Posted on 09/13/2005 10:13:40 AM PDT by Gamecock
In every period, the church is tested for its faithfulness to the apostolic witness to Christ and him crucified. The great Liberal theologians of the last century viewed the doctrine of justification as one of those Jewish ideas out of which the church had not grown until the dawn of the Enlightenment. Sacrifice and satisfaction: a God of wrath and love simultaneously requiring and satisfying justice in one act of blood atonement, it was just more than the sophisticated Greeks of modern culture could bear. After all, God is love and exists simply to make sure everyone is happy and being looked after. The God of the Reformation was at the center of the universe, both in creation and redemption. Human beings were helpless, but "God, who is rich in mercy, while we were still dead made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph.2:5).
/cut/
Finally, William James, father of the American philosophical school known as "pragmatism," told us that Christianity ought to be measured in terms of its "cash-value in experiential terms." Whatever "worked" replaced whatever was "true." The son of a theologian, James was the first to try to blend Christianity and psychology and in the process he ended up defining the purpose of religion in terms of how much happiness it brought to the one who embraced it.
(Excerpt) Read more at modernreformation.org ...
Everyone seems to argue that Servetus' blood was not on Calvin's hand. Calvin was the accuser. No charges would have been brought against Servetus had not Calvin filed the papers to have him arrested. So don't pretend that Calvin was not intimately involved. If Servetus had been acquitted, Calvin's scribe -- who actually signed the bill of accusation -- would have been executed. In Geneva a charge of heresy demanded that both the accused and the accuser be imprisoned until the verdict was rendered and if the accused was acquitted the accuser would suffer the fate that the accused would have otherwise suffered, i.e., death.
The Laws of Geneva made it highly unlikely that anyone would bother to bring such charges. Yet Calvin risked the life of his scribe to ensure that Servetus was tried and executed.
Somebody here stated that all Calvin did was act as a witness at the trial. That is a distortion of the facts. But for the formal accusation prepared by Calvin there would have been no trial. Calvin essentially forced the civil Magistrate to take action. They would not have done so without the formal accusation.
I don't see how your snide comments are helping poor Buggaboo who is clinging by his fingernails to "modalism is one mode at a time" when in fact the essence of modalism is the denial of three distinct persons within the Godhood whether manifested singularly or multifariously.
Using the civil, "lawful" courts as one's weapon of choice does not change the name of the sin.
Actually David was not acting in accordance with the laws of the Nation of Israel so, in fact, it was murder. He arranged Uriah's death for no purpose other than to have him killed. He had no authority as as King of Israel to simply arrange for people to be killed. Uriah had committed no crime and David's crime was in shedding innocent blood.
What Calvin did was technically legal. But then so is partial birth abortion.
Potentially, since you could have some of it be water and some of it steam at the same time. But again, that's not event close to what I advocated. I used the Mind/Body/Spirit model and the Will, Word, and Breath model as alternative descriptions.
BTW, please spell out "TBE" so that I might know what sort of quintessential example I am.
Transparent Bovine Excrement. There's another way of saying it, but I try not to cuss too much.
But again, you misquote and/or lie: I said your post was the quintessential example of TBE. The only thing that I've said about you personally is that you are a liar, a liar simply meaning one who lies. You've done so brazenly enough on this thread alone that I need never apologize for that.
You didn't address the Plantinga statement. (Head theologian at the finest theological school in the country.)
Having caught you lying about the basictheology.com quote--changing its meaning by pulling it out of context (right after I had given it's full context, and I'm still trying to figure out what possessed you to attempt such a sophmoric stunt)--I saw no reason to even bother addressing the other. After all, there's no reason not to believe that you wouldn't "selectively quote" Platinga as well and I had no way of verifying the context. A man would be a fool to trust the word of a proven liar, after all.
I suggest you remove the plank of intentional deceit from your own eye before you start trying to take out whatever speck of dust might be in mine.
Which I would also call murder, and without apology.
If you witness a crime, made an accusation, the court found the person guilty, would the killer's blood be on YOUR hands? This logic makes the law abiding citizen into some sort of criminal just for simply reporting a crime.
You may not agree with the laws and statues of Geneva but that makes no difference. If Calvin knew Servetus was guilty of a crime by the laws of Geneva would it be his Christian duty to report the crime or would it be "more Christian" not to say anything knowing the punishment Servetus would face? If you saw a poor hungry man steal a loaf of bread from a small shop owner would it be more Christian to report the crime knowing that he would go to jail or not say anything knowing the shop owner would lose vital income necessary to keep his business going? While the penalty may differ between these two issues the results are the same. You are broadering on Christian ethics and that is a difficult subject.
Think about that.
The fact of the matter is that Servetus was almost acquitted, because the Law required that the Blasphemy (for which Servetus was ultimately executed) occur within the jurisdiction of Geneva. Servetus had not committed blasphemy or heresy within the jurisdiction of Geneva prior to his trial. He was convicted on the basis of heresy and blasphemy which he uttered while under cross examination by Calvin and the Civil Magistrates.
Maybe you should read up on this stuff.
" Transparent Bovine Excrement. There's another way of saying it, but I try not to cuss too much."
Pharisees crack me up. Somehow you think that dressing up sh!t with a nice little name keeps the stink off ya. "For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."
" Having caught you lying about the basictheology.com quote--changing its meaning by pulling it out of context (right after I had given it's full context, and I'm still trying to figure out what possessed you to attempt such a sophmoric stunt)"
That would be silly if I had pulled it out of context immediately after you had posted it but perhaps I may be a more careful reader understanding that "different times" does not necessarily mean singulary. As my question about the modes of water appearing simultaneously shows, and your affirmation of that fact, (" Potentially, since you could have some of it be water and some of it steam at the same time..."), the basic theology quote does not necessitate a singular modal manifestation.
But let us put away your Ad Homs, slander, and false witness and get to the brass tacks.
Do you deny that the essence of modalism is the denial of three distinct personalities within the Trinity?
Well, what about your retraction? We're waiting.
Says the man who thinks that vowel substitution and mocking names is somehow better.
That would be silly if I had pulled it out of context immediately after you had posted it but perhaps I may be a more careful reader understanding that "different times" does not necessarily mean singulary.
"Different times" completely separates modalism from what I believe, since I have never said God is in a different "mode" at different times--indeed, the eternality and unchangability of God would preclude such an argument.
In any case, since basictheology.com is clear that the "essence" of modalism is, quote, "that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times," and since I teach that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally and all at once (just as you are your body, soul, and spirit all at once), I am clearly not a modalist by their standard.
Further, since they are clear that modalism teaches that "that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times," your post claiming that the statement from the same site that "Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several 'ways of being,'” somehow negates that is sophmoric, dumb, and deceitful--especially since basictheology.com follows that by saying, "The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism," again pushing home the point that modalism teaches a one-at-a-time-approach--and you yourself quote this part, even while trying to negate it's meaning!
Since you have lied about the meaning of "modalist," you are a liar, and I have not slandered you by calling you such.
Since you have called me a modalist when I am clearly not, you are a slanderer, and I have not slandered you by calling you as much.
Since you have called me a "pharisee" (not really that much of an insult in my vocabulary, since Sha'ul was likewise a Pharisee, as were many of the first Jewish Christians) for my sidestepping using a four-letter word when you yourself did the same, you are a hypocrite, and I am not slandering you by calling you as such.
Since you have tried to belittle me by calling me "Buggaboo" for the last several posts, you are a mocker, and I am not slandering you by calling you as such.
So tell me, to which spirit do the fruits of deception, slander, hypocrisy, and mockery belong to?
In any case, you've clearly lost this argument no matter how stubborn you want to be about it, so I'm going to move along now. You can do as you please.
Smart move.
That's not very Reformed of you.
I'm inclined to agree with you on that last point (waiting too long to retire). My guess is that Billy delayed his retirement until he found someone within American Evangelicalism who he felt would take his place. Franklin Graham appears to be Billy's choice to inherit his mantle, and I'm happy to see him (try and) fill his father's shoes. The public, on the other hand, appears to have voted for Joel Osteen to take Graham's place. I happen to think Franklin could beat up Joel, theologically speaking. I happen to think Billy, even in his advanced age, could too. The man is huge (I've seen his wax doppelganger at Madame Toussueas in NYC). His hands are the size of frying pans!
That said, I do not believe Billy Graham's praise for the Clintons is due to his old age. I think his being open and public about it is, however. David Brinkley did the same thing, dropping the mask of journalistic impartiality in his final broadcast, when I watched him tell the world on election night 1996 (thinking that his mic was off) what he really thought of Bill Clinton and his presidency.
I suspect Billy Graham has done the same thing. It's my theory that in 2005, Billy Graham simply decided he didn't care if the world knew of his political background. And if you believe this blog (I can't find an actual transcript at MSNBC to confirm it, but it sounds like it was clipped from the Williams interview), he's been voting that way all of his life. Such an affiliation doesn't surprise me, really, from a preacher who considers "pluralism" and inclusivity" to be positive words. Like it or not, the man was a registered Democrat for his whole life. One has to wonder what effect that choice had on his theology, and visa versa. If you held to covenant theology, you wouldn't be wondering so much as worrying.
But Billy has done more for the cause of Christ than I have, so I'll forgive his present indiscretions.
As can (and do) I. While I doubt (hope?) that I would give away that kind of compliment to someone as antithetical to Christian morals as Graham did of the Clintons, I tend to like son Franklin's interpretation of father Billy's unfortunate choice of comments at Graham's final Crusade:
"Recently at my father's New York Crusade, he made comments in jest concerning the Clintons, which may have been misunderstood. His comments indicated that President Clinton could have been an evangelist and his wife, Senator Clinton, could run the country. My father, of course, was joking. President Clinton has the charisma, personality, and communication skills, but an evangelist has to have the call of God, which President Clinton obviously does not have, and my father understands that. For a long time, my father has refrained from endorsing political candidates and he certainly did not intend for his comments to be an endorsement for Senator Hillary Clinton. While his political views are quite different than the Clintons, they remain good friends."
" In any case, since basictheology.com is clear that the "essence" of modalism is, quote, "that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times,"
Sure, but the key is "modes" which is essentially what you believe while I believe in "personalities".
"and since I teach that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally and all at once (just as you are your body, soul, and spirit all at once), I am clearly not a modalist by their standard."
Whether or not you are a modalist by their standard is irrelevant to whether or not you are actually a modalist. Since your anthropomorphic analogy is obviously modal, since body, soul and spirit are obviously not personal, (laying aside for now the mistaken triochitmist anthropology), your doctrine of the Trinity is self-evidentially modal.
" Further, since they are clear that modalism teaches that "that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times," your post claiming that the statement from the same site that "Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several 'ways of being,'” somehow negates that is sophmoric, dumb, and deceitful--especially since basictheology.com follows that by saying, "The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism," again pushing home the point that modalism teaches a one-at-a-time-approach--and you yourself quote this part, even while trying to negate it's meaning!"
Uhhh...didn't we just cover that in the last post. If the example basictheology.com gave includes modes that can occur simultaneously, as you agreed was possible, then they must affirm that modalism includes modes of being that occur simultaneously. Your assertion that basictheology.com "[pushes]home the point that modalism teaches a one-at-a-time-approach", is exactly that, an unfounded assertion.
False witness.
Slander.
Assertions.
Oh, you forgot to answer the question.
Heh...any of us caring for aging parents can identify with that.
Franklin clearly walks the walk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.