Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Josh, as a moderator, I ask you to ban yourself for that comment!

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Psalm 133-Sing to the tune of "Oh for a Thousand Tongues to Sing"

Behold a good a thing it is
And how becoming well
When those that brethren are delight
In unity to dwell

For it is like the precious oil
Poured out on Aaron's head
That, going down upon his beard
Upon his garments spread

Like Hermon's dew upon the hills
Of Zion that descends
The Lord commands His blessing there
Ev'n life that never ends


You oughta hear Chloë sing that! It's the cutest and most encouraging thing.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I'll run it by the LtCol, and see what he says.

Hey Terry! You are now a Paedo, wow!
When and how did it happen brother? Curious minds want to know.

Mark

__________________
Mark

"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

Here is Pt. 3 of my analysis. I know. I know.... Not this again. Oy Vey! Well I am going to finish it. It just depends on how burnt out I get before I listen to the next part. I got pretty burnt out from the discussion last time.

The Gene and Paul Debate... An Analysis... pt. 3

In the second segment Paul starts off with his rebuttal with a cross-examination of Gene’s knowledge and doctrine of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Paul asked Gene if this Passage indicates that a New Covenant Member will never need to be evangelized because he is a new Covenant Member. Gene indicates that is true.

Paul then asks Gene a very hypothetical question based upon backsliding and whether or not Gene might be telling a backslider who is a New Covenant Member to Know the LORD.

Paul seems to be accusing Gene of going against his own understanding of scripture by telling a backsliding New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. This line of questioning is very hypothetical and misleading from my standpoint. I would say Paul is reaching here into things that do not apply and he is fishing for a self-contradiction and violation of Gene’s biblical understanding.

I wouldn’t have answered the questions the same way Gene did but I am not analyzing my response. Gene did give good appropriate answers and announced he could not know if anyone was regenerate other than himself.

Then we move to discussing whether a person could draw prescriptions from descriptive statements. It is fallacious to do so. It was a statement Paul quotes of Gene who made it during a debate with an atheist. Paul says it is a move from what is the case to what ought to be the case. And Gene affirms this is true for the Atheist because he has no Morale ground to base anything on. The Christian has this foundation so it is not fallacious for the Christian. It is because the Christian does not base his prescriptions on a material universe. Christians are for Biblical prescriptions.

Paul seems to have been baiting Gene for another fallacy up to this point by taking a question out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context. These contexts are the worldviews between the Christian and the Atheist. I believe Paul is groping and fails at this point also.

So now we are on to the next line of questioning. Paul then associates the phrase ‘they and their children’ to New Covenant Promises and other passages of the Old Testament. He then starts a line of questioning from this thinking. In my understanding Paul flattens out the promises to much assuming that the Children are automatically born new covenant members because of these general promises.

Paul then asks Gene, “Do these passages refer to all of the physical children, half their children, or is there another option?” Gene then says the passages refer to children who are believing children based upon the information given in the New Testament.

Paul then gets into a discussion of how we should interpret ‘all of their children’. I am not sure any of the texts he quotes use the term all. I think he is assuming it. Then Gene asks if Paul is a Calvinist. What does all men mean in this context. Paul then diverts to another question and doesn’t answer Gene. At this point Paul does something beyond understanding. He asks Gene how could his (Paul) position be stated that believers and all of their children are to come into the New Covenant and how can that be prophesied.” In my estimation Paul is asking Gene, if he were God, how would he have breathed out the scripture concerning this fallacy of Paul’s. He asks Gene what way could God have revealed it so Gene could understand and accept it. Gene says he is satisfied with how God revealed his truth already. And that it didn’t mean all of Isreal or all of the parents or all of the children. Then Paul pushes the point even further and asks how could the scripture have been said to mean all of them.


Then Paul’s line of questioning turns to the invisible /visible church as lined out in the confessions. And time is called. I don’t think Paul made his points very well and that he failed at many different levels. Gene wins this part in my estimation.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hey! Who brought this thread back? Randy, was that you?!? Man, and things were going so smoothly around here...

__________________

Gotta keep the pump primed... We are gonna have an EP debate and we need to be on our best behaviour. Better get some practice.

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

__________________
Mark Maney
Kwanglim Korean Methodist Church - 1689'er Baptist Pastor (read profile for more info)
Master of Theological Studies emphasis Biblical Studies
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Surrey, BC. (Vancouver), Canada

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?

even if true, how would this not be an example of the genetic fallacy? I, for one, try to avoid fallacious reasoning in my thinking.

It's a lame bit of Neo-Orthodox humor. Barth denied that the Resurrection happened in real human history and thought the orthodox insistence on the event being tied to history to be a bit of pagan theology. Hence, when Barth appeals to human history to establish another thing I have to think: how can this really be true.

Either way, I really don't care what Barth thought about the Reformers. He butchered their theology.

Agreed. One can hold to something that is right for the wrong reasons, or can pervert it to ungodly ends.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon