysis of statements that is functionally precise. When he deals with me, however, his focus is rhetoric: He plays with words, he distorts some facts, and he proceeds repeatedly to sow misrepresentations and, at times, outright lies into the minds of readers. My words were these: Garth has represented them as follows: I could, of course, slip into “whitewashing” at any time. To this point, however, Garth has established that I have engaged in it to the same degree it has been established on this forum that Garth is rather famous in some aberrant social circles as an abductor and full-body lickier of Ukrainian corpses. As for my supposed dishonesty concerning his admissions about his allegations against Baptists (in which he rather monstrously maintained that Baptists had tortured and lynched heretics and Jews), here’s my response to one of them. There is an apparent lack of inclination in Garth’s cognitive functions towards knowing facts and communicating what is factual. Garth has not retracted his calumnies concerning Baptists, though he has essentially admitted he cannot support them. Garth obviously had no justification for his allegations, yet he invokes brute possibility and keeps his calumny somewhat alive, and even characterizes his calumny as probable. Garth’s charge that Jews had been hunted down because they were not Trinitarians carried the notion that there was some pronounced Trinitarian aspect about the targeting of Jews for persecution. If Garth had any sources to mention, it is likely he would be talking about them. Absent such things as sources, facts and a well-articulated argument, Garth preened loudly and proudly and changed the issue from there having been some Trinitarian motive driving a persecution of Jews to an issue of there having been forced conversions of Jews and a necessary Trinitarian element in professions of faith that would be received as credible. What should be obvious before we get to Calvin and Genevan bloodletting is that Garth shows little thoughtfulness or restraint in making flawed, and quite bloody, accusations. My previously posted point involving Durant was that, barring wording changes in some later edition of The Story of Civilization, Durant was significantly misquoted. I should get to that in a bit and provide, hopefully, a scanned image of Durant’s words for comparison to words quoted as being fully his on several Reformers-bashing Romanist sites. Garth provided a link some time ago to one such site in an attempt to support an accusation that Calvin had dozens of heretics killed. The discussion about Genevan executions needs to be significantly deeper and broader, however, than a mere discussion about Durant being misquoted. Before getting to that, I plan to offer some first principles by which one might come to know something about and evaluate Genevan figures and bloodshed. See: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...43entry122943 Also check out: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...35entry122735

Garth, Can you not stop lying? It should be clear to anyone who can read that I did not invoke “historical context” as some “whitewashing technique.” You have “nailed” me on nothing. I did, however, expose you the matter of your blood libel against Baptists. Oh, no you aren't. You keep bringing this up. You keep fudging our history. Polemically, psychologically, you are going to experience some quite sustained heat on this forum. [Edited to reduce the level of my prick-ness.]

Quite so, Sherlock. LG is possibly basing that statement on the difference between a valid and a sound argument. If so, he probably thinks my arguments are valid, but as an atheist, he rejects the soundness of arguments having theistic premises. See: http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/ARGUMENT.HTM http://papyr.com/hbp/logic5.htm

What I actually wrote: ( see http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...95entry126095 ) I did not make some crude generalization that “killing a heretic isn't murder.” In a demonstration of his customary level of honesty, Garth has reshaped a fact, similarly as he has in the past fabricated other "facts." ***** Note: Due to several influences (e.g. Meredith Kline, Mark Karlberg), I mostly got over my reservations about Covenant Theology and Presbyterianism.

And for one who goes around doing such things, Garth seems to be one pathetically whining little wuss.

Garth is quite correct that my "jabs" at him have not been "'good natured bantering.'" I don't tolerate amoral liars or cheap hacks who spew bloody calumnies. Garth is both.

Mark, I understand what you’re saying, but I doubt there is a significant number of Wayfers, LSG votaries, or GSC Socinians that could spell Monophysite -- let alone that has an informed view of the Christological differences between Monophysitism and orthodox Chalcedonian Christianity. ***** Doojable, If Jesus didn’t know he was going to be raised from the dead, the Gospels need to be rewritten. ***** T-Bone, Welcome aboard.

