Cynic

I think the Door once even "reported" that Corrie Ten Boom had gotten married to Burt Reynolds.

I am now thinking The Door's edition cover (which I never saw) purported that Corrie Ten Boom was to marry or go off (something along those lines) with Burt Reynolds. Unfortunately, the particular edition of the magazine happened to come out when Corrie died.

Erkjohn, this is very well written indeed!

I have lots of typing to do but if you look starting about p. 12 on the doctrinal forum on the thread "Is Calvinism a Cult?" which is back there a ways on the forum, there is a lot more about Driscoll. I copied this from a post Waysider kindly looked up for me: I think it's from a NY Times article of 2009.

Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, took a dramatic stand against girly men at a Pastor’s Conference in Houston last week.

The conference, called “re:tool and re:load,” previously billed as “jesus 2.0,” featured speakers from around the country with the stated focus of “Making the Gospel and Missionlogy Relevant to Post Modern Culture.” Speaking at the last session of the conference, Driscoll focused his three-and-a-half-hour talk on the need for pastors to be more alpha.

“The problem with our churches today is that the lead pastor is some sissy boy who wears cardigan sweaters, has The Carpenters dialed in on his iPod, gets his hair cut at a salon instead of a barber shop, hasn’t been to an Ultimate Fighting match, works out on an elliptical machine instead of going to isolated regions of Russia like in Rocky IV in order to harvest lumber with his teeth, and generally swishes around like Jack from Three’s Company whenever Mr. Roper was around.”

“At last year’s Converging Conference, Driscoll talked about standing up when you .... and I got really excited. We started a men’s-only Bible Accountability Group. It was a combination of scripture study and Muy Thai Stick Fighting. It was great for a few weeks, until my worship pastor lost an eye. I had to make a tough call then and there: no more Muy Thai Stick Fighting at Kiona Community without protective face gear. I still think it might have been a spiritual compromise.”

In Houston, Driscoll was intent on making absolutely clear that he is in favor of masculinity. At the 2 hour, 15 minute mark, he invited five pastors from the audience to take the stage, put his hands behind his back, stuck out his chin, and said, “Hit me with your best shot. Go on. I won’t hit you back. I want to show everyone what this is all about.” When none of the five took a swing, Driscoll had them escorted from the building and proceeded to hit himself five times.

“This is what being a pastor is about, guys. If you can’t handle it, go back to teaching yoga or playing My Little Pony with the other girls.”

The rest of the session followed the same general tone, with Driscoll ridiculing insulated coffee cups, haiku and dental floss as feminine while extolling athletic cups, tobacco spit and broken load-bearing bones as being “essential for a pastor.”

That is not "from a NY York Times article." It is from The Wittenburg Door and obviously is satire, rather than something factual. I think the Door once even "reported" that Corrie Ten Boom had gotten married to Burt Reynolds.

The Door's satirical piece on Driscoll can be read at the Door's site ( http://www.wittenburgdoor.com ). I cannot get a direct link to the piece past GSC's filter, but you can find a link to that piece on the Door's main page.

The Internet Archive is again retrieving pages from the site (www.two-age.org) I mentioned.

An archive of the main page (with working, archived links!) is accessible at

http://web.archive.org/web/20080607162454/http://www.two-age.org .

There is an interesting short piece titled, “The Two Ages and Redemptive History,” that has a diagram illustrating the two ages and a present overlap of those two ages. This piece is accessible at http://web.archive.org/web/20080516173455/www.two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm

I am becoming convinced that prophesies about a glowing future for Israel will be fulfilled in the everlasting, eschatological kingdom that all the elect (both Jews and Gentiles) in Christ from all ages will inherit. Along the lines of there being both a corporate and an individual aspect to resurrection, I think it was Geerhardus Vos who pointed out that the Greek word translated regeneration is used both of the eschatological new creation and of the individual new creature (see Matthew 19:28, Titus 3:5).

The eschatological new creation, however, is not completely future. Christ inaugurated it at his first advent. There is a new corporate man in Christ. There are new individual creatures in Christ.

In Vosian terms the age to come has “intruded” into the present. Christ is now ascended on high, and spiritually, his elect have been seated with him. The already of the age to come is spiritual. The not yet will arrive at the redemption of the elect’s bodies and the physical establishment on Earth of the eschatological kingdom. It is helpful to view the Bible as having a storyline of creation, fall, redemption, consummation.

