Cynic

Happy Birthday, Ex10!

According to GSC's post-counter, this should be my 1000th post (If Excathedra stopped posting now, I'm not sure I would catch her in my remaining-plus-an-additional lifetime). :]

I recently have taken the precautionary action -- due to a possibility of my suspension from GSC -- of posting the URL of a website I registered a couple years ago, although the website's content is presently undeveloped. The website's address appears (for now, at least) in my signature line and under my avatar.

Should I disappear from GSC, some of you might want to check my website ( http://www.essaysandinvective.com ) for what I might be saying about theology, apologetics, culture, politics, as well as for what I might be saying about things pertaining to this forum.

Just-to-be-safe suggestion: Save the address of my website or add it to your browser favorites, in case everything -- this thread, my signature line, my custom member title -- become as difficult to locate as Jimmy Hoffa.

Cynic

This is sad. My sympathies are with her family.

Nope.

This person was probably a drinking buddy with Franklin and Jefferson.

George

Total WAG: George Mason?

Not exactly the same time period as Franklin and Jefferson, but a quasi-WAG:

John Locke?

Martin Luther?

George

Yessiree.

You're up.

During the time the author was a Roman Catholic, his conscience was so tortured by guilt that he reportedly would spend hours each day in confession, leading his monastic superiors to loathe hearing his lengthy daily litany of sins and to begin questioning whether the author were using confession as a means to shirk monastic duties.

The author’s emergence from a theological and psychological dungeon was due, in part, to reading a version of the Bible produced by Desiderius Erasmus that contained a better rendering of a verse in Romans than the version in common use. Erasmus, however, became an opponent of the author in theological and ecclesiastical matters.

In response to a polemical work by Erasmus affirming freedom of the will and criticizing the author’s views, the author penned a response taking on Erasmus, affirming the sovereignty of God, and characterizing the human will as corrupt.

A quote from that work:

ANOTHER part of the sum of Christianity is, to know, whether God foreknows any thing by contingency, or whether we do all things from necessity. This part also you make to be irreligious, curious, and vain, as all the wicked do: the devils , and the damned also, make it detestable and execrable. And you shew your wisdom in keeping yourself clear from such questions, wherever you can do it. But however, you are but a very poor rhetorician and theologian, if you pretend to speak of “Free-will” without these essential parts of it . . . Whereas, it is impossible that you should know what “Free-will” is, unless you know what the human will does, and what God does or foreknows.

Do not your rhetoricians teach, that he who undertakes to speak upon any subject, ought first to show, whether the thing exist; and then, what it is, what its parts are, what is contrary to it, connected with it, and like unto it, &c.? But you rob that miserable subject in itself, “Free will,” of all these things: and define no one question concerning it, except this first, viz., whether it exist: and even this with such arguments as we shall presently see: and so worthless a book on “Free-will” I never saw, excepting the elegance of the language. The Sophists, in reality, at least argue upon this point better than you, though those of them who have attempted the subject of “Free-will,” are no rhetoricians; for they define all the questions connected with it: whether it exists, what it does, and how it stands with reference to, &c.: although they do not effect what they attempt. In this book, therefore, I will push you, and the Sophists together, until you shall define to me the power of “Free-will,” and what it can do: and I hope I shall so push you, (Christ willing) as to make you heartily repent that you ever published your Diatribe.

No.

Doesn't that tune go with some other words as well?

A number of tunes are sung to Hyfrydol.

See: http://cyberhymnal.org/tun/tun-h.htm

*****

A little bit about the tune's author, Rowland Huw Prichard, appears at:

http://www.songsandhymns.org/people/detail/rowland-prichard

The hymn is “God, All Nature Sings Thy Glory.”

Next one is by William Dix:

Tune: Hyfrydol ( http://cyberhymnal.org/mid/h/y/f/hyfrydol.mid )

[omitted words] His the scepter, His the throne.

Alleluia! His the triumph, His the victory alone.

Hark! the songs of peaceful Zion thunder like a mighty flood.

Jesus out of every nation has redeemed us by His blood.

Alleluia! not as orphans are we left in sorrow now;

Alleluia! He is near us, faith believes, nor questions how;

Though the cloud from sight received Him when the forty days were o’er

Shall our hearts forget His promise, “I am with you evermore”?

Alleluia! bread of angels, Thou on earth our food, our stay;

Alleluia! here the sinful flee to Thee from day to day:

Intercessor, Friend of sinners, Earth’s Redeemer, plead for me,

Where the songs of all the sinless sweep across the crystal sea.

Alleluia! King eternal, Thee the Lord of lords we own;

Alleluia! born of Mary, Earth Thy footstool, Heav’n Thy throne:

Thou within the veil hast entered, robed in flesh our great High Priest;

Thou on earth both priest and victim in the Eucharistic feast.

someone can jump in, as I'm so swamped with work, that I can't come up for air.

