Cynic

The following quoted material is from "Covenant Theology and Old Testament Ethics: Meredith Kline's Intrusion Ethics," by Jeong Koo Jeon, which appears at http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv16n1a1.htm According to this interesting piece, Kline has maintained that Israel's theocracy was a unique type and "intrusion" of the eschatological Kingdom into an age in which God was (and is) more generally delaying his judgment of men. In other words, judgments that were to be applied to those among and around Israel who did not give the Lord God appropriate honor were representative of the presently delayed eschatological judgment with which God will act towards the reprobate. I have replaced the author's block quotes with italicized text enclosed within quotation marks.

A somewhat less speculative explanation I’ve seen for Constantine’s putting off baptism until shortly before death is that the putting off of baptism until one was close to death was not uncommon among the upper classes, and was a strategy that arose in response to dogma averring that one who committed a "mortal sin" after being baptized would not be forgiven for it. The manner of avoidance-then-embrace with which Constantine and others apparently approached baptism can give rise to questions about the quality of their faith and repentance (my procrastinating and meandering religious life could be taken as grounds for questions about the quality of my faith and repentance), but, in Constantine's case, does not actually "provide evidence" that Constantine’s activity at the Council of Nicea was directed merely by base political motives. Disclaimer: I am not presently offering any opinion about whether Constantine was genuinely converted to Christ.

I came across mention of Anthony Buzzard the other day while visiting James White’s http://www.aomin.org site. The Reformed Baptist and apologete plays a sound clip of Buzzard in action, and points to some problems with a rather odd argument Buzzard has put forth concerning Psalm 110:1. White’s segment on Buzzard begins shortly after 8 minutes into the webcast that is currently accessible (probably for a few days) at the following link: http://www.aomin.org/dl10.ram

The passages I posted refute Garth’s point. They do not expand on it. They indicate particular reasons the inhabitants of the land were to be dispossessed at the judgment of God. It was not a base land grab. God established with Israel a works-principle of kingdom inheritance, whereby Israel would have possession of and prosperity in the land, and announced the covenantal sanction that Israel would likewise be vomited from the land if she engaged in the same practices for which the to-be-dispossessed were to be dispossessed. That the dispossession of the inhabitants was not based on the brute fact of the inhabitants’ presence in the land is evident in the Genesis 15 passage, where it is suggested that God deferred the dispossession of the inhabitants until a time when the inhabitants' level of iniquity grew more full.

Garth, I am not extremely interested in getting in the middle of a spat between an atheist/agnostic/whatever and a Mormon, but I shouldn’t let your ignorant rants and chronic inaccuracies to fester unchallenged in the minds of others. The biblical passages I posted exposed your previous charge that the “specific reason” the nations “were driven out of the land and slaughtered” “WAS” “that they occupied the land” as a Garthism (i.e. a baseless fabrication). Rather than demonstrating any compunction for being a polemically amoral, calumny spewing little fabulist, however, you, in typical fashion, went on to ignore the utter falsity of your previous charge, as you frothed a replacement rant and foamed out murky new charges.

The following biblical passages are from the American Standard Version (1901) of the Bible. Genesis 15: 12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him. 13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15But thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16And in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet full. Leviticus 18: 24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; 25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. 26Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; 27(for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled); 28that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am Jehovah your God. Leviticus 20: 22Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all mine ordinances, and do them; that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, vomit you not out. 23And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

LG, "Based on different premises." Is that right? If it is, you could possibly: 1. Demonstrate obligation in a non-theistic worldview (i.e. on non-theistic grounds); or, 2. Describe how a moral structure that is neutral with respect to obligation can be supported.

Don’t get discouraged, Raf. Just 9.75 x 10^77 more posts, and you’ll convince him or break him.

Adding to what DMiller posted, following are Strong’s numbers, usages and definitions linked to the Interlinear Greek New Testament of the Online Bible Edition, Version 1.42.01 (see http://www.onlinebible.net ) : 243 allos al’-los a primary word; TDNT-1:264,43; adj AV-other(s) 81, another 62, some 11, one 4, misc 2; 160 1) another, other For Synonyms see entry 5806 [see last entry, “Synonyms,” in this post] ***** 2087 heteros het’-er-os of uncertain affinity; TDNT-2:702,265; adj AV-another 43, other 42, other thing 3, some 2, next day 2, misc 7; 99 1) the other, another, other 1a) to number 1a1) to number as opposed to some former person or thing 1a2) the other of two 1b) to quality 1b1) another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different ***** 5806 Synonyms See Definition for [allos] 243 See Definition for [heteros] 2087 243 as compared with 2087 denotes numerical in distinction from qualitative differences; 243 adds (’ one besides’), 2087 distinguishes (’ one of two’); every 2087 is an 243 but not every 243 is a 2087; 243 generally denotes simple distinction of individuals, 2087 involves the secondary idea of difference of kind.