*****

Geerhardus Vos is a noted figure in two-age eschatology. I was going to post a link to an primer on two-age eschatology that includes Vos’s noted two-age diagram. The site (www.two-age.org) is defunct, however, and the Internet Archive WayBackMachine, which retrieved an archive of the web page earlier today, will not presently retrieve it.

What a pack of false teachers and false prophets.

It is interesting, nonetheless, that sickness, insanity, demonic possession, tragedy, and death typically have been soothsaid or interpreted by Wayfers as consequences for less-than-MOG folks leaving of the "household," but the death of the old heresiarch was interpreted as something his subordinates were culpable for.

If you've got an IP address for the e-mail source, you might try running it for location, as well as having it checked against the known IP addresses of registered GSC users (mostly to eliminate the possibility that GSC has some sicko pretending to be a Wayfer).

You write such colorful posts! I agree. The book of Hebrews is a warning to Chritians who came to Christ from a Hebrew background, and were being tempted to turn their backs on Christ because he wasn't a Levite. But as the auther wrote to them in chapter 6 verse 9, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we speak thus."

Love,

Steve

(Note: I began writing this before reading the above post.)

Steve,

Although I agree with most of what Geisha has posted, I think Hebrews 6:9 indicates the faith of most of the primary recipients of the epistle was regarded by the epistle’s author as genuine, rather than as suspect as what the content of the author’s discourse might seem to suggest. I think the author might have been speaking to a community of genuine believers that was a subset of a community whose members' “faith” was generally quite suspect (i.e. to folks the author thought were genuine converts among some largely unconverted Jewish Jesus movement).

This is speculative, of course, but plausible. There had been thousands of Jews that followed Jesus in and about Galilee that did not appear on the whole to become disciples of Jesus. The 6th chapter of John’s gospel in particular is illustrative of this. The parable of the sower indicates there are temporary believers. Another parable of the kingdom speaks of bad fish being drawn in along with good fish.

The issue here between you and Geisha -- and between you and me -- is whether temporary believers and other respondents that will be rejected were at any time genuinely converted believers. Do temporary believers at some point have true faith -– something that historically has been characterized (though I think not sufficiently) as a combination of knowledge, assent, and trust?

I am no postmodernist, yet I recognize all of us have influences and assumptions that will inform our attempt to answer such a question. We all have hermeneutical (interpretive) processors.

Can a genuine Christian apostatize? You seem to think so. I suspect your view is influenced by the New Perspective on Paul, and by an NPP notion of covenant (i.e. that one gets in covenant by grace, but must stay in covenant by practicing covenant fidelity). Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question.

Additionally, I think there is a distinction between those who are partakers of the New Covenant in an external sense and those who are partakers of the New Covenant in both an external and an internal sense. My view is largely informed, of course, by Reformed (Presbyterian) covenant theology –- modified by influences of Meredith Kline and others, as well as by some of my own idiosyncrasies.

Now, I don't think Wierwille put it together at all. I think it's more likely that he simply plagiarized it, possibly from B.G. Leonard, and found it very useful for his own purposes.

It was from Bullinger. Wierwille was retelling a portion of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible,although Bullinger's argument was more capably framed.

(See http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/132.htm )

It has been many years since I read How to Enjoy the Bible, but I recall that reading it revealed Wierwille had pulled a number of PFAL teachings -- and even a number of his PFAL anecdotes -- from it.

Hello, everyone, I took PFAL, back in 1987 and being a Trinitarian as I was at the time and Weirwille's use of the Greek word "with" = Pros, Together with but distinctly independent of. I was surprised at this, I was equaly surprised that Trinitarian theolgians as well state that this is a an accurate definition for the Greek word Pros- meaning that the word was with the God. Have any of you since came to believe that Jesus is indeed God since leaving the Way?

I believe and confess that Jesus Christ is God.

In confessing that Jesus Christ is God, I am affirming that the Lord Jesus is God ontologically. Jesus Christ is an eternal, divine person who possesses that singular, undivided being/essence which alone is God.

I deny, with all orthodox and functioning Trinitarians, both that Jesus Christ is the Father (a heresy of modalists) and that Jesus Christ is declared by Scripture to be God only in some metaphorical, non-substantial sense (one of the heresies of Wierwille).