Smithfield ham? Not the Smithfield ham products presently in Kroger stores. That old Smithfield version of country ham that was so frickin’ salty it was in a class by itself. I once made ham salad out of some of it. Unique stuff. ***** Many years ago, my parents stopped at a small diner with my older siblings in tow. After looking over and apparently spurning the menu’s offering of beverages, my brother asked a waitress: “What ever happened to sarsaparilla?" Her reply: “I don’t think she works here, anymore.”

Happy Birthday, Ms. Sober!!

A transparent ploy to distract attention from NSA-eavesdropping and Halliburton.

Some Reformed thinkers (e.g. Van Til) have somewhat seemed to limit their notions about fallen man's separation from God to a separation that is ethical in character. Wierwille's characterization of fallen man's separation from God, however, emphasized the absence of a means of communication between God and fallen man. In Wierwille's PFAL version of redemptive history, therefore, Christ's sacrifice became emphasized as the means of restoring communication between God and man, rather than as the propitiation of the wrath of the holy, sin-punishing-rather-than-overlooking God.

”Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” – Psalm 110:1 (ASV) The significance Anthony Buzzard is a significant figure to some ex-Wayfers. Buzzard is particularly significant to some CES and ex-CES folks I have encountered on ex-TWI and ex-CES forums. The primary, if not sole reason for Buzzard's significance to these folks is his anti-Trinitarian polemics. In the webcast I provided a link to, James White plays an audio segment of Buzzard speaking about Psalm 110:1 and critiques what Buzzard passes off as exegesis. The argument(s) Buzzard maintains the word in Psalm 110:1 in the “Hebrew Bible” for “my lord” is Adoni rather than Adonai. Buzzard asserts that Adonai is used only in reference to God, and that Adoni is never used to refer to God. Based on the usages of these two Hebrew words, Buzzard avers that Psalm 110:1 indicates that Christ “could not be God himself.” White points out that the textual distinction between Adonai and Adoni, which consists of vowel pointing in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, is not a distinction that appears in consonantal texts or the Septuagint. According to White, the distinction between Adonai and Adoni was a distinction introduced into Hebrew texts by the Masoretes centuries after Christ. It was an interpretive distinction that apparently is without historical textual support. Elaboration The negative conclusion Buzzard presses concerning the deity of Christ does not follow even if Psalm 110:1 is recognizing Christ as Lord in virtue of that lordship which was conferred by God to him due to his obedience unto death. Christ earned glorification by his obedience unto death (Philippians 2:8-9), and he also returned to the glory he originally had in his Father’s presence (John 17:5). The Christ who fulfilled his work, suffered, died, was raised and exalted in his human nature (Hebrews 1:9) is the Christ who made the heavens and the earth in his divine nature (Hebrews 1:10-12). It should be rather obviously doubtful that Jesus’ citing of Psalm 110:1 to question the Pharisees how Messiah’s being David’s son was consistent with him being David’s Lord (Matthew 22:41-46) would have produced an unanswerable paradox if Buzzard’s assumptions about the implications of the text were correct.

Eagle, You’ve become a false prophet? Congratulations! You are now qualified to be a limb coordinator, the head of your own splinter group, the host of “The 700 Club,” or a men-are-gods-with-creative-ability whackjob on TBN.

Happy Birthday, Shell!

And those damned papists killed Elvis, too. Just kidding.

I had been attending a Baptist church. The other churches I checked out were all PCA ( http://pcanet.org ) churches.

On my way towards switching churches recently, I visited four other churches and settled on a very small one about 45 miles away. It is Trinitarian, Calvinistic and covenantal in theology – quite far removed from the Unitarianism, Socinianism, freewill-ism, dispensationalism and Charismatic practices (theologically, I am not a cessationist, but I cannot stand to be around Charismatic groups) that might be expected to attract ex-Wayfers. The denomination’s web page is http://www.opc.org , but I think it unlikely that there are more than a very few ex-Wayfers on the planet that would find the OPC’s theology to be "something that fits."

This thread reminds me of why I generally disliked Way Corps types and those who went around imitating and sucking up to them.