I’ll jump in.

I came across this one years ago in Bartlett’s (which presents it as being from a single section of a single work), though I saw something recently identifying it as a compilation of two statements in two of the author's works:

A theologian is born by living, nay dying and being damned, not by thinking, reading, or speculating.

I'm up:

The following is a relatively recent hymn written by a David Clowney, who reportedly was only 16 years-old when he wrote it in 1960:

(Tune: Ode to Joy - http://cyberhymnal.org/mid/h/y/m/hymn_to_joy.mid )

[omitted words], and thy works proclaim thy might

ordered vastness in the heavens, ordered course of day and night;

beauty in the changing seasons, beauty in the storming sea;

all the changing moods of nature praise the changeless Trinity.

Clearer still we see thy hand in man whom thou hast made for thee;

ruler of creation's glory, image of thy majesty.

Music, art, the fruitful garden, all the labor of his days,

are the calling of his Maker to the harvest feast of praise.

But our sins have spoiled thine image; nature, conscience only serve

as unceasing, grim reminders of the wrath which we deserve.

Yet thy grace and saving mercy in thy Word of truth revealed

claim the praise of all who know thee, in the blood of Jesus sealed.

God of glory, power, mercy, all creation praises thee;

we, thy creatures, would adore thee now and through eternity.

Saved to magnify thy goodness, grant us strength to do thy will;

with our acts as with our voices, thy commandments to fulfill.

"Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing."

IIRC, there is also a revised version of this hymn by Margaret Clarkson.

I am surprised that Cynic, Twinky, and TheEvan didn't post any responses.

Thomas,

I responded to say I didn't recognize the hymn:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=443661

Bump.

I don't recognize it.

I have read quite a few references concerning WayDale on these threads. Was that a splinter group of twi? I watched the video of Dr. Dale. Is he the Dale in WayDale? I can't say I remember him from twi. Maybe I would have 25 years ago.

What was or is WayDale about?

WayDale was an ex-TWI forum very similar to this one. It's owner and/or his wife sued TWI and shut down the site shortly after settling with TWI.

WayDale was not associated with Dale Sides.

I have heard a version of that hymn a few times, but could not recall any of the lines other than "May Jesus Christ be praised!"

By the way, John, thanks for your efforts.

You and D. A. Reed are the only theologically capable non-TWI ministerial figures I can think of who have posted critiques of TWI teachings on ex-Wayfer forums.

IMO, LSG (Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser) might have put together a doctrinal collection that is somewhat worse than the collection of the old heresiarch himself. Which of Wierwille’s errors, heresies, and damnable heresies did LSG give up?

LSG retained Wierwille’s dispensationalism, Wierwille’s soul-sleep, Wierwille’s psilanthropism, Wierwille’s Unitarianism, and one or more of them seemed to outdo Wierwille in contempt for God’s sovereignty by journeying from Wierwille’s view of God as passive yet omniscient into open theism.

Thomas,

I don't recognize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeR5UtvwM7w

Should all ex-TWI leaders be fitted for propeller hats?

*****

By the way,

Who the heck is "Thomas Hegel"? I've never heard of him, though I have heard of the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Sure.

Revelation 21 does not say that the bride will live IN the city.

It says that the bride IS the city:

"(the angel said) "come, I will show you the Bride, the Wife of the Lamb. And he carried me away.... and showed me the Holy City" (21:9)

It does not say, "he showed me the wife IN the city," but rather, ""I will show you the bride... he showed me the holy city." The bride and city are the same beings - those who believe in Jesus Christ.

The account further emphasizes that the city is people by saying that the gates had the names of the tribes of Israel and the foundations were the 12 apostles. It does not say that the tribes walked in the gates nor that the apostles built the foundations, but rather that they ARE those things. In other words, the city and the bride are the people of God of all eras- Jew and Gentile.

The image of a city is also used of God's people in Matthew 5:14-16- on a hill just as the city in Rev 21 is.

This is much like Ephesians, in which believers are descirbed as the bride/wife (5:22-33) AND as the building (2:19-22) We don't have trouble understanding that the bnuilding in Eph 2 is the people of God, nor should we have trouble understanding that the city in Rev. 21 is the people of God.

Dr. Juedes,

Good post!

You have biblically supported your view quite well. Your view, in part at least, seems the same as Kline’s.

My tentative opinion is that Kline is pretty good on stuff like this, though he possibly goes over the edge at times (e.g. his “framework hypothesis” concerning the Genesis creation account).

Interestingly, Kline also maintains (perhaps somewhat speculatively, though I tend to think he is correct) that the spatial separation between Heaven and Earth will be done away with “at the dawning of the eternal Sabbath for humanity,” by which I assume he is referring to the eschatological establishment of the fully realized kingdom of God on Earth.

I agree that there are one people of God and one eschatological collective identity and destiny for that people.