Saturday, April 23, 2011

In celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Ron DiGiacomo at his blog proclaims the resurrection because God’s word, the Scriptures, tell us that Jesus rose from the dead. God is reality and truth and God has spoken and acted in history. God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2) God’s word tells us the reality of what happened.

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2011/04/resurrected-post-in-spirit-of.html

Dr. White's recent Dividing Line programs on Mike Licona's Evidentialist methodology here, April 19, second half of program and also here on April 21, 2011 are excellent examples and critique of the weakness of relying solely on this method.

http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20110419.mp3

http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20110421.mp3


"As to who raised Him, I am willing to allow the question mark stand." Mike Licona

I am not willing to let that question mark stand!

God the Father raised Jesus. (Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:10; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30; Acts 13:33; Acts 13:34; Acts 13:37; Acts 17:31; Romans 4:24; Romans 6:4; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Hebrews 13:20; 1 Peter 1:21)

Jesus, God the Son and Son of God raised Himself from the dead. (John 10:18)

And the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. (Romans 8:11, I Peter 3:18; Romans 1:3-5)

All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Another Scriptural indication of the Trinity!

That convinces me that the Evidentialist methodology of Mike Licona (and William Lane Craig) is weak and insufficient and Mike L. needs to get rid of that aspect of his method - he has some good things; but that aspect really is weak, and anit-climactic and is very disappointing when he says that at the end of his debates. I noticed he said the same thing at the beginning and during and at the end of his debate with atheist Richard Carrier. Mike also said strange things like, “for the sake of argument, the Scriptures are full of mistakes” against Muslim Shabir Ally.

And we can still affirm that historical evidence conforms to the reality of the truth of God Himself!

Historical Evidence accords with reality for Jesus’ Resurrection



(Video from Tyndale House)

The Empty Tomb, the character and variety of the appearances, also show that Jesus rose from the dead. And this is all testified and proclaimed in Scripture. Notice all the Scripture references they give for the different appearances of Jesus.

Ravi Zacharias asks – “how do you frighten someone raised from dead?”; and also shows how Christ is Lord, and is over history as so many famous and infamous people die in history.

May we rejoice in the power of Christ's atonement on the cross and the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead!

48 comments:

The 27th Comrade said...

Mike Licona is doing the right thing as far as logic goes, and you too can only go as far as he does, if you rely on logic and reason (as commonly understood).
You cannot base your beliefs on "the Bible says so", because you only believe that the Bible is trustworthy ultimately because "the Bible says so." A circular argument cannot go far. If you believe that the Bible is God's Word, and is therefore trustworthy, how do you know this? Because the Bible says so; but then you have had to let the defendant be the judge. That does not fly, logically-speaking. You are committing a major, major fallacy when you cite very numerous verses to back your Jesus claims up, since you are appealing to Jesus' own propaganda to judge Jesus. It may be good faith (it is), but it not logical at all, and that is why Mike Licona and William Lane Craig cannot make it that far.

Of course, it is not a problem if you are one of those (we) scorned and derided fideists and children. "Unless you make yourselves like one of these [children], you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven."
But the evidentialist method is like the many, many other things believers use that are like it, scoring points on the logic-science-reason-modern-respectable side but losing points on the faith side: it leads you to reasonable understanding, but if you live by it, you live by sight, not by faith.

Even if all the journals in the World should gradually eat away at all this evidence, I will still believe that He rose, because the Bible says so. Even if everybody should prove that the Bible is flawed, I will still believe in it, because it is God's Word. And it is true that it is God's Word, because God's Word says so. Yet if you should subject the words of the Bible to being true only if some other party corroborates them, then you have found yourself a new canon, and i is not the Bible. It is some researcher's integrity, perhaps, but not the Bible. Either you believe in the Bible in a stupid, blind, 1-Corinthians-1 way with simple, naïve faith, or you have another Bible.
Let God be true and every man a liar.

Ken said...

Hi 27th Comrade,
Thanks for your comment.

I understand your point, I think, and it is only true (I think) if you separate miracles and God and the supernatural from historical action and reality; that is; if you give the anti-supernatualist equal footing in a-priori eliminating God and miracles and revelation from historical method of research, as what Licona and WLC seem to do; then what you say is true, as far as I can tell. But you have given over all ultimate evangelistic and apologetic value of argumentation also. It is very anti-climatic to give all sorts of good historical evidence, as Licona and Craig do; but then say, "we don't know" or "I leave that open".

The only logical and reasonable explanation for the miracles, revelation, and the resurrection of Christ from the dead is that God (The Trinity working together, as in the verses I gave) raised Jesus from the dead.

The very definition of the God of the Bible is that He is supernatural, does miracles, gives revelation, created all things, is eternal, etc. and is able to interfere with the natural laws of science and nature and do a miracle. That is, He breaks into history and nature at times and gives revelation and does miracles.

God breaks into the normal Providential, observable, ongoing laws of nature and does miracles.

God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)

As others have said, "all arguments eventually involve some level of circularity" and "everyone has some level of bias or presuppositions".

If there is God, who by definition is perfect, cannot sin and cannot lie; and is holy and good and Sovereign all at the same time; and He Himself created the laws of logic and thinking and reason and math and science, then the Presupposition of God accords with logic and reason, given that definition of God.

You wrote:
"Either you believe in the Bible in a stupid, blind, 1-Corinthians-1 way with simple, naïve faith, or you have another Bible.
Let God be true and every man a liar."


I don't understand these 2 sentences. How is 1 Corinthians 1 "stupid, blind, simple, naive" ?

And what do you mean by, “or you have another Bible” ?

the last sentence is from Romans 3:4; and it seems to confirm my point from Titus 1:2.

How are you using it?

I hope others who know the Presupposition method of Apologetics better will contribute.

I hope you have a blessed Resurrection Sunday and celebration.

The 27th Comrade said...

Hello, Ken;
You say: "I understand your point, I think, and it is only true (I think) if you separate miracles and God and the supernatural from historical action and reality; that is; if you give the anti-supernatualist equal footing in a-priori eliminating God and miracles and revelation from historical method of research ..."

No. It is always true if you reason reasonably and in a logical manner, as we understand these things today. Even what you are saying, and what presuppositional apologists say, is unreasonable and illogical. After all, how do we know that God is capable of miracles in time and space, and is still capable of them, and that the Resurrection is exactly one such fitting miracle, et cetera? From the Bible we know these things. Very well, but then we are letting God's own propaganda be how we decide what is true of God. We are letting the defendant be the judge. That is not logically unimpeachable.

So, either you are subjecting God to things that can prove Him wrong, or you are being unreasonable (since, by subjecting Him to only having to conform to what the Bible says He is, you are not being reasonable, and you are reasoning circularly: God is True ... because God is True). And if you take the first one, you are not saying "Let God be true and every man a liar."

"The only logical and reasonable explanation for the miracles, revelation, and the resurrection of Christ from the dead is that God (The Trinity working together, as in the verses I gave) raised Jesus from the dead."


It is not logical, because the contention is (can be) that "God cannot have raised Jesus from the dead." To knock this contention down, you only have God's Word on it. And, as Socrates told you, truisms are not proofs.

"The very definition of the God of the Bible is that He ... does miracles."
Yes. But why are you letting His propaganda tell us what to think of Him? That is good pisteos Christou

"God cannot lie. (Titus 1:2)"

This is an Epimenidean paradox, which, as Gödel showed, cannot be solved with logic as normally understood. This is why I am a fideist: because I am supposed to be in such a state of mind that that sentence is unassailable. After all, "God cannot lie", but did He not lie when He said that? A Cretan says: "All Cretans are liars!"

"If there is God, who by definition is perfect, cannot sin and cannot lie ... then the Presupposition of God accords with logic and reason, given that definition of God."

Do not let yourself be yoked unduly to the pompous and self-aggrandising vanity of the disputers of this age. That is how you end up starting that sentence with if, which is as bad as the Mike Licona terminus you so loathe. God has no if before His Name, even though logic and reason would require that.
You Protestants should throw off not just the poor soteriology of your Roman Catholic predecessors, but also their foolish epistemology.

"How is 1 Corinthians 1 "stupid, blind, simple, naive" ?"

Because only the stupid, blind, simple, and naïve think that they can be justified simply by faith. There is a reason the defections to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism come from the Ivory Tower, from people who have sought to axiomatise Grace, and who are generally also modern Western men.

"And what do you mean by, “or you have another Bible” ?"

It is when you have another canon by which you decide what God is. Usually, this is one's own brain and sense of what is logical and what fits. But what do we say? Let God be true and every man a liar.

The 27th Comrade said...

Oops, a certain sentence got chopped:

"The very definition of the God of the Bible is that He ... does miracles."

Yes. But why are you letting His propaganda tell us what to think of Him? That is good pisteos Christou, but it is not good logic and reason, as we know them.
Of course, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with having the Bible as your axiom (not proven, not subjectible to any external proofs, but unassailably-true nevertheless). What I am against is you people mixing Christ with Belial. If you are of faith, let it be so, and live it. Do not be bullied by those who will only let us believe after reason has given us a pass. (This, of course, is regardless of whether reason does in fact give us such a pass. And this is not to say that the positions alternative to Faith have any strength in them; this is merely and only about being serious about Hebrews 11:1-6.)

natamllc said...

27th,

Just curious of you. In your comments you make comments like: "you Christians" and "you people".

Can you clarify just "who" you are?

With those two example comments I guess you are not of the Faith and Belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? If that is so then you agree that you have not been transformed and are not now being transformed from a life of rebellion to God to one of obedience to God?

As for the Resurrection, here is another qualifier for the Resurrection:

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
Act 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."


Notice several things in them there verses.

One, Peter and John assert a "new life" of obedience to God.

Two, God qualifies "who" and "when" one believes that Christ is the Resurrection and the Life in that, God gives to Christ to be the Leader and Savior Who "gives" to one repentance and forgiveness for sins.

Three, once one's heart and mind are touched and given the Holy Spirit's anointing or unction, immediately then obedience becomes the major primary objective of their life in Him forsaking the old Adamic nature for His Divine Nature!

I just don't see how anyone can overcome the Truth found in these following verses, as well:

Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

...

Php 3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
Php 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

...

1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,
1Pe 5:7 casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
1Pe 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.
1Pe 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.


Can you?

The 27th Comrade said...

Hi, natamllc;
It seems to me that these comments are more-related to another earlier thread in which I took part. Am I right? I will answer the bits that seem, to me, to be related to this thread.

You say: "Can you clarify just "who" you are?"

I am someone who believes in Jesus Christ, in justification by Grace alone, through Faith alone in Christ alone. The only real difference you may find between me and you Christians is that I do like that label; for the sake of the good people who use it. (I do not want to soil their name for them.)

"I just don't see how anyone can overcome the Truth found in these following verses ..."

What is not contained in any verses is whether or not those same verses are the Truth. Your believing Acts 5 to be the Truth is entirely apart from them (if you believe that logically). After all, logic and reason will not let the Bible be its own arbiter of Truth. If you believe that there is "Truth found in these following verses", how do you counter my assertion that there is no Truth to be found in those verses? By reasoning circularly. "The Bible is True because ... because the Bible is True."

I do not overcome the Truths found in Scripture. Rather, I laugh dismissively at the notion that by reason (as we commonly understand it) you can show that there are even any Truths in Scripture. If you will show it, you will have to appeal to faith from first to last. Aristotle is for pagans and Catholics; you Protestants should shave that last vestige of unfaith as you did the other poisons.

Ken said...

The 27th Comrade wrote:
“No. It is always true if you reason reasonably and in a logical manner, as we understand these things today. “

No. You are allowing humanistic and naturalistic epistemology to define what “arguing in a reasonable manner” is. Where does reason and logic come from? from God Himself. You claim to be a Christian, so you have to believe this to be consistent.

God “invented” logic, reason, thinking, the mind (or rather consistent pure reason and logic flows out ontologically from God); man is created in the spiritual and moral image of God (Genesis 1); the remnants of that image are in all men, but they suppress the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18-23; Proverbs 1:7 “the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord”; Proverbs 9:10 – “The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord”. The human mind, being fallen, will always come short of “reasoning to God”, unless God first by revelation reveals Himself and awakens the dead sinner. God created the brain; and yet humans do not have the right or authority to redefine logic without the creator of logic and reason.

“I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps. Jeremiah 10:23

Ken said...

The 27th Comrade wrote:
“There is a reason the defections to Roman Catholicism from Protestantism come from the Ivory Tower, from people who have sought to axiomatise Grace, and who are generally also modern Western men.”

Explain what you mean by "axiomatise Grace" - do you mean that they sought to define grace in substance terms like "adhering to the soul" and that humans could get come of that "grace" - like it was glue or something, from eating and drinking the eucharist or calling upon Mary of some other dead saint to help them from touching an image or bowing before an image?

or, as in during the time of the Crusades, they were promised forgiveness if they fought against the Muslims?

Believing in NT priests, and their words in Latin can change the bread and wine into the blood and body of our Lord, is not very intelligent; it is actually very stupid and foolish in my opinion. (and unbiblical)

Believing that one can pray to Mary and that it is ok to bow down in front of a picture of her or stature of her and kiss a relic of a dead saint, etc. and think that they have a treasury of merit in heaven in which a sinner can draw from, thus adding to the merit of Christ, is not very intelligent to me; it is actually dull and stupid and foolish; and unbiblical.

It seems they left their intellect when they desired to go back to the physical-ness and pomp and ceremonial-ness of the OT priests, sacrifices, incense, temple worship, justifying images with appeals to the images of the cherubim and seraphim in the temple, etc. Some things may be intellectual, but theses things are not.

The 27th Comrade said...

"No. You are allowing humanistic and naturalistic epistemology to define what “arguing in a reasonable manner” is. Where does reason and logic come from? from God Himself. You claim to be a Christian, so you have to believe this to be consistent."
Yes, but being consistent is not being correct. Why is it somehow more-justifiable to dive into the deep end of Christianity, and assert that humanistic, naturalistic epistemology is wrong, and that the Christian versions are correct? It would be a bare assertion; a truism, which therefore does not constitute a proof. You would just say "Naturalistic epistemology is wrong ... because it is wrong (because Christian epistemology is correct)." But that is emphatically not reasonable. Truisms are for fanatics like myself, not for reasonable, logical people. You think that rejecting humanistic epistemology gives your position power, because you have not found an alternative (say, Sufi Islam) which also does, but does not agree with you.

"God “invented” logic, reason, thinking, the mind (or rather consistent pure reason and logic flows out ontologically from God) ..."
These statements of this kind are merely a hold-over for you Western Christians from your Roman Catholic age, when reason was fêted almost as a god. You think the Platonists (like that vicious fool, Pophyry) lost to Christianity? Think again; these days you call God by such feeble names like "Prime Mover" descended from these self-same anti-Christian pagans! And in that same vein you say things like "consistent pure reason and logic flows out ontologically from God", because it is somehow taboo for God to not align with your rationality. That is far from "Let God be true and every man a liar", this doctrine of a god who is bound fast to what can be perceived as reasonable by the bipedal apes. And, anyway, what is wrong with inconsistency? On it is built the Trinity. God is not bound to the logical and the rational. Otherwise the Eternal God would never have dangled on a pole and died a cursed death as a hairless ape.

