Cynic

We have a winner!

There's not as much hair under the hat these days as there was in that picture.

I hadn't read this post before I posted. Another failed endeavor into humor!

I’d vote for Oak being a fellow prone to present something of an uxorious appearance -- probably the guy on the left.

(Confession: I’m cheating. I’m pretty sure I saw a more recent photo of O posted somewhere on this forum, and don’t recall there being the same level of resemblance between the fellow in that photo and the guy on the far right .)

I recently found obituaries for hymn writer Margaret Clarkson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...tory/BDA/deaths

http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4236-Edith-Margare...n-1915-2008.htm

Some of her hymns appear at Cyber Hymnal:

http://www.hymntime.com/tch/bio/c/l/a/clarkson_m.htm

Wheaton College’s website has somewhat of an overview of her life:

http://www.wheaton.edu/learnres/ARCSC/exhibits/clarkson

Her first words, according to the Wheaton College site, reportedly were “my head hurts,” and she lived a long life in chronic pain.

She seemed to hold a strong view of the sovereignty of God:

http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/o/f/ofayarso.htm

Goodbye, dear lady, whose words and example have provided enrichment to Christ’s church.

Unconditional election is something that flows from the eternal self-counsel of God into redemptive history: God elects (Eph. 1:4-5), Christ redeems (Eph. 1:7) those whom God has elected, the Holy Spirit seals (Eph. 1:13) those whom God has elected and Christ has redeemed.

Faith in Christ is something grounded in election (Acts 13:48) and brought about in the elect through the effectual calling of the Spirit (Eph.2:8) and the hearing of the Word. Not all those who hear the general call of the gospel have been appointed to eternal life, effectually called, and brought to true faith in Christ.

I didn’t think you could.

It might give you some comfort, however, to notice that Time ranked "The New Calvinism" after "Recycling the Suburbs" in its top 10 list of purportedly world-changing "ideas."

The Evan that is a very comforting statement and one I can agree with. It kind of brings me back to where I was three years ago.

I've been on a long journey that led me through "women must be silent in the church at all times", salvation by works (in my opinion), and now "you can be saved and still go to hell if you aren't one of the Elect." So I'm a little footsore, not to mention heartsore.

Oddly enough, the stuff that's being taught in our church is not what I would call Calvinism. It's more like what you said.

So thanks.

WG

Can you identify and provide a link to anything written by any Calvinistic theologian that indicates someone can be saved despite being non-elect?

Cynic, you say that John 10:10 refers to false shepherds who would lead the sheep away, yet I see no reason why your interpretation is any more or less accurate than Wierwille's. Jesus does announce Himself as the Good Shepherd, in comparison to hired hands who would abandon the sheep (The Amplified Bible). I don't see anything about false shepherds in the interlinear I'm looking at, either.

And it doesn't make a bit of sense to me that God has to be micromanaging everybody's lives either. What? I dropped my toothbrush this morning! God foreordained I drop it before the foundations of the earth, and that it would be a blue Crest toothbrush at that!

WG

WG,

It was actually Spoudazo who offered the interpretation in question.

Although I have a high overall regard for Spoudazo's post, I am not ready to endorse the subject interpretation. I am uncomfortable with my grasp of the nuances of Jesus' discourse, and I am rather clueless about the identity of those whom Jesus referred to as having come before him. I would have to spend some time considering it.

There are more bad hombres than the hirelings you apparently find in your interlinear, however. In addition to the hireling, who is said to flee at the approach of the wolf, there is the thief who comes to steal, kill, destroy.

Why do you hold this belief? I am trying to follow your logic. You don't believe in a sovereign God?

Amos 3:6 "When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?"

Not to be brash, but, you must seriously consider rethinking all Way theology. According to Way doctrine, God is sitting in heaven with Jesus at his right hand, both twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the gathering together. If we truly believe in the God of the bible, we must believe in a sovereign Lord. He is omnipotent, which means that nothing in the universe or your life can happen without God allowing it to happen. This means the sparrows falling to the ground, the hairs on your head growing or falling out, or earthquakes, famines, or 9/11. We can question why God allows anything to happen, but it is folly to have such a low opinion of God and a high opinion of our knowledge.

Here is something to think about, God allowed the most traumatic event in human history to occur unimpeded. The crucifixion of His beloved Son. Yet, He used this for man's greatest gain, our salvation. You don't believe God foreordained this, that He used people to accomplish it? God does not give His power to anyone else. He would not then be an all powerful God.

