Free Republic

way too funny.

Someone with that kind of a hair trigger has no business being equipped with a loaded firearm and a badge.

That's a fact.

They need to add a psych eval to the interview process. This cop had all the stability of nitroglycerin.

What I should have said is there are some truths that are far more fundamental to the faith than others. Some truths are the milk, some are the meat. Each of us has to decide where that line is.

As a matter of practicality, the decisions needs to be congruous. If not, the line itself becomes a point of contention.

[...what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled?]
That's a very fair question and one of the reasons I have not become a Presbyterian.

Ok. What's the other reason?

However, it all goes back to that line. To me the issue of free will is so paramount to the understanding of our faith. This heresy can be traced to just about every major error people hold today or ever held-and that's not an exaggeration.

Free will is the root of most heresies? That's fantastic! No doubt in my mind, the RP are going to love you.

Pick a heresy or a problem the church faces today and I'll trace it back to the idea that man is free; eschatology included.

Ok. I pick chiliasm. :) Knock yourself out.

The church realized for 1900 years that we were the new Israel until someone got some looney idea that God just loves people who rejected His Son and worship a god that is totally foreign to the God revealed in scripture.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could post a reference?

I would rather have a person be sprinkled and to understand God's glorious election and purpose for their life, than to watch people go through life being baptized thinking they were free to bounce around trying to do things to please God.

Is there something else you'd rather they be doing?

If I might differ with you on one small aspect of society. We do pay inordinate amount of attention to something that is of supreme indifference. Sports.

I'll meet you halfway: sports, in and of themselves, are not of great importance. Granted. But, the reason people argue about them because they care. As for why they care, I don't know. :)

It’s not that big a deal.

Relax. Have a marshmallow.

Sure, that's true. And while we do hold very lively discussions on these topics most will tell you it doesn't make any difference.

While I understand what you are trying to say, let's keep in mind a certain truth: actions speak louder than words. Normal people don't hold "very lively discussions" over topics that don't make any difference. Someone in the congregation obviously thinks it does and they're trying to tell you about it.

These are more subtle points of view that have little to do with justification, sanctification, atonement, election, predestination, and all the other far more important things.

While I'm not clear as to what all the other far more important things might be, I'll take your point. Nevertheless, the subject of eschatology is getting hotter by the minute and, as I opined before, it's only a matter of time before it comes to a head and causes a schism.

I am very set in my ways on baptism but I can assure you, if a Reformed Presbyterian church opened up across the street from me, I would think nothing of leaving my Southern Baptist church.

You have that luxury. You've already been baptized by immersion (or so I assume). However, if you start hanging your hat with the RP and, subsequently, you evangelize someone, what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled? Also, the RP baptize infants, which is to say, they hold it up and show it some water. Are you ok with that?

If there was a Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Methodist, Reformed Baptist, and Reformed ???(oops I'm out of (valid) denominations) all we would probably argue about is whether we should dunk or sprinkle.

Two points to make here. One, methods of baptism and their respective validity may be the hottest topic, but it's not the only topic. Eschatological beliefs vary widely, even among members of the same denomination, and the arguments that follow can get extremely heated. That no denomination has yet split along such lines, in my opinion, is only a matter of time.

Two, the issue of baptism is no small issue, even among the so called Reformed. Back in the day, when I was arguing with such people about matters of eschatology [*ehem*], I had the good pleasure of a Baptist gentleman informing me, in a most candid manner, that my Presbyterian baptism was of absolutely no value whatsoever. Suffice it to say, he felt rather strongly about his position. And from what I've seen so far, these two groups are in no danger of reconciliation.

In short, to say that Baptists and Presbyterians (/whoever) are only in schism over modes of baptism is not entirely unlike saying that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are only in schism over the filioque.

This may be of some interest here...