"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord"
Yes. Not the fear of inconsistency.

"Explain what you mean by "axiomatise Grace" ..."
I mean seeking to show that Grace follows from reasonable premises reasonably. That is: reasonable as we understand it. If it were the case that Grace does, 1 Cor 1 would never have been written, and it would not be (those who become like) the children who get to see the Kingdom of God. Important places in the Bible, like Luke 18 and Romans 4, are taut with this need to let go of the reasonableness of Grace. A Most-Holy God who justifies the impious? "Ridiculous! Blasphemy!" Why do you think Grace is anathema among those for whom Æterni Patris is canon?
Recently, you linked to an article that said that many conversions to Catholicism from Protestantism were for the philosophical founding of it. This is something I have notice for long; except it is usually towards atheism, rather than Catholicism. This is why atheism came: to make the faithful once again be sustained by faith and not by sight. It is interesting that "unless you become like one of these [children], you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven" is probably among the top three most-poignant things Jesus ever said. But what does anybody know of it?

And while the Catholics are wrong, as you display them in your comment above, what they are doing is what lies at the other end of believing in God and also subjecting every truth to having to be confirmed by reason and logic as we understand it. After all, to them belong Aquinas and Scotus.

natamllc said...

27th Comrade,

"...It seems to me that these comments are more-related to another earlier thread in which I took part. Am I right?"

Ah, don't think so. I read the comments you made above and it is from them I quoted from you as saying "you Christians" and "you people".

Maybe it is that you were making comments in here from some earlier dialogue with another article herein?

27th, you wrote:

"The only real difference you may find between me and you Christians is that I do like that label; for the sake of the good people who use it. (I do not want to soil their name for them.)"

ah, huh? Can you help me understand what it is you meant by saying, or rather, commenting that there? I am not following you here. I don't understand what you mean.

27th, again, you respond with this question:

"...how do you counter my assertion that there is no Truth to be found in those verses? By reasoning circularly. "The Bible is True because ... because the Bible is True."

No, not in the least. As I pointed to Acts 20, there you see the Apostle making a point about "God" and "the Word of His Grace". God Himself is living and active. The Word of His Grace, as it comes alive within you, confirms the existence of God as the Author of the Word of His Grace.

To use childish reasoning now, I assert that "God" is a big boy and He can defend Himself. He doesn't need anyone of us to defend Him.

However, as new born babes in Christ, beginning as a babe there we are growing into a maturity from that experience of being born again aided by the Word of His Grace. We do give ourselves to the reasoning of Scripture, (the Word of His Grace), as the Holy Spirit teaches us, either directly or through another outside source, a Preacher or a Teacher of the Scriptures. We also grow in maturity in the life of the Body of Christ as members in particular in that particular Body we were added to by the Lord Himself. God has given the task of leading us and saving us to Jesus Christ. Christ is tasked with our repentance and forgiveness.

I get a sense you might have a chip on your shoulder? Is there one? Is there something about Biblical Christianity that bothers you? Or, is it people like me and others, who you feel are not doing justice to the Truth of God or to the Truth of the Word of His Grace or to the Truth that Christians are "set apart" to live in communion with others so set apart as we are that bothers you?

Rather than quote it, would you go ahead and explain what it is you are getting at and meant in the last paragraph in your comments to me above?

Ken said...

It is a little hard to figure out where the 27th Comrade is coming from . . .

but . . .

the phrases, "you western Christians"

and

the comment about Leo XIII's Æterni Patris encyclical indicates that you probably belong to some kind of an Eastern Orthodox church.

and your comment to Natmallc about "Aristotle is for you Protestants and Catholics" also points to you holding to some sort of Eastern Orthodoxy. (Greek, Russian, Ethopian, Egyptian, Oriental, what ?)

maybe you liking the word "comrade" points to Russian Orthodoxy . . .

I don't know yet . . .

You wrote:
"Why do you think Grace is anathema among those for whom Æterni Patris is canon?


This is a statement about Roman Catholics and Leo XIII's encyclical. (Of the Eternal Father)

They, the RCs, claim they believe in grace and even grace alone against Pelagianism. They seem to us to describe grace as a substance that adheres to the soul, and is dispensed by the RC church, etc.

So explain how "Grace is anathema" in the RCC?

The 27th Comrade said...

Hello, natamllc;

You say: "Can you help me understand what it is you meant by saying, or rather, commenting that there?"

I mean to say that I do not act like Christians act. It is for that reason that I am not a Christian, and I do not take their label either, to spare them having to fight for it. (And this is not self-righteousness, either: the reason I do not link to other places where I have treated these issues at length is because many Christians would be scandalised at the other things I have on that weblog.)

"As I pointed to Acts 20, there you see the Apostle making a point about "God" and "the Word of His Grace"."

If you believe that Acts is the Word of God (as it is, and as I think you do in fact believe), then you are basically doing exactly what I said you would do: you are taking God's Word and letting it be (for you) what defines God. That is good faith, but it is not good reasoning, because you are not being reasonable if you let the defendant be the judge. If I assert that the Bible is a pile of lies regarding God, you have only the Bible as your source of information with which to correct me. But I'd have already disqualified it, since it is what is under question. This is my point.

"The Word of His Grace, as it comes alive within you, confirms the existence of God as the Author of the Word of His Grace."

Yes, it does. But not in a reasonable, logical way, as we understand reason and logic.
Circular proofs are not proofs. Afer all, the only way you can confirm this working of God about which you speak is by referring to His own propaganda.

"Is there something about Biblical Christianity that bothers you?"

Yes. How rare it is. That really bothers me. I am also bothered by how we have, wholesale, decided that we are to insist that God must align with what we consider to be true, or He cannot be so aligned. It really bothers me that nobody can in honesty today say "Let God be true and every man a liar," even as we rush to prove and prove and prove that God is in fact perfectly in line with Aristotelian logic. I have big names from all denominations of Western Christianity saying that faith must be in concert with reason. But that is not Biblical Christianity! God is not going to be subjected to being true only if we think that He should, whatever our criteria ("history", "the opinion of the elders", "what the Pope thinks", "what Aristotelian logic requires"). Let God be true and every man a liar

Ken said...

27th Comrade wrote
And, anyway, what is wrong with inconsistency? On it is built the Trinity. God is not bound to the logical and the rational. Otherwise the Eternal God would never have dangled on a pole and died a cursed death as a hairless ape.

The Trinity, nor the incarnation, nor the atonement of Christ on the cross are against logic. They are above logic, but not against logic.

The 27th Comrade said...

natamllc;

The point of that last paragraph I wrote to you was that even though reason and logic as we understand it should fail to back up what we know to be true of God -- yea, even oppose it -- we should continue to believe nevertheless. This is what the believers do. We are those who have believed, even unto justification; why, then, do we live like Aristotle is a rabbi we cannot transgress? Leave that for Catholics and other Aristotelian pagans. As for you, having gone the good distance of getting rid of the poor soteriology of your predecessors, now get rid also of this other requirement. It is the only way you can say "God's Word is Truth"; because, as I hope I have shown (or, failing that, as Gödel shows) that cannot be maintained if also we maintain that reason and logic as usually understood may not be transgressed. (The Bible is its only credible judge ... according to the Bible. For it is the Word of God, and if we believe that it is, we will not subject it to other judges. But, to say it once more, it is not reasonable to let the defendant be the judge. You cannot have a self-referencing logical system that is both consistent -- reasonable -- and complete enough to define itself -- as the Word of God evidently does -- so we choose one or the other. What I am saying is that believers choose completeness and leave reasonableness aside.) If we believe in the Bible wholly, as we do, it is wholy by faith. Reason and logic can go and take a swim.

Ken;

"... you probably belong to some kind of an Eastern Orthodox church."

No. There are more than two options. Too many forgotten little (admittedly insignificant) groups. But the thing is, do not make me wear a label and then dismiss that. I admit that I make it difficult to deal with me because of my failure to have a good label stuck on me, but if there could be something like "Abrahamist", as one who believes in God along the lines of Abraham's kind of comical faith, I am of that group.

"So explain how "Grace is anathema" in the RCC?"

Grace is anathema in the RCC because, unless it is Grace through faith alone, it is not Grace at all. And Grace through faith alone is anathema in the RCC. Ergo ...

"The Trinity, nor the incarnation, nor the atonement of Christ on the cross are against logic. They are above logic, but not against logic."

This seems to be what we resort to when shown that our position is illogical. Imagine if my maintaining a manifestly illogical stance, like "The dog has a tail, therefore it is a cat. (Since cats have tails ...)" and you call me on it, and I say "It is just above logic!" But if we only accord to the Trinity this privilege, why is the Trinity so special? Because the Trinity says so? Is this reasonable?
Anything apart from ratio is irrational. I do not care if it is opposite, above, below, or three inches to the right. (Part of Aristotle's legacy is that you people have only logical and illogical to choose from.) The Trinity is illogical, because it asserts that P and ¬P. But that is okay; we live by faith, not by sight.

Ken said...

oops - I noticed the statement by the 27th Comrade was "Aristotle is for pagans and Catholics, you Protestants should shed that"

ok

so, are you some kind of eastern orthodox church follower?

Do you believe in inherited sin in the heart of all humans?

Mark 7:20-23

Psalm 51:1-5

Genesis 6:5

The 27th Comrade said...

"so, are you some kind of eastern orthodox church follower?"
As previously stated, no, I am not. I do not belong to any group of Christians. They would lose all credibility with me if I were to be one of them.

"Do you believe in inherited sin in the heart of all humans?"
Very much so! It is quite evident everywhere I look; but most of all, the Bible says so!

natamllc said...

Comrade,

you certainly have given me a fair amount of things to reason through.

I will commit your words to prayer when I have time later today.

As is my custom, and by God's Grace, He will not take this privilege from me, I pray two and sometimes three times a day at my Church sanctuary.

God meets me "face to face" as He met Moses.

This is no flaunt, just a fact!

I will have a conversation with God about you. When or if I receive something from the Spirit to share with you, you will know it by the Spirit Who shares it with me to share it with you.

Your incessant issue with logic and being rational or illogical seems to me to be the chip on your shoulder "against" the sound reasonings of most, if not all, of the bloggers who are the "team" members of Beggars All under the formidable hand of James Swan. They are those who publish articles for sorts like us who come in here to read and comment on as well as comment on what others, [you] publish as comments that are commented on as I am doing in this thread with your comments.

You certainly are an astute mind and articulate well understanding and yet, you confuse me frequently. I hope I don't wear you out by questioning your comments asking for clarification?

I am a Christian. I was born into a very very spiritual house. My roots are found in the native american culture of a Tribe of Indians found in Central Coastal California, the Pomos of Mendocino County.

My knowledge of God came first by spiritual experience without any Bible book reading. I did not read a Bible until I was 21 when I was given a Bible to read and then began reading Matthew chapter one coming to verse twenty one and came alive by the Breath of God's Spirit as He opened up my understanding to the lost condition of my soul and to the promise implicit in that verse that it is Jesus "Who" will save "His" people from their sins.

For me, I was awakened to this New Life, this Divine Nature through revelation directly from the Spirit of Grace. Oh what an experience it has been all these years since that amazing morning in July of 1975!

The 27th Comrade said...

"God meets me "face to face" as He met Moses.
This is no flaunt, just a fact!"

It is a fact! As it is written, To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to be Children of God. And if even we of so selfish a generation pick our children up, why would God not meet His Children? And to us He speaks better things than He did to Moses, for we are no longer under the Law but under Grace.

"Your incessant issue with logic and being rational or illogical seems to me to be the chip on your shoulder "against" the sound reasonings of most, if not all, of the bloggers who are the "team" members of Beggars All under the formidable hand of James Swan."

Au contraire, I pity the fools who are on the receiving end of this blog's polemic. I like James Swan's Luther articles. I like John Bugay when he rips apart the historical claims of the RCC. I like Rho and Ken and the rest of the team. But the unfortunate case of such reasoning (or, as it would appear, anti-reasoning) that I speak of is that, in 2006-2007, James Swan showed down with a young Roman Catholic in these comments, name of Apolonio Lotar, if memory serves, and the Roman Catholic ended up staying put by simple fideistic mandate. Today, he is studying in Rome to become a priest. While this should not bother you Calvinists (seeing as you are a bit fatalistic about these things), it does bother me.

Your story is indeed interesting. It is interesting where God has reached, even beyond the stubborn lines that our history may have drawn. As it is written, You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. Myself, I do not let myself tear the curtain of pseudonymity, so I cannot tell you my equivalent of it.

James Swan said...

But the unfortunate case of such reasoning (or, as it would appear, anti-reasoning) that I speak of is that, in 2006-2007, James Swan showed down with a young Roman Catholic in these comments, name of Apolonio Lotar, if memory serves, and the Roman Catholic ended up staying put by simple fideistic mandate. Today, he is studying in Rome to become a priest.

I don't recall exactly what you're referring to. True, Mr. Latar did visit the blog back then, and I did engage him, time allowing. Depending on what I'm doing at the moment sets out how much time I interact with something. The blog has never been first, so it is possible I bailed on something with him if something more important came up.

As to "fideistic mandate"- a discussion is over if someone simply says "I believe it because I believe it". I don't consider that "winning" I consider it exposing the fact that people reason from the heart. Sometimes people believe things because they want to, despite however much information or argumentation one provides.

The 27th Comrade said...

"I don't recall exactly what you're referring to. True, Mr. Latar did visit the blog back then, and I did engage him, time allowing."

You engaged him well, at the time. I am referring to the posts about how the Protestant idea of justification was a "genuine theological novum". Remember those? In them, he said something like "If you look at Reformed philosophers like Plantinga, you will know why I remain a Roman Catholic and enjoy myself there." Of course, Plantinga is somewhere close to being a fideist, as can be shown by his Advice to Christian Philosophers, and (I think) God and Other Minds. But of course he would likely not be caught dead using this term on himself, because fideism is like a perversion: if you do it, deny it.

"As to "fideistic mandate"- a discussion is over if someone simply says "I believe it because I believe it". I don't consider that "winning" I consider it exposing the fact that people reason from the heart."

It is certainly not winning. But winning debates it over-rated. Another sign of how much we glory in being disputers of this age, these days. Still, that fideistic assertion of "I believe it because I believe it" is ultimately the only axiom, the only expression, that will stand. In the end, all we can do is believe because we believe. There isn't an infinite supply of reasons. And I am one of those who will keep believing in Jesus Christ and His perfect and finished work of justification, even if I have to be doing it from the heart. Le cœur a ses raisons, as we say.
I was reading, in preparation for God Friday, from Ecclesiastes 7, and I realised that this is the kind of thing that Jesus was thinking, perhaps muttering, as he dangled from the pole. I understand why He would have cried "Lama sabachtani?"; realising that everything under Heaven is meaningless BS. When that chapter speaks to your situation, as it did His, you are in pretty bad shape, and God has abandoned you. But I thought: the only way He could have even retained the mind to shout into the wind about His abandonment would have been by clinging fideistically to the "my" in "my Lord". For it is written, Eloi, eloi. Lama sabachthani> Faith, not reason, allowed that posessive pronoun.

Ken said...

the 27th Comrade wrote:

". . . but if there could be something like "Abrahamist", as one who believes in God along the lines of Abraham's kind of comical faith, I am of that group.

"comical" ?????

It is getting harder and harder to understand you, the 27th Comrade. Sorry I don't have time to try and struggle with your cryptic style of writing. Along with many other things you write - it is very time consuming to try to understand you.

The 27th Comrade said...

"comical" ?????"

Yes, comical. Sarah laughed. Don't you remember?

Ken said...

Yes, Sarah laughed. Isaac means "laughter", ok;

ok, but you are still hard to understand.

John Bugay said...

27th: "I do not belong to any group of Christians. They would lose all credibility with me if I were to be one of them."

Groucho Marx: I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

-- Telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959), p. 321

Ken said...

27th Comrade:
Do you attend regularly and are you a member of a local biblical church?

If not, then you are in disobedience to the Lord.

The 27th Comrade said...

@John: I should start using that Groucho Marx line in my mail signatures. It has, for me at least, a rather enduring wealth.

@Ken, you ask: "Do you attend regularly and are you a member of a local biblical church?"

No. I have not stepped inside a church for very many years, now; probably around seven. Not necessarily something I am proud of, but there you have it.

"If not, then you are in disobedience to the Lord."

Apparently. Then again, I am no stranger to disobedience to the Lord. Indeed, it is obedience that I think I am a stranger to.

(Now you see why I spare Christians my association with them. It is probably a bad mark on Jesus that He is found hanging out with me.)

natamllc said...

Comrade,

While you admit that you are not going to a fellowship of True Believers regularly, is it became of some physical incapacity or is it just a serious reflection and inability to resolve transgressions either yours done or those done to you by others so that forgiveness is not being enjoyed as it should be by Faith through His Grace and Truth?

I suppose you know seeing you have made an admission of disobedience that you are quite familiar with the Hebrew admonition to, one, not forsake the assembly of the Saints and two, to come under and obey your leaders and submit to these God ordained Ministry Gifts in men?

I sense you are holding the Truth in unrighteousness, so, we see both so clearly, that Truth comes out of you as much as rebellious unrighteousness does, which, as both Ken and I have alluded to already, that it is confusing to us because of such clarity of both coming from you through your comments!

With that I would point to the Apostle Paul's wisdom, here with these two facts:

Rom 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you--
Rom 1:12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

...

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.


It seems to me you have been given spiritual insights and revelation and are sometimes and somewhat frustrated because of the gifts and calling on your life that you have no one to impart those spiritual gifts to.

It seems to me because you have not been able to overcome the unforgiveness, bitterness is crouching at your door. You must through Christ and not through your own righteousness overcome it. I fear you might be so entangled that you are toxic.

I am not afraid of you and as a Minister of Reconciliation, I am open to administer whatever God leads me to do to you or for you.

I suppose we both understand you are no match for Jesus Christ?

Php 3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
Php 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Ken said...

27th Comrade wrote:
(Now you see why I spare Christians my association with them. It is probably a bad mark on Jesus that He is found hanging out with me.)

No; this is false humility - He is the friend of sinners and tax-collectors; He allowed the Pharisees to see Him eating with Prostitutes and for one woman to kiss His feet and wipe her hair on His feet - you seem to be saying that you are too awful for Christ to forgive or use you and your gifts in a church. If you are justified by grace and faith alone; you should not do that. The evidence of true faith will be the willingness to go to a local church, for you would see it in the Scriptures.

You may be afraid of people, because of past experiences, and how your personality will get exposed when you get closer to people. That is sinful fear. The way of holiness and sanctification is to put yourself into those fearful situations of growing with others in a church; and confess and deal with them when they come out and not run back and hide from people.

I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don't go to a local church for 7 years; but it really does not make sense for a believer in Christ to deliberately not go to church for that long of a time.

natmallc is right - Hebrews 10:25; I Cor. 12; all the "one another's all over the NT. I Peter 4:9-11' Romans 12; Ephesians 4. There is just too much about that in the NT.

The 27th Comrade said...

Hi, natamllc;

You are right in places. My not going to church is mostly psychological. It is where I didn't hear of the Grace, after all. And these were nominally Protestant congregations.
These days, online gathering is what I do (where I am just as insignificant and anonymous as I would otherwise be in a physical meeting). And while the people at Beggars All have earned the right, in my opinion, to direct me to go to church, they do not realise that I am doing church right now. Well, something like it. If they were a doctrine website, I would be getting more edification per blog post than I would per year in the physical churches I know of. That cannot be a bad thing. If I do overcome my ecclesiophobia, I would probably go to some little Presbyterian church I see around here by the road (if, by then, I have not yet moved from here), since I do not think there is a fitting total substitute for physical meeting.

Hello, Ken;

You say: "No; this is false humility ... you seem to be saying that you are too awful for Christ to forgive or use you and your gifts in a church."

No; I am too awful for Christians. Christ has not yet expressed any failures; it is the Christians. And they are the ones in whose eyes Jesus comes into disrepute for having such a one as myself among his possé.

"I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don't go to a local church for 7 years; but it really does not make sense for a believer in Christ to deliberately not go to church for that long of a time."

It doesn't. It is not a good thing. Incidentally, this discussion has come when, in slightly over a week, I am going to enter a church building for the first time for a pædobaptism ceremony. I am fairly certain that I will not then start attending, but that is perhaps a sign. But I hope you now see why I could not even call myself by some group's name, when I do not even attend there (anywhere).

"There is just too much about that in the NT."

There only needed to be one instance, and it would suffice. The good thing about Grace is that first it teaches you that sin should not be redefined as non-sin for reasons of expediency (say because you do it, or want to do it). So, me, I do not deny that there is no mandate for meeting with believers, in the NT. It just happens to be one of the upright things that I do not do, unfortunately.
As it is written, If you, O Lord, kept a record of sins, who would be able to stand?

John Bugay said...

I just wanted to mention to some of the folks who may be following this, that I've been invited to participate at Triablogue, and I've put up my first post over there.

27th: Please email me: johnbugay [at] gmail [dot] com.

natamllc said...

The 27th,

Oh, by the way of a digression, my son is a part of the 101st Airborne out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He commands a VIP blackhawk!

But, back to you comrade, I was praying for you and listening to the Bible on audio and several verses came to me to share with you in hopes we can "move" closer together in the things of the Lord?

Here is what comes to me. First, from the Book of Acts:

Act 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.
Act 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."


Here in those verses several ideas came out to me for you to consider and I am in hopes the Holy Spirit will put over understanding to you?

One, you see once you have been called it is appropriate for those who "witness" your life to witness a person who is clearly in obedience to the Will and Way of the Lord?

Two, as you can see there Peter is establishing that there is a new sheriff in town and this sheriff happens to be your Creator so not only are you to come into His understanding of this "new way" of dealing with your Creator, you realize if you don't, He has control of your future at death, whether or not you actually will receive repentance from Him so that you enter into the life of Forgiveness He died for you to enter into?

Finally, the nail that nails shut any more disobedience on our part is found in that last few words of the verse: "...whom God has given to those who obey him."

I will continue in the next post with verses from chapter 7 of the book of Acts and from Romans and 1 Corinthians.

natamllc said...

Comrade, 27th,

So, consider these verses too:

"...Act 7:36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years.
Act 7:37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.'
Act 7:38 This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us.
Act 7:39 Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt,
Act 7:40 saying to Aaron, 'Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.'
Act 7:41 And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.
Act 7:42 But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices, during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
Act 7:43 You took up the tent of Moloch and the star of your god Rephan, the images that you made to worship; and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.'
Act 7:44 "Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen.
Act 7:45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David,
Act 7:46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. ..."


