Cynic

Sky, You mentioned that you are Lutheran. As I understand it, Luther and Lutheranism view a few things differently. I’m not a big fan of Luther or Lutheranism (due to some Christological issues), but Luther probably asserted at least as high a view of God’s sovereignty as Calvin did. Luther wrote his famous The Bondage of the Will in response to the Dutch humanist Erasmus’s Diatribe on Free Will, and even embraced “double predestination,” which Luther accepted as the teaching of Scripture, despite referring to reprobation as “the horrible decree.” Historical Reformed theology (aka: Calvinism) does not make justification (i.e. being declared righteous) contingent upon obedience, though there are some Reformed folks involved in the Federal Vision movement who possibly do so. Reformed theology (at least the historic Presbyterian version of it) holds that faith alone is the instrument of justification, but that real faith is not a faith which is alone, but a faith that is accompanied by repentance and, ultimately, by sanctification. Another way of saying this perhaps is that although a man is not saved by works, a man is not saved without works. A central point in the Reformed view is Scripture's covenantal promise that God will put his laws into the hearts and minds of his people. It is God who originates and completes the salvation of his people. Those who are saved by God become keepers of his laws and observers of his will because God has worked and continues to work in them to make them that way (see Hebrews 8:10). P. S. Up to the point of your previous post, your contempt for Calvin and his (sovereign grace) theology seems to have expressed itself concerning election, predestination, and perseverance. It seems rather odd you seem to be somewhat involving contempt for Calvin’s entangling of church and state in a call for me to reexamine my opinion about Calvin’s theology. An aversion to theonomy (there are some Reformed folks who are possibly more extreme theonomists than Calvin was) is not going to spill over to my views on sovereign grace. There is no necessary connection between Calvin’s views on the role of the state and Calvin’s views on sovereign grace. And, although I have not studied Calvin’s writings to any significant extent, I figure I know a good bit more about Calvin, about Calvinism(s), about sovereign grace soteriology, and about the underpinnings of theonomic thought than you or Garth do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will

Garth, The metaphor was that you would find being mistaken for me worse than finding your dog skinned. It did not involve a suggestion about your treatment of canines, and it reveals nothing about theology or about Calvin.

Though I haven’t studied Calvin’s own writings to any significant extent, I expect his views on statecraft were somewhat intensely theonomic . It is noteworthy, however, that, in citing a quote about Calvin’s high view of God along with a quote about Calvin’s view of the role of the state as something indicating that Calvin was “sick!,” Garth displays as much contempt for the biblical notion of God’s sovereignty over his creatures as he does for the church exercising influence over the sword of the state.

Sky, I’m in a good mood. I'm not upset at your mistaking me for Garth. The bad news, however, is that making such a mistake is doing something worse to Garth than making a belt and a pair of shorts out of the carcass of his dog. Garth’s uncle, Guido, is possibly heading your way.

Sky4it, Is "horseshead" your sock puppet? By the way, I missed the free “Unconditonal ceremony” involving a “night of total depravity” that you say is held for initiated Calvinists that perform the “trick”. I need to find some 32nd degree Calvinist I can talk to about this. I WAS ROBBED!!!

Evan, I should give credit. The wording of my post is completely my own, but I came across the John/Isaiah comparison in White’s book, The Forgotten Trinity.

I’m unsure when I’ll now have time for significant posting between some conditioning and coursework requirements, but my restraint feature is now turned off with respect to this little fellow.

Abigail, Anthony Buzzard tried to push a Masoretic markup of Psalm 110:1 as Scripture in what appears to be an attempt to come up with something that might contraindicate the deity of Christ. White and his caller effectively refuted Buzzard’s claim that there is an inferior alternative to the word Adonai used in Psalm 110:1 to refer to Christ. As for your question: I’m no Hebrew or Greek scholar, but remember reading that the use of the word Adonai is not restricted to God. The use of divine name, Yahweh, however, is another matter. Granted, that divine name is not used in Psalm 110:1 to refer to Christ. Following, however, is Isaiah 6:1-10 from the American Standard Version of the Bible (ASV). Pay particular attention to Isaiah’s claim to have seen one whom Isaiah identifies as “Jehovah of hosts.” (I am quoting from the ASV because it uses the name Jehovah where textually indicated). The apostle John identifies the one whom Isaiah saw as Christ. Following is John 12:37-41 John, in part, is referring to Isaiah 53:1, which he quotes. John also, however, is referring to Isaiah 6:10, which he also quotes. Isaiah identifies who he saw in the Chapter 6 vision as Jehovah of hosts. John connects what is said in that vision to the glory seen in that vision, and reports it as Isaiah's seeing of Christ’s glory. A comparison of Isaiah 6 and John 12 shows apostolic recognition of Christ as Jehovah of Isaiah's vision. Identification of Christ by the single divine name is utterly compelling indication that he is fully God.

