[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I wanted to take this opportunity to compliment my friend Cortes on his choice of John Gill, a thoroughgoing Calvinist Protestant, (rock ribbed reformed baptist actually, like just about all baptists once were) as his preferred expert witness on this topic. =] Well done sir.[/quote]
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, right?
ducks and runs
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I wanted to take this opportunity to compliment my friend Cortes on his choice of John Gill, a thoroughgoing Calvinist Protestant, (rock ribbed reformed baptist actually, like just about all baptists once were) as his preferred expert witness on this topic. =] Well done sir.[/quote]
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, right?
ducks and runs[/quote]Oh my dear friend. Duck n run? NONSENSE MAN!!! Click n read =]
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#1
Seriously though. Scroll down that page and you’ll be thinking about how much this guy sounds like me. “OH NO, this is all the stuff Trib’s always sayin”. ;] ;] That guy was a giant. Next you’ll pull out Owen, Flavel and Brown on me.
Bless the glorious name of Jesus!! This: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_11.htm ,is beautiful indeed. Most people today have no idea that this is what baptists once believed. Dr. Voddie Bocham does though. You should hear him blasting his own Southern Baptist Convention at their annual conference for forgetting their Calvinistic roots a couple years ago (I happen to have it).
I don’t know what it is with you guys lol. Kneedragger, another Catholic, posted a thread with Dr. Voddie as the topic. Now you sic John Gill on us here. Good stuff in any case. You might actually enjoy some of Gill’s work.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I wanted to take this opportunity to compliment my friend Cortes on his choice of John Gill, a thoroughgoing Calvinist Protestant, (rock ribbed reformed baptist actually, like just about all baptists once were) as his preferred expert witness on this topic. =] Well done sir.[/quote]
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, right?
ducks and runs[/quote]Oh my dear friend. Duck n run? NONSENSE MAN!!! Click n read =]
http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#1
Seriously though. Scroll down that page and you’ll be thinking about how much this guy sounds like me. “OH NO, this is all the stuff Trib’s always sayin”. ;] ;] That guy was a giant. Next you’ll pull out Owen, Flavel and Brown on me.
Bless the glorious name of Jesus!! This: http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_1/book1_11.htm ,is beautiful indeed. Most people today have no idea that this is what baptists once believed. Dr. Voddie Bocham does though. You should hear him blasting his own Southern Baptist Convention at their annual conference for forgetting their Calvinistic roots a couple years ago (I happen to have it).
I don’t know what it is with you guys lol. Kneedragger, another Catholic, posted a thread with Dr. Voddie as the topic. Now you sic John Gill on us here. Good stuff in any case. You might actually enjoy some of Gill’s work.
[/quote]
Nah, all I meant was, though I may disagree with you and him and Dr. Voddie and whomever else about some things, there is going to be a lot of other stuff, probably (hopefully) far MORE stuff, that I agree with wholeheartedly. Kamui could have posted the exegesis above and it wouldn’t have changed how I feel about it 
[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< Nah, all I meant was, though I may disagree with you and him and Dr. Voddie and whomever else about some things, there is going to be a lot of other stuff, probably (hopefully) far MORE stuff, that I agree with wholeheartedly. Kamui could have posted the exegesis above and it wouldn’t have changed how I feel about it
[/quote]I understand and that’s fair enough. Chris posted an article by some Catholic guy a while back that except for his emphasis on the eucharist I could have written myself. I will NEVER be an evangelical(whatever that means anymore)/Catholic ecumenist, but God does throw His eyebrow scrunching curve balls here and there. If only you guys knew how badly I wish I could believe a church like what yours claims to be existed. Nothing I could ever say could be more serious. I suspect you would be very disappointed in Gill’s (or Bacham’s) view of the RCC. You’ve pretty much heard theirs in mine. Anyway, I’m off to work back, bi’s and abs. Interesting little detour here.
Oh yeah. Where is elder Forlife?!?!?!?! I am biting my lip waiting for this discussion on certainty to continue. I wanna see him put Pat AND dearest Christopher in autonomous armbars simultaneously. =) Chris thinks this is fluff and frivolity which he fancies himself quickly outgrowing. Argument for arguments sake
I think he said. If that’s what you’ve been doin Chris then ya better knock it off. I’ve made it clear 1000 times, right from day one in this forum, that I am unwaveringly convinced that epistemology is the most overlooked and the most vital philosophical discipline there ever will be.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Argument for arguments sake [/quote]
Arguing for the argument itself.
You mean like faith and reason?
Romans 11:33-36 NASB, emphasis indicates an OT quotation as per the Lockman translation crew
[quote]<<< 33-Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34-For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35-Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36-For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. >>>[/quote] That’s what I’m arguing for. I know full well that I fall short much more often than I’d like, but while there is breath in my lungs this is what I’m contending for.
Please, if you would be so kind, elucidate “faith and reason” for me. Chris your nuts are gittin tighter (no pun) and gears slipperier all the time. I now officially am gonna have to sit up straight and pay close attention when dealing with you. I’ll say this publicly. I always valued you and I was telling the truth when I talked about how I believed the Lord would use you, but I poked and prodded and toyed around with you (you know this) because I thought you were engaging in somewhat mindless zealotry which I viewed as beneath your giftings. I pushed you around pretty much at will (you know that too). Not only am I longer able to do that, but I no longer want to. I don’t know how your weight training’s comin, but you are puttin on some meat in the spirit.
There will be those, maybe even you, who will wonder how I can say these things when I do so abominate your church (aw now there I went n blew the whole post =] ). I can, and that will have to be good enough for now. I cannot help what anybody here believes, but when I say I pray, intercede and beseech the throne of God on somebody’s behalf? I DO. You are frequently in my prayers Christopher and I am seeing some of them answered.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
elucidate “faith and reason” for me.[/quote]
Revealed truth with reason, par St. Augustine. That he wrote of when writing against the sceptics of Academy who admitted no certain–only probable knowledge.
Mas?
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< Sam, you continue to lie on this thread. Over and over and over again.
Sorry, Pharisee, but I’ve never slept with my father’s wife >>>[/quote]Lord Jesus help this man. There are total unbelievers who will read 1st Corinthians 5 and understand that the specific example at Corinth there was just that. He was laying down a principle which is summed up in verses 9-13 (caps as per the translators): 9-I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10-I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11-But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler, not even to eat with such a one. 12-For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13-But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. I repeat. You are a textbook specimen of this principle.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< when one loses an argument on the intellectual points it is common to resort to personal attacks. >>>[/quote] Indeed. Spiritual points as well.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< {Trib was absent} on the Genesis threads. >>>[/quote] I have stated dozens of times that I am neither (primarily) an evidentialist nor a traditionalist when it comes to apologetics. The only common ground upon which discourse regarding the creator God may take place with unbelievers, ESPECIALLY among modern educated ones, is the image of that God that remains in them. That is accomplished through biblical epistemology alone. Arguing about intellectual proof or empirical evidence with a man dead in sin is like arguing the existence of dry land to a fish. That part has nothing to do with you.
I believe in a young universe, a literal six day creation and the creation of our first parents directly from the hand of God Himself, but I will not be seen joining forces with a loud, public, blatant despiser of the crown and covenants of the King of kings. That would be an unquestionable violation of 1st Corinthians 5. I DO (oh yes I do) pray that one day you and I can stand shoulder to shoulder as fellow warriors in His army Push. It would be my honor. You’re a sharp guy with valuable gifts. I mean that. However you are at present an enemy operative who keeps trying to talk his way past the watchmEn on the wall. [quote]pushharder wrote:<<< You just made the claim that the “scholarship” of your choosing >>>[/quote] There is no choosing possible on the utterly foundational areas of the marriage covenant, sex and family Push because it’s unanimous. My choices are: every group, individual or institution that has EVER been recognized as Christian in the history of the world or a guy in an internet forum waving a paperback book published in my lifetime. [quote]pushharder wrote:<<< is essentially inspired. >>>[/quote] On the life and death principles of His Word, God most definitely does and has superintended the preservation of His gospel. [quote]pushharder wrote:<<< Are you suggesting, ala Joseph Smith, that the Scripture was still incomplete post Revelation until your “multitude of champions” happened along? >>>[/quote] No. I’m suggesting that God left us without a proper understanding of marriage, family and sex, which were instituted by Him before sin in the garden of Eden, for the whole of the 2000 years of the redemptive church age until Philo Thelos was raised up to correct that deplorable situation in 2002.
Keep those PM’s flowin Push. You need their approval.
[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< {Toying with Chris} >>>[/quote] What I’m talkin about extends back a year and a half and has almost nothing to do with anything that’s transpired here recently. You haven’t seen what I’m referring to because I haven’t done much of it in a while. Chris and I have an actual relationship, near as that’s possible over an internet forum. Probably a thousand posts between us (guessing) and dozens of Pm’s and emails. You couldn’t have an idea so that’s alright >>>[quote]pushharder wrote:<<< wondering if you’d remembered to wear panties. >>>[/quote] See now this is exactly the kinda personal insult I’m talkin about that you accused me of. Let’s get one thing straight right here and now Pal. I NEVER forget to wear my panties OK!!!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
elucidate “faith and reason” for me.[/quote]
Revealed truth with reason, par St. Augustine. That he wrote of when writing against the sceptics of Academy who admitted no certain–only probable knowledge.
Mas?[/quote]
Mas…“For if I am deceived, I am.” One of my favorite lines from dude.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< The only way you can prove I lie is to lie yourself, because I have not. You will cut sentences, you will remove words from sentences…Blah, blah, blah… >>>[/quote]Pat you ARE (or at least can be) better than this. Sincerely. I provided a link to the page where the quote comes from, just like I always will. Pssst. (whispering now). I don’t think I really believe you were lyin anyway. I think you are so terrified of the gospel and doctrines of grace (or just hate them so much) that my identification with them inhibits you from clearly thinking in a straight line from one day to the next when dealing with or about me. OR, you ARE lyin. OR, you just forgot that you made this very substantial statement which unquestionably and directly contradicts everything you’ve been recently saying to Elder Forlife. Here is the solution. Simply say (watch closely) “I was wrong”. You were ya know. It will be no bigger a deal, to me anyway, than the ridiculous denials you may attempt. If you simply said: “OK OK, for whatever reason I contradicted myself today when I said I never made that statement”. Even if you did admit to lying. Fine. Were all human. Off we go to sumthin else with this episode forgotten. I hope you try that out [quote]pat wrote:<<< So again did you or did you not say “If there are any Catholics in heaven it is only by the extreme mercy of God.” ?
You know you did, just admit it. >>>[/quote]LOL!!! Alright already LOL!!! I confess, I’ve been tormenting you with this one by ignoring it when you bring it up. What I actually said was that it’s only because the gospel of unthinkable grace that I preach is true that even one Catholic will wind up in heaven. In other words my gospel is the only thing that will save you from yours if you die in communion with Rome and avoid damnation. WHAAAAAAAAT??? Yes that’s what I said and I’m not admitting anything. I stand confidently by it. I will never retreat from any principle I declare Pat. NEVER. What you and others call “lying and backtracking” is usually the very simple result of you not paying attention when I speak. On occasion I really blow it in my articulation of something and will say so while I’m rephrasing and restating it more clearly.
I will NEVER intentionally deceive you.
[/quote]
Well T, I think I have come to a cross roads and took a little hiatus from this here vortex. Here’s the deal, we’re NEVER going to agree on shit. The truth of the matter is that I see your ‘version’ of faith as two dimensional and void of reality, but hey it works for you. So I am going to take sloth’s words to heart. I am relegating you to ‘irrelevant poster’ status which simply means that when I see the little lion, I shall pass on by. I don’t mean it as demeaning thing it’s just I will no longer read anything you write, even a response to this if you do so, I will not read. Hell, I did not even read what you wrote above. I cannot fathom what is says and I don’t really care. If you think I cannot resist, you under estimate the power of sheer will.
Sadly, and it has never happened before to this level with anybody else here, this got way to personal. I attacked you personally and I apologize for getting so caught up in the moments.
I have, will always stand against what I consider a fundamentalist perversion of God’s word which is what I believe you proselytize, but I have made my points. My conclusions and my faith were not cheaply or ill gotten, but were the result of an on-going faith journey which I spend a hell of a lot of time on, because I love God and it’s just darn interesting too. I am interested in the hard questions. Answering them is only part of it, seeking the answers is were most of the learning takes place.
Peace be on you, I hope to meet you on the other side in the peace and glory of Christ, how ever it is we each get there.
Peace.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
elucidate “faith and reason” for me.[/quote]
Revealed truth with reason, par St. Augustine. That he wrote of when writing against the sceptics of Academy who admitted no certain–only probable knowledge.
Mas?[/quote]
Mas…“For if I am deceived, I am.” One of my favorite lines from dude.[/quote]Ok yer weird’n me out now. I don’t know where you are. Can I ask for a bit more. I’m really disappointed that Elder Forlife has not shown back up. He was doin a first rate job of demonstrating the inescapable uncertainty of the autonomous worldview. BTW, you know I wouldn’t ignore you, but I didn’t get free once yesterday til after midnight. You and I need about 2 weeks in the same room to actually go over everything that’s hangin out there anyway.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…When Push’s lifestyle… [/quote]
Thing is…I am not pursuing or active in the lifestyle you are referring to. Completely monogamous.
However, many if not all of the points I made in that (in)famous thread I still stand behind in terms of what the Scripture says, and doesn’t say, about sex in the Bible.
FWIW.
[/quote]
I am getting curious about your ‘life style’ as it is being brought up a hell of a lot. When ever I hear you discuss getting blown, or sex or what ever, it’s with your wife. I fail to see the problem with that.
If you don’t like locker room talk, get out of the locker room.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Incomplete =/= inconsistent =/= uncertain
Godel proved that arithmetics can’t be completely demonstrated by itself, internally.
in other words : arithmetics is not a self-sufficient closed system.
what he did NOT prove is that arithmetics “may be false”, or is ultimately uncertain.
this is a common but abusive interpretation.
[/quote]
Godel demonstrated that arithmetic cannot prove its own consistency, and must reference an external system in order to do so. He demonstrated to Einstein that paradoxes do in fact exist. It is ultimately uncertain, because each higher system suffers from the same criticism, and must in turn reference another system.[/quote]
Nothing can can prove it’s own consistency. You always need something external to show it. And don’t look now, you just invalidated any chance of a self creating universe and gave a great and perfectly poetic description as to why Cosmology most be the case…The unverse or existence itself is not sufficient to prove itself, it demands something outside for it’s existence that cannot be itself…Enter the Necessary Being.
[quote]supa power wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here, let me wrap this whole thing up with one post.
—Maximum posts (half of which involve Tirib and Pat ripping each other) reached, and not a single one has any practical bearing on either politics or world issues.—[/quote]
I can wrap it up better: there’s no such thing as satan.
I have not had time to go through all the posts but at a glance there is some advanced and confusing stuff being discussed. To the people making these posts: do you actually believe in some dude with a goatee and pitch fork walking around the fires of hell?[/quote]
No, but I do believe in the purity of evil and purity of evil is an act of pure will. Will is something only a being can have. Satan summarizes the term ‘willful pure evil’. For there to be degrees of evil a pure model must exist, same with good. Ultimate good = God, ultimate evil = Satan. You can call it what you want, the names matter less than their reality.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
BC, where you at, dawg? Where missing out on all the fun =([/quote]
Right here.[/quote]
Ah, finally. Anyway, I believe I had last asked you if there was a difference between jealousy and envy. You’re answer?[/quote]
Matters in what way you are using it.[/quote]
God claims to be a jealous God. Envy is one of the “Seven deadly sins”. So, is god’s jealousy different from envy? How so?[/quote]
You take it out of context The answer lies in two parts… If I say wow! “You got a Harely Fat Boy! I am jealous!” I am I sinning? No. Or say your girl friend is bouncing up and down on all your friends, you jealous? Well if you like her even a little bit your royally pissed. That’s not the jealously that is being talked about. Jealousy as ‘a deadly sin’ is referring to detrimental jealously. The kind where you seek to remedy that which you are jealous of. Like somebody has what you don’t and you see fit to take it. Or somebody ascends to a position over you and you seek to remedy that by trying to break them down.
The jealousy God is referring to is more of the girl friend example. These people and God entered a binding covenant and if they start worshiping baals or other statues it’s a violation of the relationship.
Second, God is not beholden to his own laws…He who makes the rules aren’t subject to them. If you build a sand castle, you can do what you want to it. BUT and its a BIG BUT, when God became man, he was not only subject to his own laws, he let himself be subjected to the worst of human kind. So it cannot be said God didn’t follow his own rules, as man he humbled himself to the worst his own creation could subject to Him.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
elucidate “faith and reason” for me.[/quote]
Revealed truth with reason, par St. Augustine. That he wrote of when writing against the sceptics of Academy who admitted no certain–only probable knowledge.
Mas?[/quote]
Mas…“For if I am deceived, I am.” One of my favorite lines from dude.[/quote]Ok yer weird’n me out now. I don’t know where you are. Can I ask for a bit more. I’m really disappointed that Elder Forlife has not shown back up. He was doin a first rate job of demonstrating the inescapable uncertainty of the autonomous worldview. BTW, you know I wouldn’t ignore you, but I didn’t get free once yesterday til after midnight. You and I need about 2 weeks in the same room to actually go over everything that’s hangin out there anyway.
[/quote]
Sure you can ask a bit more.