Here, we are cutting into Stephen's defense of the "new way" before the "old" guard.

In there is a couple of things I believe are for you, if not more?

One is the nature of the "old covenant" being enforced by the old guard is similar as the nature of the "new covenant" being enacted through Christ's death, burial and resurrection and that nature lines up with the word "congregation".

God, in no way, intends for us to live alone in our sojourn on this earth. All of us, if we are truly being led by the Spirit will be "added" to a New Covenant "family" with a "New Guard" leadership structure. Generally we are so damaged by our own transgressions and by the transgressions of others, that it takes time for the restoration process God has committed us to that it becomes difficult for some, at times, to "enter" into the life of the New Testament/Covenant Church family God intends for each of us to be added to quickly! It takes time to be set into the Body, sometimes. But that is our New Covenant lot in this New Life.

Second, see these words in those verses: "... Act 7:45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David,
Act 7:46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. ..."


I suppose you can agree that you too have found the "same" favor in the sight of God as David found? That being so, it should reinforce the point I just made above that God's intent for each of His children is for us to be put into "our" place in His Kingdom?

continuing

natamllc said...

Cont'd:
Comrade,

Remember the words of Nathan the Prophet?

Consider these Words of his to David, Words from God directly:

1Ch 17:7 Now, therefore, thus shall you say to my servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be prince over my people Israel,
1Ch 17:8 and I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you. And I will make for you a name, like the name of the great ones of the earth.
1Ch 17:9 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall waste them no more, as formerly,
1Ch 17:10 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. Moreover, I declare to you that the LORD will build you a house.


I would echo what I believe the Spirit is speaking to you as you read these words that there is a yearning in the deep parts of your inner being for God to help you to be "placed" into your own place, that eternal inheritance, and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall waste you no more, as formerly once you have been so place into the Body?

Now, some other verses from Romans.

continuing:::>

natamllc said...

Cont'd:

Comrade,

First, consider these three.

One:

"...Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
Rom 1:6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,
Rom 1:7 To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.


Two:

"...Rom 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?


Three:

"...Rom 16:19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.
Rom 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

...

Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages
Rom 16:26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith--
Rom 16:27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.


I am assuming you are intelligent enough to catch up what I believe the Spirit is emphasizing to you here in all these verses?

I would be interested in reading your reply as to what it is you believe the Spirit is speaking to you from what He has given me to post hereon for your consideration?

Thanks and I wait for your responses!

natamllc said...

Comrade,

Finally, in this last post for now, from these verses at the end of 1 Corinthians, as I was praying for you and then listening to the Audio Bible, when I heard these Words, I got a "touch" or indication from the Spirit to share them with you as well.

What do you think the Spirit is speaking to you from them?

1Co 16:12 Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity.
1Co 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
1Co 16:14 Let all that you do be done in love.
1Co 16:15 Now I urge you, brothers--you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints--
1Co 16:16 be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer.
1Co 16:17 I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence,
1Co 16:18 for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such men.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord.
1Co 16:20 All the brothers send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
1Co 16:21 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.
1Co 16:22 If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!
1Co 16:23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
1Co 16:24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

The 27th Comrade said...

Hello, John;

I have known you address for a while now, and in fact I think I have it recorded somewhere. Wholly different from the more-common John Bugay who holds the RCC over the flames, you seem more excusing and ready to help out in cases of ecclesiastical uncertainty that show up in the comments (which, if memory serves, is how I got your address in the first place). A very good and salutary thing.
But now, me, I have one e-mail address, which contains my real name in it. If ever it should become generally known who "The 27th Comrade" is in real life, I fear that I would be incapable of withstanding the result. Of course, not so much for what I have written in the comments of this blog, even they and other things like them do indeed contribute, but also because of what I have written in other diverse and disparate fora under the same name.

Hello, natamllc;

Congratulations to your son on such an achievement. Apparently the desire of many, and the attainment of a few.

"... you see once you have been called it is appropriate for those who "witness" your life to witness a person who is clearly in obedience to the Will and Way of the Lord ..."

Yes. I know what is appropriate. Or, as Paul put it, the good I want to do I do not, but every time I desire to do good, evil is there with me.

"Finally, the nail that nails shut any more disobedience on our part is found in that last few words of the verse: "...whom God has given to those who obey him.""

Yes. Do not forget: Do we therefore nullify the Law by this Faith? No; rather, we uphold it. That is why the Spirit is given to those who believe; they are those who obey.

As previously stated, I understand the importance of congregating. And also, as previously stated, I do not even quibble on the necessity thereof. You can bet safely that, should I ever think that I can go and congregate beneficially, it will not be that easy to stop me, from within or from without.

natamllc said...

Well Comrade,

poof goes the opportunity then!

That's it?

Yes, the Law is the means by which God gives us hunger and thirst for the Gospel so that we will daily pick up our cross and live the cross life.

You seem to be hedging now?

I don't know what the big deal is emailing JB. I do and he knows who I am and what my name is and he has kept it in confidence for all the time he and I have been developing a friendship.

I would encourage you to drop him a line. He won't play fast and loose with it, I suppose.

However, as you most certainly know, if it is an issue, here's a comforting reply:

Jer 17:5 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.
Jer 17:6 He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.
Jer 17:7 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.
Jer 17:8 He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit."
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

PeaceByJesus said...

Had a substantial reply, but it was lost when i had to sign in. But the essence was that while all truth claims are tested by Scripture, they did not become established as such simply because they said so.

Scripture was established as being wholly inspired of God by enduring heavenly qualities, progressively complementary conflation, and God's supernatural attestation, which is like how men of God such as the apostles were established as being from God.

The LORD affirmed the faith of Abraham and Moses, and the writings of the latter, which became the authority for obedience and standard by which additional revelation was tested by, and which became a continuing principle.

If the gospel and its faith did not result in promised effects, then Christianity would be like the religions of the world, rather than being the faith of the church of the manifestly living God. Those are blessed who believe without proofs, yet they are blessed because their faith will result in reality. Thanks be to Almighty God.

PeaceByJesus said...

Either you believe in the Bible in a stupid, blind, 1-Corinthians-1 way with simple, naïve faith, or you have another Bible.

This is a patently absurd and an atheistic-type charge, which is not supported by the Bible. Moses did not believe in the God of Abraham by blind faith, because of manifestly supernatural events. Likewise was his authority established, thereby, as well as his own integrity.

And the heathen of Rm. 1 were not judged apart from evidence of God's reality and will.

Jesus did not call for blind faith, but supplied warrant for faith, and which, being exercised, called for more faith, which saw more manifestation.

Not that all we believe is presently realized, but the faith of the Lord Jesus manifests effects, which enables more faith.

In 1Cor. 1, you do not have a congregation of faith that had no reality, but one that came behind in no spiritual gift. And while Christ crucified did not satisfy those who simply wanted a miracle on demand, or lofty philosophy, yet souls who sought truth found in Christ one who spoke unlike any other man, and did things no one else did.

And as said, while those are blessed who simply believe without any manifest warrant, their faith does result in reality that corresponds to the promise of their Object of faith, as they obey, and will yet result in the fullest realization, when their faith will become faith, with the present manifestations being a precursor and earnest of that which is to come.

But faith must and does get tested, and the Lord will come in clouds, not the sunshine, so we are must "hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," if we are to claim to be in His house, (Heb. 3:6) which i come short in, and are exhorted, "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward." (Heb. 10:35)

The 27th Comrade said...