---

http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~landquis/7atonement.html

The scapegoat and Azazel. There is some debate as to the correct translation for the word `aza’zel (Strong #05799). Most translations render this word “scapegoat,” from the combination of the words `ez, “goat” (Strong #05795) and ‘azal, “to go away” (Strong #235). In Jewish tradition, however, Azazel was a fallen angel who was judged by God for his wickedness in leading other fallen angels and humans into sin. A record of this judgement is in the apocryphal/pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch, in a passage that fleshes out the events of Genesis 6. [A, E] There are no capital letters in Hebrew, so there is no indication from the text as to whether the word `aza’zel is a proper name or not, so there is speculation as to which meaning was intended. Is it possible that both meanings are important? We will explore both meanings for the purpose of fleshing out the significance of the scapegoat.

What does the idea of scapegoat, or sending away this goat as a substitute for sin mean?

Before we explore what significance, if any, is attached to the name “Azazel,” we should do a little background in 1 Enoch. The book was written likely by several authors in the second century BC, so it clearly postdates Leviticus 16 in its written form. However, Jude, the half-brother of Yeshua, quotes a portion of it in his epistle as prophecy, attributing this prophecy to Enoch. (See Jude 14-15.) By crediting this prophecy to Enoch, it appears that the book was known at least in oral tradition since Enoch’s day. In my opinion, this book carries some degree of weight, but at the very least, and most importantly for our study here, it provides insight into the Hebrew mind and traditions in Biblical times. The only question that remains is whether or not Azazel went by another name before the Book of Enoch was written. Let’s assume for now that it was the same. What connection and significance might Azazel have to the scapegoat? In the book of Enoch, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, four archangels bring this charge to Yahuwah,

“’Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn.” (1 Enoch 9:6b-7a)

“And again the Lord said to Raphael ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’” (1 Enoch 10:4b-9a, underline added)

There are two things to note here. One aspect of sending the scapegoat away into the wilderness “for Azazel” was that it was going to the Abyss in which Azazel was cast. The other aspect is sin. What was placed on the scapegoat, and how does that relate to Azazel?

---

What we have now are only regurgitated heresies of the past.

I saw a protestant tract once that traced it's roots back to the Montanists. I kid you not.

Stay frosty! :)

There is a presumption, however, in what St. Paul is saying, namely that God will punish our enemies because they are our enemies.

If a person assumes themselves to be a member of the elect, as some tend to do, then perhaps it's only "natural" to also assume that the enemy is reprobate. In which case, something reminiscent of fire and brimstone might seem like a "perfect" solution.

The footnotes of my RSV reflect the same:

Regarding Romans 12:19... “The vindication of justice is God’s prerogative, not ours (Dt.32.35). We are neither wise enough nor good enough to punish our enemies justly.”

Regarding Romans 12:20... “To heap burning coals..., is to make the enemy feel ashamed by meeting his evil with good (Pr.25.21-22).”

Regarding Proverbs 25:21-22... “Heap coals of fire, i.e. torture is less effective than mercy, or the best way to take vengeance on one’s enemy is to be merciful to him (Rom.12.20; Mt.5.44-45).”

---

The interpretation I’ve been using here is from a book by David Dale entitled “Upon This Rock” (not to be confused with other titles of the same name). Unfortunately, I don’t have it handy as I mailed it to my grandfather. In fact, that’s how I ended up with a copy of “Manual of Reformed Doctrine” by Louis Berkhof, B.D.; we swapped. It’s probably anybody’s guess as to who got the better deal. :)

You're chopping off the part of God's word that's uncomfortable for you...

No. That was you. You ignored the preceding verses that set the context.

As explained by the verse in context...

In your fabricated context maybe, but not the context in which it was handed down.

"coals of fire" further distinguishes God's children from those not numbered among His family, those who are enemies of His children and thus, enemies of Him

Apparently, you assume that any enemy of yours is automatically an enemy of God. Is your judgment really that good? More to the point, is everyone else's? If the enemy in question is also a member of your church, who gets the coals?

Indeed, the Greek for "burning coals" is our English word anthrax...

Sooo... because we use the Greek word for "coals" to identify a disease that produces skin lesions that look like coals, you think that somehow proves that Paul was talking about putting a pox on someone. Is that right?