*****

Link:

“A Brief Definition of the Trinity” (James White)

http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html

I'm not really a christmas guy. I dont particularly like the overcommercialization, the hecticness or the tunes that bombard you every year starting around Thanksgiving. So over and over I stay away but it always seems that eventually one song strikes me every year that breaks through and gets me "in the spirit", of the season. Its different every year. always unexpected and impossible to predict what it will be.

Once it happens it never really works again.Its the unexpectedness of it that makes it work for me

One year it was an acoustic guitar version of O Holy Night by Ed Gerhardt. One year it was a song by folk singer Anais Mitchell called Christmas in The East Bank, another year a choral piece, another year a song a childrens school pageant.

Last year I was surprised by this little exchange in a movie (Joyeux Noel) about the WWI 1914 Christmas Eve Truce,a true story that started with singing carols across the battlelines

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iDz8Ul_AQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iDz8Ul_AQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iDz8Ul_AQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I dont know what it will be this year, but I'll be waiting

to hear if anything really moves me for some reason or other----something usually does I just dont know what yet

MStar,

Nice clip! I liked it so much that I bought and downloaded the film. Thanks for posting this! (It’s nice to see you’re good for something.)

Ihe word accursed that appears in the KJV sometimes has the meaning of devoted to destruction. The renderings of various Bible versions of Joshua 6:17-7:1 that appear at the following link show this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%206:17-7:1&version=ESV;ASV;YLT;NIV;KJV

Achan’s sin was taking things that God had commanded to be destroyed. Specifically, Achan took a garment, 200 shekels of silver, and a 50-shekel-weight bar of gold.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%207:19-23&version=ESV;ASV;YLT;NIV;KJV

Again, the 7th chapter of Joshua does not indicate that Achan was stoned for committing adultery, or that he committed adultery.

Actually, I was incorrect. The silver and gold were to be brought into the treasury of the Lord, rather than devoted to destruction. Among the things that Achan took, it appears only the garment would have been subject to the command of destruction.

NO Achan's sin was taking of the accursed thing, which is listed as taking anything that God had cursed for the people of Israel under Old Testament Law. You didn't have to tell me that, I already knew that Calvinists sanctify things God calls accursed. Included in the accursed things, are adultry, fornication, having other Gods besides God before them. Pretty much doing everything that inititated Calvinists in general are all about.

Ihe word accursed that appears in the KJV sometimes has the meaning of devoted to destruction. The renderings of various Bible versions of Joshua 6:17-7:1 that appear at the following link show this:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%206:17-7:1&version=ESV;ASV;YLT;NIV;KJV

Achan’s sin was taking things that God had commanded to be destroyed. Specifically, Achan took a garment, 200 shekels of silver, and a 50-shekel-weight bar of gold.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%207:19-23&version=ESV;ASV;YLT;NIV;KJV

Again, the 7th chapter of Joshua does not indicate that Achan was stoned for committing adultery, or that he committed adultery.

Sky,

By the way, where do you get that there was some adultery-related stoning in the 7th chapter of Joshua.

Achan’s sin involved taking things from Jericho that were to be devoted to destruction.

No Cynic, I am not obsessed with Calvinism, unrepentant Calvinists are obsessed with adultery and fornication, and greed for money and other mens wifes, as witness by the fact they don’t ever think that they have to repent.

You bear false witness, Sky.

There salvation plan is UNCONDITIONAL, because they love there sin.

Scripture portrays election as unconditional (Romans 9:11-24), Sky. Calvinism or sovereign grace theology is characterized by a high view of God’s sovereignty and a low view of man’s ability. Man must repent, but repentance is a sovereign grant of God to man (2 Timothy 2:25), and is not enabled by any ability towards God in man.

Election is based upon making your calling and election sure, as stated by the scripture in Peter that has been quoted over and over again on the bottom of my SIG.

Following are John Calvin’s comments on 2 Peter 1:10-11. Calvin's comments are consistent with a high view of God’s supremacy over the salvation of men, and are inconsistent with the supposed theology of greed (for money and other men’s wives) of your insipid calumnies.

[From Calvin’s commentary on 2 Peter]

10. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence. He draws this

conclusion, that it is one proof that we have been really elected, and not in

vain called by the Lord, if a good conscience and integrity of life

correspond with our profession of faith. And he infers, that there ought to

be more labor and diligence, because he had said before, that faith ought not

to be barren.

Some copies have, “by good works;” but these words make no change in

the sense, for they are to be understood though not expressed.

He mentions calling first, though the last in order. The reason is, because

election is of greater weight or importance; and it is a right arrangement of a

sentence to subjoin what preponderates. The meaning then is, labor that

you may have it really proved that you have not been called nor elected in

vain. At the same time he speaks here of calling as the effect and evidence

of election. If any one prefers to regard the two words as meaning the same

thing, I do not object; for the Scripture sometimes merges the difference

which exists between two terms. I have, however, stated what seems to me

more probable.

Now a question arises, Whether the stability of our calling and election

depends on good works, for if it be so, it follows that it depends on us.

But the whole Scripture teaches us, first, that God's election is founded on

his eternal purpose; and secondly, that calling begins and is completed

through his gratuitous goodness. The Sophists, in order to transfer what is

peculiar to God's grace, to ourselves usually pervert this evidence. But

their evasions may be easily refuted. For if any one thinks that calling is

rendered sure by men, there is nothing absurd in that; we may however, go

still farther, that every one confirms his calling by leading a holy and pious

life. But it is very foolish to infer from this what the Sophists contend for;

for this is a proof not taken from the cause, but on the contrary from the

sign or the effect. Moreover, this does not prevent election from being

gratuitous, nor does it shew that it is in our own hand or power to confirm

election. For the matter stands thus, — God effectually calls whom he has

preordained to life in his secret counsel before the foundation of the world;

and he also carries on the perpetual course of calling through grace alone.

But as he has chosen us, and calls us for this end, that we may be pure and

spotless in his presence; purity of life is not improperly called the

evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify

to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in

this confidence, in such n manner, however that they fix their solid

foundation on something else.

At the same time, this certainty, mentioned by Peter, ought, I think, to be

referred to the conscience, as though the faithful acknowledged themselves

before God to be chosen and called. But I take it simply of the fact itself,

that calling appears as confirmed by this very holiness of life. It may,

indeed, be rendered, Labor that your calling may become certain; for the

verb poiei~sqai is transitive or intransitive. Still, however you may render

it, the meaning is nearly the same.

The import of what is said is, that the children of God are distinguished

from the reprobate by this mark, that they live a godly and a holy life,

because this is the design and end of election. Hence it is evident how

wickedly some vile unprincipled men prattle, when they seek to make

gratuitous election an excuse for all licentiousness; as though, forsooth! we

may sin with impunity, because we have been predestinated to

righteousness and holiness!

For if ye do these things. Peter seems again to ascribe to the merits of

works, that God furthers our salvation, and also that we continually

persevere in his grace. But the explanation is obvious; for his purpose was

only to shew that hypocrites have in them nothing real or solid, and that,

on the contrary, they who prove their calling sure by good works, are free

from the danger of falling, because sure and sufficient is the grace of God

by which they are supported. Thus the certainty of our salvation by no

means depends on us, as doubtless the cause of it is beyond our limits. But

with regard to those who feel in themselves the efficacious working of the

Spirit, Peter bids them to take courage as to the future, because the Lord

has laid in them the solid foundation of a true and sure calling.

He explains the way or means of persevering, when he says, an entrance

shall be ministered to you. The import of the words is this: “God, by ever

supplying you abundantly with new graces, will lead you to his own

kingdom.” And this was added, that we may know, that though we have

already passed from death into life, yet it is a passage of hope; and as to

the fruition of life, there remains for us yet a long journey. In the meantime

we are not destitute of necessary helps. Hence Peter obviates a doubt by

these words, “The Lord will abundantly supply your need, until you shall

enter into his eternal kingdom.” He calls it the kingdom of Christ, because

we cannot ascend to heaven except under his banner and guidance.

Sky4it,

Is your obsession fundamentally about Calvinism (in general)?

Is it fundamentally about the doctrine of unconditional election (in particular)?

Is it fundamentally about professing Christians living licentiously?

Is it fundamentally about a particular adulteress and/or a particular adulterer?

My favorite media figure is gone. I loved his independent, cynical edge.

I think the following quote is a competent statement about questions that have arisen in this thread.

(From “Common Grace,” by Cornelius Van Til)

We are not to use the general offer of the gospel as an abstract idea. Schilder holds that, as a general truth, we may say to the anti-Christ or the devil that whosoever believes will be saved. But to make such a statement to the anti-Christ or the devil as though it could involve them personally would be wholly meaningless. The anti-Christ and the devil are historically finished products. They are such as have finally disbelieved. The general gospel offer could make no point of contact with them. The conditional for them has passed. They have finally negated God and have been, or are being, frustrated by God; in their rejection of God they are epistemologically fully self-conscious. God loved the devil when the devil was an unfallen angel; God loved the anti-Christ and offered Him eternal life when he was in Adam; now that they have become the devil and the anti-Christ, God hates them exclusively. The general offer has meaning only with respect to those who are at an earlier stage of history. It has meaning with respect to the elect and the reprobate when they are, and to the extent that they are, members of an as yet undifferentiated generality.

Van Til thus distinguishes between those who are "epistemologically fully self-conscious" "in their rejection of God" and others who have not passed beyond the possibility of redemption. The former have come to be only hated by God, while the latter still reside under a general love God has for his creatures -- a love that God expresses most excellently to them in the general call of the gospel.

I would add, however, that, although it is true that God is loving and merciful to his creatures that have not passed beyond the possibility of redemption, is is also true that God never extended his love to fallen angels or reprobate men in his predestining decrees (see Romans 9:11-16).

Scripture makes reference to elect angels as well as making reference to elect humans.

Some folks from West Virginia — and probably a few from elsewhere — should remember Steve “Huck” Miller.

Huck was involved for a while with TWI in the 70s. He passed away July 7, leaving behind what appears to be a very fine family that is obviously missing him.

From the "press release":

"The County responded to complaints from a neighbor about traffic and parking issues resulting from a weekly Bible study held in a

Bonita home. This is a land use issue; it's not an issue of religious expression."

From the site you linked, AFTER the investigation:

"I want to reassure you that this matter, however perceived by you or by others, was in fact a land use matter stemming from a

complaint. It was in no way an attempt by San Diego County to infringe upon your religious freedoms."

I'm not sure how "informative" a statement BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION is supposed to be, but I'd be MORE

suspicious of one that made pronouncements BEFORE all the facts were in. I wait until the results to get offended,

and don't need soothing before then.

If you care to notice, I waited for a few primary source documents to spring up on the internet -- and more than two weeks longer than you -- before starting to run my mouth in this thread.

And if anyone actually clicked the Snopes link, they would have seen the link to the

official reply:

http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/ecke.pdf

I'm always just a little hesitant about taking one side's account of the story-

or one side's website account of the story.

I read the Snopes piece, but didn't check out the links. I do see that one of them leads to the warning citation.

What you refer to as "the official reply," however, is a press release. I'm a bit hesitant about taking a public official doing damage-control uncritically. Mr. Ekard's distinction between "a land use issue" and "an issue of religious expression," for instance, is -- in the context of the subject controversy -- neither reassuring nor informative.

There are links to a number of primary source documents on the Western Center for Law & Policy (the organization that is representing the pastor and his wife) website at http://www.wclplaw.org/news.html , including a link to the warning-level citation by an enforcement officer that brought religious-assembly issues into play. In her warning, the enforcement officer did not issue corrective requirements for any alleged nuisances (e.g. parking problems, excess traffic), but focused on the assembly in the house being religious in nature.

Citation: http://www.wclplaw.org/news%5CCitation.pdf

Letter rescinding citation: http://www.wclplaw.org/news/countyresponse.pdf

Apology: http://www.wclplaw.org/news/ekardapology.pdf

This is a doctrinal forum. It is NOT a place to "out" a fellow poster. That is common courtesy to let other posters feel safe in posting details that won't be sent out to the world to see.

Cynic, you know better!!

It is risky to recommend something you have not read, listened to, or watched, yet I think those having a desire to know more about predestination, unconditional election, and God’s sovereignty might benefit from some of the teachings of R.C. Sproul, who has Ligonier Ministries.

Here is a result-page of a YouTube search:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type...nation&aq=f

Cynic, which one are you in that pic?

Belle,

I’m in the back row, below the space between the W and I in “Wierwille,” and am partly hidden by some other guy’s mop.

Thanks for posting this. I doubt I would have seen it otherwise. The woman’s singing and the reaction of the judges and crowd was stunning and lovely. I hope she gets much more than 15 minutes.

Here's a photo of a men's branch at the 1975 Advanced Class in Emporia I just uploaded. I think it would be tougher to identify me in this group.

I wonder if any other folks in this photo are posting here.

http://essaysandinvective.com/1975advclass...oria%201975.pdf