Hi, natamllc;

JB is most likely a safe person. The concerns are closer to my side than they are to his.
On Jeremiah 17: that chapter is one of those that made me finally see that Paul was not joking when he said "a righteousness from God ... to which the Law and the Prophets testify." In fact, in light of chapters like that one, Paul starts to read as quite passé and unoriginal, when he goes on long rants about the futilility of trusting in the flesh.

Hello, PeaceByJesus;

You say: "Had a substantial reply, but it was lost when i had to sign in. But the essence was that while all truth claims are tested by Scripture, they did not become established as such simply because they said so."

So you are saying that you established the truth-value of the Scripture by means other than the Scriptures. You subjected the Word of God to an authority that could arbitrate on the Truth of God. Is this "Let God be True and every man a liar?" Do you have authorities that you trust above God; in light of whose decisions God would have been a liar?

"Scripture was established as being wholly inspired of God by enduring heavenly qualities, progressively complementary conflation, and God's supernatural attestation, which is like how men of God such as the apostles were established as being from God."

Yes, but we knew what these "heavenly qualities" are by refering to Scripture. We let the defendant be the judge, by letting Him decide how to tell what the "enduring heavenly qualities" are in the first place. This is actually very ilogical and irrational. How do we even know what supernatural attestation is, and that it points to God, not some horrid chance events, if not by referring to the self-same entity we are testing (the Word)?

"The LORD affirmed the faith of Abraham and Moses, and the writings of the latter, which became the authority for obedience and standard by which additional revelation was tested by, and which became a continuing principle."

Very well. But do you care to show me how you established that "the LORD affirmed the faith of Abraham and Moses, and the writings of the latter"? It is by first assuming that "the writings of the latter" are trustworthy. How do you respond if I insist that "Moses is a fraud"?

"If the gospel and its faith did not result in promised effects, then Christianity would be like the religions of the world ..."

Is this what you are going to tell one who does not believe that there were any promised effects in the first place? One who believes that the promises were contrived lies? You only let the effects of Christianity have weight because you already believe in the testimony of Christianity (the Bible) regarding the promised effects. You have let the defendant be the judge. Circular reasoning is very poor form. But do not worry; we live by faith, not by sight.

The 27th Comrade said...

"Moses did not believe in the God of Abraham by blind faith, because of manifestly supernatural events. Likewise was his authority established, thereby, as well as his own integrity."

I cannot speak for Moses. I can, however, challenge your source of information about his reasons for believing. Why should I trust as reliable the inept jottings of Semitic goatherds? You assent to Moses' authority as revealed in the Bible; but this Bible, why should I believe in it? Because the Bible says I should believe in the Bible? Not rational.

"And the heathen of Rm. 1 were not judged apart from evidence of God's reality and will."

The heathen of Romans 1 were not bound to your mode of reasoning. They could assent to God by saying "God made heaven and earth!" But as we, who have studied the foundations of the Universe and still remained atheist show, faith is required to assent to "God made heaven and earth!" So, the heathens of Romans 1 are condemned even as we are. Not because they failed to reason (we reason well, yet we believe not), but because they failed to have faith.
I need not remind you that the heathen of Paul's time were the Greeks. To them belong Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Epimenides, Heraclitus, Zeno of Elea, and the whole cohort of antiquity's best thinkers. But they were condemned. Even after Paul, the people who opposed the gospel, like Porphyry, held up their philosopher-descended authority as the opposite to the faith of Christ. And they were condemned.
Evidence of God, which is apparent to all, does not have to be judged by reason and logic, but by faith, on pain of condemnation, as history and our own times show. This is my point. We live by faith, not by sight.

"Jesus did not call for blind faith, but supplied warrant for faith, and which, being exercised, called for more faith, which saw more manifestation."

Au contraire, Jesus had to be believed in by faith. The children and the unschooled, you will remember, were shouting "Hossana to the Son of David!" and the Rabbis were condemning the noise. So, Jesus supplies warrant for faith; but why believe in Jesus in the first place? The teachers of the Law, who had memorised Moses, did not believe in Him. That He was rejected by His own, and among those the scribes and teachers of the Law most of all, should actually make it far more absurd that we do not reject Him. We believe, though, by faith.

"And as said, while those are blessed who simply believe without any manifest warrant, their faith does result in reality that corresponds to the promise of their Object of faith ..."

Yeah, it is the initial faith that we do not have anywhere these days, because it should come at the tail end of "Let God be True and every man a liar", which nobody does these days. The faith that precedes any fulfilment is alone the faith.

"But faith must and does get tested, and the Lord will come in clouds, not the sunshine ..."

Did you test that? Did you test that the Lord will come on clouds? After all, you say that faith must be tested, and you have such a faith. So, did you test it? How?

natamllc said...

Comrade,

I believe we can beat this issue into nothing and that's not wise.

Let me offer you some olive oil instead and since I sense you have ears and parenthetically I am not your Creator and He's a big enough God to deal with you alone, take it, put it on a freshly made salad and eat!

1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

...

Pro 1:23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
Pro 1:27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.

...

Pro 16:20 Whoever gives thought to the word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.
Pro 16:21 The wise of heart is called discerning, and sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.
Pro 16:22 Good sense is a fountain of life to him who has it, but the instruction of fools is folly.


It just seems to me and to you, too, probably, you are playing way to fast and loose for your own good by not coming under the leading of the Holy Spirit and letting Him guide you into a proper relationship with Him in the body life of the particular Church fellowship He undoubtedly wants to add you to so you can also have a proper relationship with mankind during your sojourn thorough this temporal life?

After all, Our Leader and Savior did both when it was His turn to be as we are:::>

Luk 2:40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.
Luk 2:41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.
Luk 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom.
Luk 2:43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it,
Luk 2:44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
Luk 2:45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him.
Luk 2:46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
Luk 2:47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
Luk 2:48 And when his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress."
Luk 2:49 And he said to them, "Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"
Luk 2:50 And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.
Luk 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.

PeaceByJesus said...

27th, sorry i did not see your replies until today when i checked further up on the email address i used for this.

While my point was that God provides some warrant for a step of faith, you insist that it not so, and while God did provide evidence of His reality to Moses, you ask, "Why should I trust as reliable the inept jottings of Semitic goatherds?"

Besides your irreverence, which sounds more like the atheist you infer you are ("But as we, who have studied the foundations of the Universe and still remained atheist show,.."), you miss the point of my example or fail to reasonably consider it.

Which is that you need not simply trust the words of Scripture, though you may and will find that faith confirmed, but God provides some warrant for steps of faith, from miracles to the testimony of others and the inadequacy of other things to fulfill the soul.

You may not hear a voice out of a burning bush, but some degree of evidence to God';s reality is always available, to be found by the seeker.

You next contend that "faith is required to assent to "God made heaven and earth," versus atheistic evolution. Yet the latter, at best, cannot disallow a Creator, or adequately explain where energy began, nor do i see Creationists as without plausible explanations for the Biblical position, though that is an ongoing and extensive debate which best belongs elsewhere.

As regards Rm. 1, the revelation of nature was that there is a Creator, whose power and majesty is manifested in a glorious creation, and that the idols such as creeping things which they later worshiped were unworthy of the worship due God.

Thus it was clear that they were given evidence to believe, which i believe is also innate in man. Had the evolutionary hypothesis been a problem, they would also have available responses by scientific creationists.

To be continued

PeaceByJesus said...

You next assert that Jesus had to be believed by faith, since despite the Scriptural and miraculous testimony to Christ the leadership overall rejected Him, but by which logic blind faith is required if the majority elite refuse to believe, and resorted to ascribing His miracles to the devil. (Which is also a present recourse and endeavor to explain way all that is ascribed to God.)