If what appears on these messages is more or less correct, it seems the two usages for heteros and allos that Bullinger pressed were at one time correct, but were generally associated with Greek more ancient than the Greek of the New Testament. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022202.html http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek...ust/022210.html

Wierwille got it by revelation as it happened to be snowing in the summertime, while he was reading Bullinger, of course: http://www.biblestudysite.com/124.htm

Laleo, I started this thread primarily because I got a kick out of Plantinga’s (esteemed by some to be top dog among living Christian philosophers) comments. I did, however, also want to begin a discussion about terms that are both used pejoratively and equivocally (i.e. with various meanings). Fundamentalist is the term I had wanted particularly to discuss, though cult also would qualify. Let's begin with cult. Cult has various connotations. The term cult can refer to religious ritual, to a heretical group, or can suggest something about a group’s hierarchal, sociological and psychological makeup. Cult would qualify as a referentially ambiguous term, or more simply, as an ambiguous term. It is also a term used largely in opprobrium.

I haven’t experienced anything close to the damage that some folks around here have received at the hands of others. I did have to cross my own (comparatively small) bridge of forgiveness, however, after TWI. I found this very short piece, which was included in the book Tramp for the Lord, self-silencing. http://www.hopeway.org/gospel/learnforgive.asp

Fundamentalist I came across this blog entry containing a citation of a section the noted Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga wrote on "the most common contemporary academic use of the term" fundamentalist. http://ateam.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2.../9/1443917.html ***** Arrghhh! This thread would more appropriately be titled "Ambiguous words" or "Words having connotative ambiguity."

jkboehme, Seen Elvis recently?

A cop pulls over a car he has clocked at 85 miles per hour in a 40 mph zone. He walks to the driver's window, and begins speaking to a young, disheveled and quite redneck-looking woman. Cop: I need to see your license and registration. Woman: I don't have a driver's license. Cop: You don't have a driver's license? Woman: No. I never was good at tests. Cop: I still need the vehicle registration. Woman: I don't know where the registration is. This car is stolen. Cop: Ma'am, you need to move very slowly over to the passenger seat. I am going to remove the keys from the ignition, and I am going to have a look in the trunk. Woman: The trunk? I'm not moving, and I'm not letting you look in the truck. I've got a dead body in the trunk. The cop backs away several feet away from the car, unholsters his gun, and radios for backup. Several minutes pass. Five additional police cruisers arrive. More than a half-dozen police officers emerge from the cruisers, and take various tactical positions around the woman's car. After speaking to the cop, a police sergeant, gun in hand, walks over to the car's window. Sergeant: I understand you don't have a driver's license. Woman: Of course, I have a driver's license. (The woman hands the sergeant her driver's license.) Sergeant: The officer who pulled you over said that after he asked you for the vehicle registration, you informed him this vehicle was stolen. Woman: This is my car. Why would he say something like that? (She hands him the vehicle's registration.) Sergeant: The officer says you also informed him there is a dead body in the truck. Woman: What!!! Sergeant: Ma'am, don't make any sudden movements. I'm going to have to look in your trunk. Woman (Slowly hands her keys to the sergeant.): Help yourself! I figure that after you're done looking, you're going to tell me that crazy, lying sonofabitch over there said I was speeding, too.

I was aware that Augustin was at one time a Manichean, and that Tertullian became a Montanist (a charismatic sect whose leaders wielded pretentious claims that today could possibly get them considered for their own TBN show), but I was unaware that Tertullian was known for ever having any Marcionite leanings. Although I haven’t read them, Tertullian’s penned some writings noted for their opposition to Marcion’s heresy. Interestingly, I found (at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-28.htm#TopOfPage ) Tertullian introducing a work against Marcion as follows: “Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work-which is the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third-renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.”

More questions: Did anyone hear Wierwille "ordaining" any "apostles"? Purporting to have ordained any apostles? Asserting that persons involved with TWI were apostles? If so, names please. ***** Oakspear, Valid point.

Anyone around here hear Wierwille claim to be an apostle?

Ooops. Late Happy Birthday!

Who is--er, was--John Jay? See http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0826053.html? How did he do a recent study on the sexual abuse of children by Romanist clergy? He didn't. The subject study was associated with this institution: http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/

Happy Birthday, Ron! I think of you just about every time I run across one of those ads for ATF-should-be-a-convenience store t-shirts.

NO CALVINUS FOR YOU!!! (Well, at least till you’ve gone through a six-pack or two of canned purgatory.)

Mark, I think I understand your words quite well. My previous post states what strongly seems to be what you have communicated as being RC doctrine, at least as it has surfaced in the varying cases of baptized infants and "properly disposed," but unbaptized persons.

Mark, Thanks for the response. So, the position of the Romanist church is that baptism is a both a necessary and a sufficient condition for regeneration, but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation.