Lol, found this.
Every time I read kingkai’s stuff I think of a short fat guy with blue skin and looking like a fish, with a power level of about 3500, has a pet monkey and cricket, and always yelling at a guy named Goku for being disrespectful to his elders.
Carry on.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote: Oh so your passing judgement on me now? But them later you are going to lie and say you didn’t?
By what reason do you think I don’t study the bible? Why, because I did not go painstakingly peruse through the historical books to find an instance of a King changing his name? [/quote]
I have not denied what I’ve said to you, although it seems I often must clarify because you don’t seem to be able to read well. Did you notice Br. Chris didn’t have any trouble going back and finding the instance from Isaiah? I went back and looked at every use of “holy” before I wrote my last post. You would call it painstaking, I would call it ENJOYABLE.
You’re such whiner, and lazy to boot.
[/quote]
You passed judgement on me. You bragged about how much more you read the bible than me, as if you know anything about my prayer and scripture life. Why? Because you did not have an answer for what I said. You have been wrong about almost everything you said and it’s been proven. If we have no common ground it’s because you have filled your heart with hate against me. I am trying to reach out to you, but your pride won’t let you do it.
Pride is an awful lonely state.
Let’s put our money where are mouths are. Let’s get totally real. I wish to reconcile with you, but I am unable to do such a thing unless you wish the same thing. Are you willing to reconcile and move forward? [/quote]
Nothing to reconcile Pat. You think I hate you because I disagree with you. You claim to know why I’ve written what I’ve written. You accuse me of vitriol, yet pepper your posts with crass language. It’s just better if we skip it altogether. Besides, haven’t I been proven wrong already? Go bask in your victory for awhile. I’ll not bother you. We were not friends before, we are not enemies now. I in no degree feel harmed by you. Be relieved of your burden. If I have some free time, I want to answer
Kingkai’s last, rather than go back and forth with you.[/quote]
Well, that’s just sad, Chen. What you don’t understand what totally escapes you, is that we are in this together, whether you like it or not. Unless one of us rejects Christ and renounces out faith, we are in this together. And there is reconciliation needed, because we have both been rude to one another. Like it or not, I will defend my faith, you insult her, it’s like you insult my mother. Mean while you call me names and accuse me of all kinds of stuff that’s not true. Of course I am going to respond harshly, which causes you to respond more harshly and so the cycle continues. I want to break that cycle.
Like you, I don’t think I have done anything wrong, just protecting that which is dear. Now, there is reconciliation needed here. I have left you with bad feelings, I am sorry for that. All I want to do here, is discuss faith and scripture, that’s all I have ever wanted to do.
I am not asking for time, I am asking for forgiveness for what I have done to you, and to move past it. As friends not enemies.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Every time I read kingkai’s stuff I think of a short fat guy with blue skin and looking like a fish, with a power level of about 3500, has a pet monkey and cricket, and always yelling at a guy named Goku for being disrespectful to his elders.
Carry on.[/quote]
I am soooo glad you know the reference. And there are few better descriptions of who I am in inside than the one you just provided 
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< No irritation on this end. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could you provide me with a quick account of how you read “and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them?” How is this functioning rhetorically within the section? What particular issue(s) were the authors addressing with this statement? [/quote]I’m not being evasive, but I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I can tell you what it means and what reformed commentators have taken it to mean.
BTW I didn’t know who KingKai was. forbes made me look it up. I thought is was something you came up with.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< No irritation on this end. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could you provide me with a quick account of how you read “and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them?” How is this functioning rhetorically within the section? What particular issue(s) were the authors addressing with this statement? [/quote]I’m not being evasive, but I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I can tell you what it means and what reformed commentators have taken it to mean.
BTW I didn’t know who KingKai was. forbes made me look it up. I thought is was something you came up with.
[/quote]
Haha yeah it was from a show I used to watch when I was a little kid. I saw that a couple other people used names from that show, so I thought it would be funny.
And that’s a totally fair question. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Yes, I am looking for what it means in particular. Confessions and other faith statements are usually worded in such a way as to rule out certain beliefs. Take the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy - reading through it, I can think of the particular viewpoint or claim that the writers are denying with every line. Same thing here - what beliefs are they denying with what they are affirming? In short, what a particular point in a confession means depends on what it doesn’t mean.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< No irritation on this end. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could you provide me with a quick account of how you read “and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them?” How is this functioning rhetorically within the section? What particular issue(s) were the authors addressing with this statement? [/quote]I’m not being evasive, but I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I can tell you what it means and what reformed commentators have taken it to mean.
BTW I didn’t know who KingKai was. forbes made me look it up. I thought is was something you came up with.
[/quote]
Haha yeah it was from a show I used to watch when I was a little kid. I saw that a couple other people used names from that show, so I thought it would be funny.
And that’s a totally fair question. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Yes, I am looking for what it means in particular. Confessions and other faith statements are usually worded in such a way as to rule out certain beliefs. Take the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy - reading through it, I can think of the particular viewpoint or claim that the writers are denying with every line. Same thing here - what beliefs are they denying with what they are affirming? In short, what a particular point in a confession means depends on what it doesn’t mean. [/quote]I believe you are trying to drag out of me a reference to the Arminian Remonstrants. I further suspect you are thereby attempting to expose what you see as an inconsistency in my embracing of the assembly, and by logical extension their condemnation of said Arminian Remonstrants. This, I suspect you will say, is not commensurate with the fact of my acceptance of contemporary Evangelical Arminians as brethren while rejecting Rome which was also condemned at Westminster? Or not?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Lol, found this.[/quote]Very cute Christopher. Like this little guy again.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< No irritation on this end. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could you provide me with a quick account of how you read “and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them?” How is this functioning rhetorically within the section? What particular issue(s) were the authors addressing with this statement? [/quote]I’m not being evasive, but I’m not sure what you’re asking me. I can tell you what it means and what reformed commentators have taken it to mean.
BTW I didn’t know who KingKai was. forbes made me look it up. I thought is was something you came up with.
[/quote]
Haha yeah it was from a show I used to watch when I was a little kid. I saw that a couple other people used names from that show, so I thought it would be funny.
And that’s a totally fair question. Sorry I wasn’t clearer. Yes, I am looking for what it means in particular. Confessions and other faith statements are usually worded in such a way as to rule out certain beliefs. Take the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy - reading through it, I can think of the particular viewpoint or claim that the writers are denying with every line. Same thing here - what beliefs are they denying with what they are affirming? In short, what a particular point in a confession means depends on what it doesn’t mean. [/quote]I believe you are trying to drag out of me a reference to the Arminian Remonstrants. I further suspect you are thereby attempting to expose what you see as an inconsistency in my embracing of the assembly, and by logical extension their condemnation of said Arminian Remonstrants. This, I suspect you will say, is not commensurate with the fact of my acceptance of contemporary Evangelical Arminians as brethren while rejecting Rome which was also condemned at Westminster? Or not?
[/quote]
I am not trying to show up inconsistencies here. You asked me to demonstrate an area in that particular portion of the confession that the study of Second Temple Judaism may have brought up evidence in conflict with. Before I can do that, I am simply trying to make sure that you and I are reading the portion of the text I highlighted the same way. That’s all. I am not trying to trick you or catch you in some sort of inconsistency. I am just asking you to give me a brief synopsis of that quotation, especially noting what issues it is responding to. Also, I sent you a PM. Please read it.
I am clear on what your understanding of the situation is in this regard. I do not know how you originally came to Christ, but as I’ve said before, if you are putting your trust in a justification that requires your works, and believe the RC sacraments efficacious as works towards your ultimate salvation, then you are not my brother in Christ, because you are not in Christ. Yet we are both sinners before God, so in that sense in the same boat. I am putting time into this thread because I know this to be true.
[quote]pat wrote: Like it or not, I will defend my faith, you insult her, it’s like you insult my mother. [/quote] Feel free to make a defense with the bible and reason, if you believe there is a defense. Nothing I have written is intended as an insult. We are discussing important issues, and I think you understand this. (I believe the issue of how the pope is addressed is important because I see it as part of a larger issue that is very important- I don’t believe the office should even exist.) My posts are sincere, if they disturb you or rile you, you should ask yourself why. Of course one possibility you must consider is that something I’ve said is correct. I have occasionally used sarcasm when I felt your posts were out of line, I will be glad to refrain if you will keep in mind the above.
[quote]pat wrote: you call me names and accuse me of all kinds of stuff that’s not true. [/quote] Well, I said your bible study habits are lazy, based on your words. Look back at some of your posts where you suggest I am not able to provide a biblical answer. Then you pop up with a- I think the bible says such and such, but I won’t take the time to look for it. I judged you fairly Pat, and I maintain my opinion. If this is how you routinely approach a biblical issue, or a discussion with another, you are lazy. It’s an adjective, not a name like say “lazy bum” or “lazy ass sluggard” would be. I have done a lot of teaching in my life, and you deserve a C- for that response. If it does not truly represent your normal habit, I’m glad for that, and I hope we can have some profitable discussions in the future.
My purpose in this thread is to have a discussion about what God intends for man based on His word. I have lot’s of opinions about Roman Catholicism, as I was educated in her institutions for a few years. If it turns out a prior opinion I have cannot hold up under examination, I will not protect it.
[quote]pat wrote: Of course I am going to respond harshly[/quote] This is not reasonable; it’s an excuse. I apologize for my sarcasm, as it seems to have been perceived as hate, which is not my intent.
I am glad to move on. Although I fear you will have difficulty accepting everything I’ve written here. I think this medium is not that great for what we are trying to do, but it’s what we have at our disposal. In the future, I’m sure you’ll not agree with much that I might write. I would expect you to at least read my posts carefully and contemplate them some, rather than just fire off gut responses. I read everything you write, and do consider it. I read every article that is linked in our discussions.
I am preparing to move my whole family back to the US in 2 weeks, so I might disappear from here for a while.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I am clear on what your understanding of the situation is in this regard. I do not know how you originally came to Christ, but as I’ve said before, if you are putting your trust in a justification that requires your works, and believe the RC sacraments efficacious as works towards your ultimate salvation, then you are not my brother in Christ, because you are not in Christ. Yet we are both sinners before God, so in that sense in the same boat. I am putting time into this thread because I know this to be true.
[/quote]
LOL! So your solution is to try to get me riled up? Somebody sold you a load of crap. You clearly don’t understand about the church or faith itself. The sacraments are indeed tools for salvation, but not salvation in itself. If it were, you’d be screwed. You have other means to attain salvation, you use the word alone. However, your condemnations are laughably bad. Since scripture is your only tool I challenge you to find any scripture that speaks against the sacraments.
The church is a means to salvation, not the end in itself. If your means are better, why are you not more perfect.
And you’re damn right a sinner. Keep that in mind as you hold the stone in your hand.
Your judgement, is not a reflection on me, but a judgement on yourself. You don’t know what my prayer and study habits and you cannot make any judgement based on anything. You have avoided substantive conversations like the plague.
I dare say you must be afraid to really dig your heals in and get to real discussion. Any idiot can cut and paste a wall of scripture passages. The only thing that proves is that you have rudimentary computer skills, not deep knowledge.
I still think its funny you insist on have this silly pissing contest about whose more religious. Seriously, that doesn’t sound ridiculous to you?
If we’re grading responses, I would give the majority of yours an ‘F’. So I am kicking ass in this class.
I want to have productive conversations. But if you plan on taking personal shots at me the whole time, it’s going to be a rude experience over all. I will give what I get.
You did not reconcile with me.
[quote]
My purpose in this thread is to have a discussion about what God intends for man based on His word. I have lot’s of opinions about Roman Catholicism, as I was educated in her institutions for a few years. If it turns out a prior opinion I have cannot hold up under examination, I will not protect it.
[quote]pat wrote: Of course I am going to respond harshly[/quote] This is not reasonable; it’s an excuse. I apologize for my sarcasm, as it seems to have been perceived as hate, which is not my intent.
I am glad to move on. Although I fear you will have difficulty accepting everything I’ve written here. I think this medium is not that great for what we are trying to do, but it’s what we have at our disposal. In the future, I’m sure you’ll not agree with much that I might write. I would expect you to at least read my posts carefully and contemplate them some, rather than just fire off gut responses. I read everything you write, and do consider it. I read every article that is linked in our discussions.
I am preparing to move my whole family back to the US in 2 weeks, so I might disappear from here for a while.[/quote]
Again, though,you did not reconcile. You continue to take shots at me and make very general anathemas on the sacraments but aren’t specific on which, or why. That’s really just cheap.
I must say, you’ve made some pretty harsh judgement on me, now I may be returning the favor. I asked you to reconcile. I have reached out a hand, and olive branch to make peace to forgive one another for past grievances and move on. But you couldn’t do it. You answers was basically a condemnation a “Catholics believe sacraments are salvation and I cannot be friends with anybody who believes that, they, by default are my enemy.”
What kind of character do you have? That’s right, I am questioning the character of someone who cannot even make peace with some shmoe on the internet. This is such a small thing. I can think of hundreds of scriptures that speak to this. Or am I being lazy for not occupying 5 GB of space on this page for not posting them?
Oh I hear the excuse already. “That’s not really what Jesus meant.” or “That’s not what Paul was saying. You can like, judge some people’s faith and relationship with God as long as well you know your right. So as long as I am right, I can judge all I want, it’s in the Bible.”
Yep, I have heard that garbage before. You can use scripture to justify anything.
Based on this, don’t bother judging me, my faith, Catholicism, my language, people who know me, etc. Of all people, you don’t have that right.
I’ll speak to you, but you’ve chosen to be at odds, so at odds we will be.
This is not my default setting, but if it’s yours, so be it.
[quote]pat wrote: What kind of character do you have? That’s right, I am questioning the character of someone who cannot even make peace with some shmoe on the internet.[/quote] Well I’ve got sense enough not to grab an olive branch that has own sided requirements hanging off it. I must accept Roman Catholicism as a legitimate expression of biblical Christianity. I do not. I make no such similar requirement of you. You may maintain any opinion of my faith you want, and freely express it. I warn you though, if you attempt to turn me over to the inquisition, I will not go quietly.
Told you we’d be wasting our time.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
This is not my default setting, but if it’s yours, so be it.
[/quote]
YOU said it, I didn’t. It’s interesting how you try to spin and twist everything. You said those words that nobody who believes in the sacraments of the church could be your brother in Christ. You said it, I did not. So what is your default stance?
[quote]
[quote]pat wrote: What kind of character do you have? That’s right, I am questioning the character of someone who cannot even make peace with some shmoe on the internet.[/quote] Well I’ve got sense enough not to grab an olive branch that has own sided requirements hanging off it. I must accept Roman Catholicism as a legitimate expression of biblical Christianity. I do not. I make no such similar requirement of you. You may maintain any opinion of my faith you want, and freely express it. I warn you though, if you attempt to turn me over to the inquisition, I will not go quietly.
Told you we’d be wasting our time. [/quote]
What requirement did I put? That you forgive and forget? That you don’t intentionally give offense? If this is what you call ‘strings attached’ then nobody can help you. I gave no strings. I did not say you have to love my church, I said you have to be respectful in conversation. Is that really too hard?
I don’t accept your pronounced faith biblical Christianity. Reason? It’s very simple you cherry pick the scripture to make it what you want and disregard the rest. For instance, ‘Faith alone salvation’ is NOT in the scriptures. You have to make it so by picking some of Paul’s writings and disregard other writing that say it’s not true. What about Romans 2:6? or Romans 2:12-16? Or James 2:17?
These are things you cannot escape.
So far what I have seen from you is the use of scripture for the glory of self. “I read the whole bible every 3 months!” Using the bible as a tool to cut me down? Some anonymous fool on the internet. When you read the bible every 3 months do the words sink in? Your behavior is not reflective of the scriptures in my reading.
This may make you mad, but I wish you would just think.
My offer still stands, but the strings of being respectful are still attached. You are right on one thing, if you cannot even be respectful, there is no chance for peace between us.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I am clear on what your understanding of the situation is in this regard. I do not know how you originally came to Christ, but as I’ve said before, if you are putting your trust in a justification that requires your works, and believe the RC sacraments efficacious as works towards your ultimate salvation, then you are not my brother in Christ, because you are not in Christ. Yet we are both sinners before God, so in that sense in the same boat. I am putting time into this thread because I know this to be true.
[/quote]
?The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool?. – Voltaire
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I am not trying to show up inconsistencies here. You asked me to demonstrate an area in that particular portion of the confession that the study of Second Temple Judaism may have brought up evidence in conflict with. Before I can do that, I am simply trying to make sure that you and I are reading the portion of the text I highlighted the same way. That’s all. I am not trying to trick you or catch you in some sort of inconsistency. I am just asking you to give me a brief synopsis of that quotation, especially noting what issues it is responding to. Also, I sent you a PM. Please read it.[/quote]Other than the remonstrants and their doctrine of a contingent God, I’m not sure what you mean. They were codifying objections to a whole host of errors of the young post reformation era, including civil and governmental ones. I don’t know that there was pinpoint specific doctrine or proposition that they were in that precise sentence addressing other than the Ariminians and Papists though at times Aquinas nudges closer to the reformers through Augustine than did Arminius.
In a nutshell? God had no need to create, gains nothing essential or experiential in having created and all possible manifestation of His glory(all of His majestic excellencies that, in this context can be displayed unto and perceived by His creation) proceed from and return to Himself alone with any involvement by His creation being an either loving and gracious or just and damning condescension on Hist part depending which portion of said creation is under immediate discussion.
logical conundrums abound as is inescapably the case when any substantive discussion of the most high God is underway.
That may not be as helpful as I’d hoped and though very carefully considered, not being a “thus saith the Lord”, I reserve the right to possible revision as we proceed.
(I’m tryin man)
Bill Cosby, with some Sisters:
Back story:
http://www.catholicreview.org/article/home/st-frances-academy-welcomes-cosbys
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In a nutshell? God had no need to create and gains nothing essential or experiential in having created. All possible manifestation of His glory (all of His majestic excellencies that, in this context, can be displayed unto and perceived by His creation) proceed from and return to Himself alone. Any (of his) involvement with his creation is either a loving and gracious or just and damning condescension on His part depending which portion of said creation is under immediate discussion.
[/quote]
I think I get your summary (and the influence of pre-20th century Christian authors on your style is abundantly clear), but I am not entirely sure. I added some punctuation to indicate how I think the clauses fit together. Is my assessment correct?
[quote]pat wrote:
My offer still stands, but the strings of being respectful are still attached. You are right on one thing, if you cannot even be respectful, there is no chance for peace between us.
[/quote]
I have not twisted your words, but you have twisted mine.
-
You require me to “respect” your faith. Can I disagree with it, and say so?
-
If I think your teaching on salvation is wrong, does it not follow logically that (I think) you are not a brother in Christ?
Just answer yes or no Pat.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In a nutshell? God had no need to create and gains nothing essential or experiential in having created. All possible manifestation of His glory (all of His majestic excellencies that, in this context, can be displayed unto and perceived by His creation) proceed from and return to Himself alone. Any involvement of His creation in His own glorification is either a loving and gracious or just and damning condescension on His part depending which portion of said creation is under immediate discussion.
[/quote]
I think I get your summary (and the influence of pre-20th century Christian authors on your style is abundantly clear), but I am not entirely sure. I added some punctuation to indicate how I think the clauses fit together. Is my assessment correct?[/quote]Try that. Also the bolded part is my very concise definition of God’s “glory” as I understand it’s being used by the assembly which is distilled from the biblical portrayal of that concept.
Though mechanically correct, used to characterize ALL involvement He has in His creation that way is a bit sterile and arid. Much more could and should be said, though, again, it is technically “correct”. Same would be true for His glorification as well actually, but the emphasis in this immediate context pretty much requires it be stated that way here.
I’ve read quite a bit of pre 20th century works because I really believe they are on the whole much more faithful to the truth. Fully recognizing God’s gracious gift, I credit my command of the language to having successfully done so. 16th to 18th and into the 19th century English is delicious to me. It just cerebrally “tastes” intelligent on the page. I have feeling you’ll know what I mean by that.