To equate a Christian life to some kind of cosmic chess game where God has to counter each move of Satan's pawns with a counter move, gives too much credit to Satan. God never lost control, He is in charge now, and has been since before creation.

Psalm 139:16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

God not only ordained David's life, He has ordained everything. The infinite mind of God compared to the limited mind of man.

Ironically, the verse you used to give the devil way more credit than he is due is speaking specifically about false shepherds. I hope the irony is not lost on you. It is a direct correllation to Ezekiel 34. Funny how Wierwille opens the class with this because he is a prime example of a false shepherd, teaching you how your needs will be met(If you follow his teaching), while he is fleecing you.

Ezekiel 34: 7 'Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.11 'For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them.

In John chapter 10 Jesus declares HIMSELF to be the good true shepherd in contrast to the false self-appointed shepherds. The steal, kill, and destroy is talking about leading people away with false teaching. Much like we learned in the Way about God not being in charge and ascribing power to the devil he just doesn't have. VPW, took the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4, and used that to say that as the god of this world the devil ultimately controlled everything.

Which is in direct opposition to the first verse in Matthew 4, " What does it say here? 1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil." He was led by the Spirit. God led Him there to be tested."

That steal, kill, and destroy doesn't mean Satan has the power to do whatever he wills, he is still in subjection to God. As is everything in creation. God ALLOWS things to happen, BUT, He uses them for HIS good. What does Joseph say in Genesis 50:20 "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."

As far as the according to the power which works in us? This must be taken in its direct context. Otherwise, if we were in charge of our salvation, or keeping it for that matter, we would be lost before breakfast. Who do you think is in charge of that?

We never held a high understanding of God or His true authority in the Way, we always gave the devil way more deference and due.

God is omnipotent not impotent.

Spoudazo,

Good post! It seems your choice of avatars was thoughtful and deliberate.

Most of that I don't have issue with, but a few things I wonder about. I believe in the perseverence of saints. . . it is scriptural. I can see coming fully to Christ. . . having been drawn by the Holy Spirit. I now understand that. . . However, Jesus is ABLE to finish the good work in us. . .

"Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

What are common operations of the spirit. . . how does one partake in PART of it? Because they are not of the elect??

Jesus indicated he would deny and would say he had never known some who would cite their prophesying, casting out of demons, and performing of mighty works (in His name) to attempt to identify themselves as believers at the time of judgment. I don’t know how one can have operations of the Spirit without really being Christ’s, but there are scriptural indications that it is possible. I speculate that some people might partake in operations of the Spirit that move in the visible church or through those in ministry offices, despite the fact that some visible church members and holders of ministerial offices are unregenerate. Caiphas was a conspirator against and enemy of Christ, but he prophesied concerning Christ through what possibly was an operation of the Spirit.

What about. . . "Whosoever will". . . may come?? OR "Come unto me ALL who are heavy laden. . . " "I will that all men be saved. . . " "The call is to you and to your children and to many who are afar off" . . . "Jesus tasted death for all men" . . .

These are questions that touch on election, limited atonement, and some other things. I highly recommend reading

"Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God’s Desire for All to Be Saved, by John Piper. It is an excellent and theologically robust piece.

( http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary...o_Wills_in_God/ )

There seem to be an aspect of God's will that is inviting and accepting in a general sense, and an aspect of God's will that is so in a discriminating sense. Jesus did not seem to be wooing followers in the chapter-6 section of John's gospel where he told masses following him that no one could come to Him, except the Father draw him: (John 6:44)

It is not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but now it is PLUS election??

Genuine, saving faith is brought about in the elect by the Holy Spirit through His effectual calling of them. The WCF states: “they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season." The reprobate (non-elect) might respond in some way (e.g. they can answer an altar call, pray, attend church, smile at Christians, tithe) to the general call of the Gospel, but are not effectually called, and do not have genuine faith.

An illustration of the difference between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Spirit working through the Gospel is John Bunyan’s (The Pilgrim's Progress) contrast between the sounds of a chicks-calling hen that is heard throughout the barnyard and the act of the hen who subsequently goes and gathers her own to herself.

I understand true saving faith, which is unlike what we had in TWI. I get enemies of the cross. . . distinctions between people. . . but, Christ died for the ungodly, and we were all ungodly enemies. I know that we can't save ourselves. . . we are drawn to Jesus by the Holy Spirit. . . but eternity has been put into the heart of all. Eccl. 3:11 "He has set eternity in their heart."

Christ's death is big enough for the sins of the world. . . for all men. And I know not all will be saved. . . Here is the thing I get confused about. . . freewill. . . He wants us to come to Him feely? No?

Too much for me to understand, but, the Calvinist view of the doctrine of election, seems rather hopeless. . . it discourages people, yet, I know that our problems are not too big for God. He is able.

We cannot see into the mind of God to know his decrees. The so-called Westminster divines recognized that “the doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care.” The doctrine can be unsettling, but it does not unsettle all people. I think it is particularly abhorrent to ex-Wayfers, many of whom seemed attracted to PFAL’s law of believing as their super-duper protector against death, disease, and natural evil, and a appropriator of salvation, health, and prosperity from a heavenly benefactor who had passively limited himself to their believing.

I came to believe in unconditional election reluctantly, only after recognizing there was a clear and undeniable representation of the truth in Loraine Boettner’s (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) statement:

“A further important proof that Paul taught the doctrine which Calvinists have understood him to teach is found in the objections which he put in the mouths of his opponents,—that it represented God as unrighteous: "Is there unrighteousness with God?" Rom. 9:14; and, that it destroyed man's responsibility: "Thou wilt then say unto me, Why doth He still find fault? For who withistandeth [sic] His will?" Rom. 9:19. These are the very objections which today, on first thought, spring into men's minds, in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination; but they have not even the least plausibility when directed against the Arminian doctrine. A doctrine which does not afford the least grounds for these objections cannot have been the one that the Apostle taught.” (See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.v.iii.html .)

This topic makes the trinity. . . which I actually do see. . . look like childs play.

To Add: Monergism is a great site as is http://theologica.ning.com/

Calvinists irritate me sometimes with their monomania about several topics (e.g. election, predestination, limited atonement) of discussion, but I'm prone to grow irritated in my standard mode. I am concerned, nonetheless, that Reformed distinctives take up too much of the Reformed conversion that should involve much more Christology than it usually does.

I recall someone (probably Boettner or Arthur Pink), however, stating that Calvinism is strong scriptural medication for folks for whom no other remedy is going to do. I don’t have knowledge about the souls of other Reformed Christians, but the statement fits well in my case.

I did wonder more about the elect, though. The way I understand it, there's an extremely short "A" list. These are the elect, predestinated by God from before the beginning of time to spend eternity with Him. If your name is on the "A" list, which is very unlikely, nothing you do can remove it; kill, rape, murder, burn, loot and steal. You might not accept Christ. But you are on the "A" list so it doesn't matter.

Then, there is the infinitely long "B" list. On it are the names of all those who will go to hell because God has predestinated them to go to hell. You can accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and still go to hell because you are predestinated to go to hell. For all he knows, Billy Graham is on the "B" list. The "A" list is very short, just the apostle Paul, John Calvin, and M**k Dr***col are on it for sure. Maybe a couple dozen others. All the rest of us Christians are on the "B" list.

My-my! What wild flailings at the doctrine of unconditional election. You have struck only a few “hyper-Calvinists” (e.g. some Primitive Baptists), who reputedly held election to work salvation in some manner independent of faith in Christ.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, with which all authentic Reformed churches would have significant and fundamental levels of agreement, posits the possibility of elect unbelievers only in the cases of “elect infants, dying in infancy” and “other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

Following are several chapters from the Westminster Confession of Faith (source: http://opc.org/wcf.html ) where people can read actual statements concerning doctrinal issues that are being misrepresented (I have emphasized some statements):

CHAPTER 3

Of God's Eternal Decree

1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

CHAPTER 10

Of Effectual Calling

1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

4. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

CHAPTER 17

Of the Perseverance of the Saints

1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.

For those wanting to discover the doctrinal characteristics and systematic theological flavor of Reformed theology, I recommend the following:

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Belgic Confession

The London Baptist Confession of 1689

Also, http://www.monergism.com has many Reformed resources.

Cynic,

Here is a link to the book I mentioned, The Knowledge of the Holy. Like John Piper, AW Tozer writes about the attributes of God and it is great stuff to ponder. Anyone can read the book online.

http://www.geocities.com/johncw7000/tozerk...eoftheholy.html

Thanks, Geisha!

I have heard of Tozer somewhere along the line, but know nothing about him. I saved the link, and plan to give his work a look.

Cynic,

Those are excellent articles and a great site. When you have some time please do come back, I have a few questions and bet you could help me out. One of the articles mentioned the thousand year reign. Maybe you could clarify this for me from the reformed perspective.