Just out of curiosity, what's the Hebrew word for "burning coals"?

As God wills it

;)

Lighting some thing on fire, not someone.

It's an hyperbole. A figure of speech. But I repeat myself.

Let's see the context of the verse...

If you are sincerely interested in context, you need to at least start at verse 9. That's where Paul starts this particular line of thinking, and what he says from that point sets the tone for the verses in question. Better yet, just read chapter 12 in it's entirety. But if not, at least go back to verse 9.

9) Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
10) Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
11) not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12) rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;
13) distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
14) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15) Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
16) Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
17) Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
18) If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
19) Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance in Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
20) Therefore

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink.
For in so doing you will heap
coals of fire on his head"

21) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Now, if you are determined to believe that the quoted proverb in verse 20 was intended to emphasis God's wrath on your enemy, as mentioned in 19, then a link between 19 and 20 will appear plain as day. But if you were to interpret the proverb as I do, that benevolence can break the cycle of violence, then the link simply isn't there. In other words, the link you point out between 19 and 20 only appears to be there because you interpret the heaping of coals to be an act of hostility. Since you need to prove your interpretation to prove the link, you can't use the link to prove your interpretation; circular reasoning.

So, this is where the other verses come in handy. We can look at the tone of the message Paul is sending. He say be good to each other; be good like this; be good like that. Be good and let God handle the enemy. Your interpretation has Paul advising them to be good to their enemy so their enemy will suffer. That's disturbing. I think you mistake Paul for Poe (as in Edgar Allan). Verse 14 says "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." But you insist that Paul turns around 180 degrees and tells us to do 'good' so as to bring a curse on the enemy's head.

And He most certainly will -- by "heaping holes of fire on their heads."

Sounds like a curse alright.

Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a verse so misunderstood as your take on this one.

Should I be surprised?

Of course I guess if you insist on thinking God loves everyone, then floods, pestilence, disease and destruction are all divine love tokens, too, and not a result of God's wrath.

Yes and no, but another subject for another day.

Remind me never to tell you I'm feeling a little chilly. 8~)

Apparently, if I were still a member of the PCA, your fears might be justified. :P

Maybe I’m predestined to undergo a Scriptural Groundhog Day, in which I have to convince the Calvinists of their errors on a daily basis.

I can't speak to your predestination, but if you remain in these threads for any length of time, that's pretty much what you have to look forward to. On the upside, it's great exercise. Abeit, in futility, but still. :)

"Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." -- Romans 12:20
Is the act of "heaping coals of fire" on someone's head a pleasant thing?

It is if you like being warm at night. Consider, for a moment, that this proverb dates back to a time when keeping warm typically involved lighting something on fire. So, figuratively speaking, you toss coals on someone's head, you warm them up. And that is a good thing. You repay your enemy with kindness and God rewards you for your act of charity.

In Romans 12:9-21, Paul makes the point that we should be consistently good and, in keeping with that, not return evil with evil but with good. The idea that this action (re: coals) will cause harm to the person is inconsistent with the rest of what was said.

In any case, whatever Paul preaches, it must be consistent with this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."
(Matthew 5:43-48, NKJV)

Or, more to the point, they need to be told what not to do. Such as, don't use this product in a manner inconsistent with it's labeling. Or, as you wisely point out, don't drink 12 in 2 hours. Once upon a time, that would have passed as common sense.

Sadly, this guy appears to be trying to leverage the popular misconception that "if it's not illegal, it must be okay [read: endorsed]". I wonder how many people pickle their liver each year thinking this to be true.

V2 President James Goldstein said:
"Spirits are meticulously reviewed by the government," he said. "The liquor industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries. I don't think the government would put [sic] something on the market that they consider unhealthy for people to consume."

Ungh!

I have ignored multiple requests to stop posting to myself

Passive self-aggression?

He was a freeloading bum who sat at home all day!

That assumes her story to be accurate. Another possibility is that she exaggerates his shortcomings. Much like ex-spouses tend to do.