And which presumes that warrant for faith is based upon what such simply say, which is the contrary of my premise.

The fact is that Jesus Himself did not require blind faith -though again, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" as their faith results in (and will) experiential blessings - but He substantiated His claims by Scripture and miracles. (Jn. 5:36,39,46,47; 14:11; Lk. 24:44) As were those of the early church. (Acts 4:29,30,43; 8:6; 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; Heb. 2:4)

And "among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue," (John 12:42)

You further state, in response to those who simply believe without any manifest warrant that, "it is the initial faith that we do not have anywhere these days, because it should come at the tail end of "Let God be True and every man a liar", which nobody does these days."

Yet you offer have no proof that such do not, while the word i used was "manifest," and i believe warrant can be the very reasonableness to some of the gospel message, in the light of what they have known and tried, and if more is needed, then i see God meeting that need for seekers of truth, while allowing those who loved darkness to find warrant for their unbelief.

But all told, it is God who grants repentance, (Acts 11:18) and opens hearts, (Acts 16:14) and gives faith, (Eph. 2:8) to His glory and man's salvation.

Finally, in response to "But faith must and does get tested, and the Lord will come in clouds, not the sunshine ..."

you ask, "Did you test that? Did you test that the Lord will come on clouds?"

I was referring to faith in the promises of God, and the answer is essentially yes, as i have found that God is faithful to His word, insomuch as we trust and believe, and can trust that His word, which is true from the beginning, will be true to the end, though too often i place faith in my fleshly mind and that of the world as regards what is worthy of our highest affection and trust, though it has shown that it is not worthy of it.

Sin seeks to persuade us that the present "benefit" it offers, even by avoiding the cost for taking a stand for truth and morality, or wasting time on frivolous pursuits, is worth whatever it may cost us. But it lies, and may God have mercy and help us in our weakness to live and stand in faith.

The 27th Comrade said...

Hello, PeaceByJesus;

You assume, wrongly, that I am attacking your (or anybody's) beliefs about Jesus. No; rather, I am attacking the reason for those beliefs, at the core. So, if the Gospels make it reasonable to believe in Jesus, why is it reasonable to believe in the Gospels? You can trace back as far as you want to the first thing that you assume to be true. (Say, that the Bible is God-breathed; very well, but does God exist? And does God inspire? That kind of thing. Why should I trust as reliable the inept jottings of Semitic goatherds?)

You say: "Besides your irreverence, which sounds more like the atheist you infer you are ... you miss the point of my example or fail to reasonably consider it."

I am not an atheist. I just play one in blog comments. The "we" I used was to refer to our generation, which is indeed atheistic, and getting only more-so. It is also most-knowledgeable about the World, fulfilling the Romans 1 criterion, but it does not see God, which means that God is not to be seen by mere science, as we do it, but that seeing Him must be a result of faith working, which is why our generation, lacking in faith as it does (being atheistic as it is), does not see God, even in nature, in spite of knowing more about nature than anybody before us.

"God provides some warrant for steps of faith, from miracles to the testimony of others and the inadequacy of other things to fulfill the soul."

Why should we believe that miracles are the work of God, and not merely freak one-off events? Why should we not believe that the peace of the believers is merely the result of psychological re-tuning, and has nothing to do with God?

"You may not hear a voice out of a burning bush, but some degree of evidence to God';s reality is always available, to be found by the seeker."

Be that as it may, what does the Hebrew say of the seeker, in chapter 11, verses 1 to 6?

"You next contend that "faith is required to assent to "God made heaven and earth," versus atheistic evolution. Yet the latter, at best, cannot disallow a Creator ..."

What? How can atheistic evolution leave room for a creator? If it does, it is not neo-Darwinian evolution. Do not be fooled: both theistic evolution and neo-Darwinian evolution cannot both be true.

"... or adequately explain where energy began ..."

Why should we be concerned with where energy, or being itself, began? Why don't we treat it, as a good atheist would, in the same way we treat where it ends? Any debates about the end of energy? Well, then, why bother with the beginning?
The point of all this stuff is to show that the sceptic wins, if you do not stop at some point and let faith rule, and let God be true and every man a liar. At some point, there must be axioms. Axioms are faith.

The 27th Comrade said...

"And which presumes that warrant for faith is based upon what such simply say, which is the contrary of my premise."

No, it is generally sceptical, and its attacks would hold no matter what warrants your faith; for the question I ask is this: why should I believe in what you say warrants faith? The only answer to that is going to be from faith to faith.

"The fact is that Jesus Himself did not require blind faith ... but He substantiated His claims by Scripture and miracles."

You still don't see my point. Why should I believe the Scriptures? Assume that I do not believe in anything written by human hands. Worst of all, Hebrew goatherds' hands. What then? What if, after Julian Jaynes, I call all ancient people psychopaths? From Jesus down to the Evangelists; what then? Do you still think that reason will save you?

"... i believe warrant can be the very reasonableness to some of the gospel message, in the light of what they have known and tried ..."

The Gospel is an unreasonable mess of incoherent and inept silliness, especially in light of what we have tried in this century.

"I was referring to faith in the promises of God, and the answer is essentially yes, as i have found that God is faithful to His word ..."

If you are logical at all, you know that God's past performance does not in any way guarantee His future performance. Even His past claims about Himself do not assure anything, because at that point He may have been untruthful. What if I believe that God is only true for as long as you believe in Him; what then? Because for me He would be dead, and so His promises would come to naught.

"... though too often i place faith in my fleshly mind and that of the world as regards what is worthy of our highest affection and trust, though it has shown that it is not worthy of it."

You are not too far from the Truth. Like most Protestants, you are not too far at all.

PeaceByJesus said...

Your assertion that "The Gospel is an unreasonable mess of incoherent and inept silliness" once again makes wonder if you are an atheist presenting yourself as "rational Christian."

In response to my statement that Jesus substantiated His claims by Scripture and miracles, you ask why should you believe Scripture.

Jesus was speaking to Jews, who already had faith in the Scriptures, and it is notable that when preaching to the Jews or proselytes, the apostles and Apollos also quoted Scripture, (Acts 2;10;13; 17:2; 18:28) but when addressing pagans the apostles appealed to natural revelation and miracles. (Acts 14:5-17; 17:22-27) and urged them to seek Him. And their faith in what was preached resulted in a reality which corresponded to things it promised, in heart and life.

My answer then from Scripture is that if you honestly seek God He will give you some warrant for taking a step of faith of faith to believe the gospel, even if it is faith welling up inside that witnesses to you spirit that this is what you need to do. And which faith will find confirmation. For His sheep hear His voice.

And then your life and words can be used as a witness that can help others believe, as is the Biblical model, while the opposite can hinder such

The 27th Comrade said...

Hello, PeaceByJesus;

Rest assured that I am neither an atheist nor a rational Christian (as "rational" is usually understood). When I say that "The Gospel is an unreasonable mess of incoherent and inept silliness," I speak as one who has no faith, one of this our generation, and I seek to show you, and others, that this assetion cannot be disproven, so that in so doing I may make a case for the necessity of faith even in acceding to the Gospel.

"Jesus was speaking to Jews, who already had faith in the Scriptures, and it is notable that when preaching to the Jews or proselytes, the apostles and Apollos also quoted Scripture ..."

So I should become a deluded idiot because there existed some deluded idiots among some Hebrew goatherds long ago? So the ancient Jews believed already in the Scriptures; how does that salvage the Scriptures at all? Could you by the same token make a case for voodoo, mumbo-jumbo, logical-positivism, paganism, and the whole shebang of things some people believed before us?

"My answer then from Scripture is that if you honestly seek God He will give you some warrant for taking a step of faith ..."

One cannot seek a God one does not believe in.