We are servants of the king and in the kingdom NOW. Those who have been redeemed, thanks for pointing this out.

Just curious, have you read any AW Tozer. I am reading The Knowledge of the Holy, for the second time. Really amazing book. If you haven't read it, I bet you would enjoy it.

Geisha,

I cannot really give you a definitively “Reformed perspective” on the thousand-year reign. To begin with, Reformed folks vary in their eschatological views, though they seem (presently at least) predominately to be amillennialists or postmillennialists. Secondly, although I lean very heavily towards amillennialism, there are a number of unconsidered and undefined elements in my own eschatological views.

I don’t mind trying to answer some of your questions, but you might try posting a question to the website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church at http://opc.org/contact_handler.php?contact...estion=theology . The one question I posted there was assigned to a professor of systematic theology, who answered the substance of the question correctly. and who was even quite candid in comments questioning the breadth of acquaintance with the issue among the Reformed ministerial community.

The http://www.two-age.org site is amillennial. Amillennialism is characterized, of course, by the belief that there will not be a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, maintaining rather that Christ is now reigning from heaven. I came across something by Vern Poythress indicating amillennialsts have had varying emphases and views across history, but some recent amillennial theologians whom I think are serious Christian believers and biblical scholars who have enlightened the eschatological conversation are Geerhardus Vos, Meredith Kline, and Richard Gaffin – though I reject a number of things (e.g. the “framework hypothesis”) maintained by Kline.

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. – Matthew 16:27-28 (ASV)

Mark,

From the present historical vantage point, some fundamental assumptions, and a broad consideration of other scriptural passages, some of us infer that the Lord is speaking both of something that was temporally distant and something that was temporally rather near.

I do not think you can identify any people who heard Jesus speak, and who are now more than 1900 years old. I do not think, furthermore, you would consider those who sleep in Christ to qualify as people who have not tasted of death in any wise. I also do not think you can offer a plausible notion of what the Lord is saying in a way that is really consistent with your apparent assumptions.

While Matthew 16:27-28 is a passage that might be initially difficult for all, interaction with it and/or similar passages seems to be something that reveals the teachings and theology of some to be shipwrecked.

Full preterists, for instance, wildly maintain that Christ returned, that all biblical prophesy was fulfilled, and that the resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 A.D.

John Schoenheit and some others (e.g. Albert Schweitzer), on the other hand, have engaged in commentary that ostensibly portrays Jesus as possessing false expectations about the timing of eschatological events, and erring in some eschatological statements.

The kingdom of God both has come and is yet to come.

Citing scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God to be future does not carry your argument. Doing so supports a non-controversial point (i.e. that the kingdom of God is scripturally referred to as a future eschatological event). Your challenge is to interact with scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God is a present reality.

I notice what I posted seems much the same as John Piper's view (posted by Geisha), though the www.two-age.org folks possibly give more emphasis to the present kingdom reality.

(deleted -- double post)

I am trying to stay away from posting at Grease Spot (in part to concentrate on developing content at my website), but I recommend that anyone interested in some convincing commentary concerning the age to come -- and whether Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God or whether the Kingdom of God is yet to come -- read the following short articles:

http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm

http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/two-age.htm

The first coming of Christ was an eschatological event (1 Cor. 10:11). Christ inaugurated the Kingdom of God and presently reigns as King. The Kingdom has been established spiritually, and the redemptive benefits of Christ’s work transmitted by the person of the Holy Spirit to those who are Christ’s. This kingdom will be established visibly on Earth, however, at a future eschatological event.

Those who have been redeemed by Christ are in the kingdom -- NOW (Colossians 1:13)

No matter how you put it, if your inner belief about someone is, "Man, there must be something REALLY wrong with this person if they can't recognize these 'simple' truths from the bible!" then your intolerance for others is showing.

1. I do not hold that theology and Christology are "simple."

2. I am theologically and Christologically intolerant, though I am not intolerant to the same degree about every subject.

3. Why not be intolerant?

a. Theological and Christological relativism or apathy is a spiritual disaster.

b. Epistemological relativism is a philosophical heresy.

4. YOU are making an issue of my intolerance? HAH!

... then again, according to _some_ trinitarians I _could_ name ;), Unitarians (socinian or otherwise :unsure: ) are just too stupid to see it the "right" way.

And thus, ... the beat goes on, ... (and the beat goes on) .........

I do not recall ever maintaining Unitarians – or agnostics or atheists, for that matter – generally are “too stupid” to “see it.”

I actually figure Unitarians and atheists range intellectually and ethically from gifted and functionally sensitive humans (in non-theistic matters) to intellectually somewhat other-than-honest-or-gifted little fellows who live in chronic irritation and/or have some never-reachable desire to attain and exert their manhood.

I figure their psilanthropic teachers and polemicists could do some rather Christ-less expositions and moralizing from biblical passages, and carry on a pseudo-hermeneutical boogie till the break of day.

Happy Birthday, Shell!

Thomas,

Thanks for your words and your posts. You brought an offering of Lutheran hymns that I had not read or heard.

For reasons I do not want to bring up in this thread, however, I have been avoiding posting at GSC, and possibly will return, following this post, to reading-only status for an indefinite period.

My purpose in starting this thread was to acquaint (and draw in a few other folks to acquaint) ex-Wayfers with a broader sampling of Christian hymns than the selections of the TWI songbook. My exposure to Christian hymns, though broader than the TWI experience, is obviously quite narrow, compared to yours. You have an extensive knowledge of hymnody (which is something that probably goes with being an educated church music director).

I will post what will probably be my final links for this thread. Links to audio files should appear near the top center of the web pages for which I have provided URLs. The audio files are not midi files, but are hymn performances by what seems, to my ears, to be a talented choir. Some hymns have appeared previously in this thread, though some, I think, have not.

Thanks, again, Thomas, for your erudite input and participation in this thread.

Some hymns:

“I Greet Thee Who My Sure Redeemer Art,” (Strasbourg Psalter -- sometimes attributed to John Calvin)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...re-redeemer-art

“Holy, Holy, Holy,” (Reginald Heber)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/holy-holy-holy

“Alleluia, Sing To Jesus,” (William Dix)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...a-sing-to-jesus

“Thine Be The Glory,” (Edmund L. Budry) (Aka: "Thine Is The Glory")

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/thine-be-the-glory

“And Can It Be,” (Charles Wesley)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/and-can-it-be

“We Come O Christ To You,” (Margaret Clarkson)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...o-christ-to-you

“All Glory, Laud And Honor,” (Theodulph of Orleans)

http://www.songsandhymns.org/hymns/detail/...-laud-and-honor

*****

George,

It has been pleasant trying to name a few hymns and guess a few authors -- as well as interesting trying to enlighten a few liberals -- with you.

Adieu

Sounds like a fun thread...

I'd like to get drunk/stoned with:

1-Robin Williams

2-Lewis Black

3-Colin Powell

4-Alan Ginsberg

5-Ringo Starr

"Alan [sic] Ginsberg"? A desire to consume alcoholic beverages and/or illegal drugs with a NAMBLA member and literary (and possibly practicing) pederast seems a rather low (not to mention icky) aspiration, even for one of the left-of-center denizens of GSC’s political forum -- though I figure it is attributable to a trendily-pluckish anti-establishment mindset and some biographical ignorance about Ginsberg.

As for me, I'd probably go for swilling Heinekens with Cornelius Van Til or V8 juice with Meredith Kline.

Rather than do something that would imply recognition of the likes of Allen Ginsberg as socially tolerable, however, I'd opt for eating pretzels with and/or listening to a lecture on Russian literature or epistemology from Dan Quayle.

Well, I guess you folks should credit me for having sensitivities and a level of compassion superior to Geisha’s: I haven’t spent a nanosecond praying for your sorry asses.

Happy new year to all! I just started a "read the bible in a year" online program, and I don't understand the part in Genesis 9 where Noah got drunk and fell asleep naked in his tent and his 3 sons covered him, and then Noah got mad at his youngest son Ham and cursed Canaan. Is there some explanation for this? Thank you for any help! It's got me befuddled! :)

An informative answer to your question is probably going to venture into speculation rather than be restrained to exegesis. At the following link, however, is one interesting, though somewhat speculative view:

http://www.leithart.com/2005/05/27/noahs-nakedness

Disclaimer: Although I find this view interesting, I will not presently endorse it.

Characteristics of a true church (audio discussion of various views)

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_Whi...?bcd=10/26/2008

Church directories

Presbyterian and Reformed

http://www.naparc.org/directories.html

Reformed Baptist

http://www.farese.com/rbcd/

Reformed Theology in Brief

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/lor_boettner...sthegospel.html

Theological Resources

http://www.monergism.com