I am bumping this thread to the top. The subject audio segment is now accessible at http://www.aomin.org/ra/dl012406.ram . The segment is located approximately from 8:13 through 30:09 in the webcast.

Sky also needs to look up the definition of buggery -- especially before again posting about having it in himself. (It doesn't mean irritation or anger.)

Typical of sky4it's posts: Petulant but unsubstantiated accusations. Some more of Calvin's views in his own words:

Following are some statements by Calvin by which readers in this forum can assess sky4it’s characterization of Calvin’s views. Calvin’s main point is that justification (imputed righteousness) and sanctification (in the sense of experiential righteousness) are distinct but inseparable.

sky4it: You seem to despise the Calvinistic teaching that God’s predestining of his elect to salvation is wholly without respect to foresight of faith. You despise that it is said by us Calvinists that it is God, not men, who is sovereign over the salvation and faith of all men. What you rail against, however, is not something of our contrivance. You rail against the testimony of Scripture Scripture (Acts 13:48) indicates the Gentiles of Antioch of Pisidia who believed Paul and Barnabas’s preaching were those who had been ordained to eternal life. Scripture -- unapologetically -- declares (Romans 9 ) that God has mercy on whom he will, that God hardens whom he will, that God has a right within himself to take one person out of humanity for a vessel unto honor and another out of the same humanity for a vessel unto dishonor. There is a general call to faith in the declaration of the Gospel, but it is those whom God has appointed to be recipients of his mercy who receive and respond in faith. You falsely accuse Calvin of pitting election against faith, yet the doctrine of unconditional election holds faith as something brought about (through effectual calling) in those God has appointed to life. It is you, not Calvin, who has pitted election and faith against one other.

I had come across free audio course lectures from Reformed Theological Seminary shortly before finding this thread. I don’t own an iPod, and I’m not wild about having to use iTunes to access files, but I did manage, after downloading a few files through iTunes, to copy and paste them into a folder from which they would upload to my Creative Labs audio player. RTS ( http://www.rts.edu ) has put up an impressive offering (e.g. Old Testament, New Testament, Systematic Theology, an overview of the history of philosophy by John Frame) of free lectures, as Covenant Theological Seminary ( http://www.covenantseminary.edu ) has been doing (without going through iTunes) for some time. Now, if only Westminster Theological Seminary ( http://wts.edu , http://www.wscal.edu ) would follow suit.

Recommendations for ex-Wayfers: The Pilgrim’s Progress, by John Bunyan The Belgic Confession of Faith http://www.prca.org/bc_index.html The Westminster Confession of Faith http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm The London Baptist Confession of 1689 http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html (Note: The LBC seems largely to have incorporated the WCF, but, IMO, the LBC section on the Trinity is notably more articulate.) The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns Other worthwhile reading: The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Boettner Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments by Geerhardus Vos The Pauline Eschatology by Geerhardus Vos Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen Apologetics to the Glory of God by John M. Frame Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness by John Piper Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faulty of Westminster Seminary California edited by R. Scott Clark (The last two books might be particularly useful for folks who have been playing around with the likes of N. T. Wright, the New Perspective on Paul, and/or the Federal Vision.)

For what it’s worth: http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whoi...amp;type=domain http://www.geocities.com/grace_research_fe...p/akribos2.html Disclaimer: I just came across the Geocities site, and have not adequately assessed its content.

Sometimes the baby is worse than the bathwater.

Happy Birthday, BB!

Happy B-day, George!

The wedding is surely over by now. He ought to be back posting.

Katy, Most of the folks (there are some exceptions) around here seem as bad off theologically as Wayfers, and there are some who seem even more debauched. There’s much more “ammo” to be found at sites such as http://www.aomin.org and http://www.mbrem.com – and in the pieces such as appear at http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html , http://aomin.org/CHALC.html , http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html , and http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reforme...Incarnation.htm -- than at this forum. IMO, the problem with your CES acquaintance probably is not a problem of not seeing the truth. The problem is likely one involving the suppression of the testimony of Scripture and the subordination of scriptural testimony to the unscriptural assumptions that Jesus Christ is a mere man who is not God and who had an approximate 2000-year-ago beginning to his existence. These folks aren’t coming to acknowledge the truth by pulling on their own intellectual and religious bootstraps. It will take a sovereign work of God. (2 Timothy 2:24-26) Cynic (GS Cafe’s Trinitarian/Calvinist)

Dr. Juedes, Did you take the PFAL class and attend a few functions for polemical purposes (i.e. for the purpose of acquainting yourself with an opponent) or were you actually at one time considering becoming involved with TWI?

Happy Birthday, Excath!

This law could be bad for plumbers.

More normal than I expected: