1. Responding to Cultural Relativism, Rob Lundberg2. What is Jihad?, Dr. Bob Wright
3. What is Islam?, Dr. Bob Wright
4. A Defense of the Resurrection, JP Holding
5. Deceit and Cunning in Chapel Hill, JP Holding
6. The Authority and Authenticity of the New Testament, JP Holding
7. Responding to Religious Pluralism, Rob Lundberg
8. Understanding Worldviews, Rob Lundberg
9. Something to Think About, Dr. Bob Wright
10. Muhammed and His Qur'an, Dr. Bob Wright
Is the Muslim my Neighbor, Julia Castle
nice picture of the Calvinist crusaders ready to go kill some Turks for Augustin.
ReplyDeleteno, that's a picture of the army that Dawkins and Hitchens are building to go and forceably remove children from their Christian parents, while locking up the Christians in jails or zoos.
ReplyDeleteThe Muslim Calvinists are marching to kill the Mohammedan Muslims.
ReplyDeleteYa know, J.P. Holding actually sounds like a halfway pleasant fellow in those talks he gave. Either way, good stuff. Thanks for the links, Dusman.
ReplyDeleteThey do have something of the look of late medieval Swiss troops, particularly the lancers at the back.
ReplyDeleteOf course, then they would probably be defending their land against the "Holy Roman Empire," rather than trying to defend the East (or Spain) against the scourge of the Muslims.
-Turretinfan
I have formally proposed that the heretic Egomakarios be banned for repeatedly violating blog rules.
ReplyDeleteThat, and because he's an insufferable idiot whose incompetence keeps him from dealing with the arguments we've provided.
But at least every single post on his blog disproves original sin. He's got that going for him.
ReplyDeleteGood point Rhology! Maybe there is hope for some Calvislamics after all.
ReplyDeleteSure, he's dumber than a brick (and less useful), but he did say "Calvislamic" and that's gotta count for something.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, deleting all of Freewill Hunting's posts may get him used to the fact that his free will is rather...NOT so free when it comes up against a superior will who owns the combox. It could prepare him for the eventual disappointment he will find when he passes on and realizes God is smarter than he is and, as a result, makes better decisions than he does, which results in His putting limitations on what EgoMan can do.
On the other other hand, what would we do if we actually had normal people posting comments instead of complete freaks? Can we handle the sudden change?
Hmm...it's a toss-up.
what is it with you guys?
ReplyDeleteWhy the need for comments like "because he's an insufferable idiot whose incompetence keeps him from dealing with the arguments we've provided", "Sure, he's dumber than a brick (and less useful)", and "On the other other hand, what would we do if we actually had normal people posting comments instead of complete freaks" - not to mention most other blog posts
I wonder how many you would make these comments outside of the safe confines of your keyboard. You can be the smartest person in the world, but if you're a complete ass, how effective are you in the end?
anonymous whined:
ReplyDelete---
what is it with you guys?
---
Hi EgoManiac.
What is it with you anonymous people who never seem to mind when someone calls Calvinists "Calvislamics" yet suddenly gets all up on your high horse when I point out the lunacy of such individuals?
Double standard?
Anonymous said:
---
I wonder how many you would make these comments outside of the safe confines of your keyboard.
---
I wonder how many would make these comments outside of the safe confines of an anonymous label.
Anonymous said:
---
You can be the smartest person in the world
---
Thanks for your permission.
Anonymous said:
---
but if you're a complete ass, how effective are you in the end?
---
Since you've got that part down already, how 'bout you tell me?
“Hi EgoManiac.”
ReplyDeleteYou presume way too much.
“What is it with you anonymous people who never seem to mind when someone calls Calvinists "Calvislamics" yet suddenly gets all up on your high horse when I point out the lunacy of such individuals?
Double standard?”
Since I am a Calvinist, I don’t see it that way. I fail to see how his behavior justifies yours.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete---
Since I am a Calvinist, I don’t see it that way. I fail to see how his behavior justifies yours.
---
Even assuming you are a Calvinist, I fail to see why my behavior needs justification in the first place. I answered a spade as a spade.
I suppose you'd demand a justification for why Jesus called that Pharieses a brood of vipers or a white-washed tomb too. Perhaps context provides the justification, and maybe if you paid attention to the context of EgoManiac's comments you'd see that I was being charitable to him. Although in the process I was rather insulting to bricks, and for that I apologize.
On the plus side, at least now we know without folks like Ego around we'll still have the anonymous posters.
ReplyDeleteSo, Bernabe, it looks like Ego's become a redundancy that we can do without and I'd vote with ya :-)
Peter Pike said, "I suppose you'd demand a justification for why Jesus called that Pharieses a brood of vipers or a white-washed tomb too. Perhaps context provides the justification, and maybe if you paid attention to the context of EgoManiac's comments you'd see that I was being charitable to him. Although in the process I was rather insulting to bricks, and for that I apologize."
ReplyDeleteAh, the good ol' "Jesus called the Pharisees a bad name so I can too" justification, as if that's the only reaction Jesus had to people who reviled him.
Context reveals that John the baptist called the Pharisees a generation of vipers because they trusted in physical descent for salvation. (Mt 3, Lk 3) Jesus undoubtedly continued this categorization begun by John (Mt 12, Mt 23) due to their concepts of inheriting salvation or damnation, and of being born blind due to your parents' sin, etc., or in other words, the Pharisees' essentially Calvislamic beliefs, salvation by inheritance (read infant baptism for believers' children) and damnation by inheritance (of those who weren't Pharisees). Essentially, when Jesus called them a generation of vipers he was saying generation of Calvislamics.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, it doesn't matter if Jesus utilized a variety of different methods in responding to the Pharisees--the point is that if he used the one that Peter is using now, then it is justified.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that Peter doesn't respond to other mockers and slanderers with the other methods that Jesus used? Speaking for myself, there have been times when I've been mocked or slandered and I've been charitable and loving in response. But other times I've considered it wiser to respond to a false teacher in a more serious way.
Personally, I apologize for the harshness of my comment above. It's not that I necessarily disagree with what I said of Ego, but nevertheless, I regret the obvious tint of venom dripping from my words.
Point taken, Bernabe. I am not necessarily against the use of those methods, it just *appears* that on this blog there is an over-usage of them and/or a usage of them in matters not so important - so much so that love, humility and other Christian virtues seem to be drowned out. But, who knows, maybe I'm mistaken.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Personally, I apologize for the harshness of my comment above. It's not that I necessarily disagree with what I said of Ego, but nevertheless, I regret the obvious tint of venom dripping from my words."
That's respectable.
Ego said:
ReplyDelete---
Context reveals that John the baptist called the Pharisees a generation of vipers because they trusted in physical descent for salvation. (Mt 3, Lk 3) Jesus undoubtedly continued this categorization begun by John (Mt 12, Mt 23) due to their concepts of inheriting salvation or damnation, and of being born blind due to your parents' sin, etc., or in other words, the Pharisees' essentially Calvislamic beliefs, salvation by inheritance (read infant baptism for believers' children) and damnation by inheritance (of those who weren't Pharisees). Essentially, when Jesus called them a generation of vipers he was saying generation of Calvislamics.
---
Anonymous:
Read that and ask yourself seriously if there's anything worth responding to in it. Multiply this comment by several hundred and introduce yourself to EgoManiac.
Well, yes, I think there is something to which we can reply here, if only for the readers. It's this bit here:
ReplyDeleteessentially Calvislamic beliefs, salvation by inheritance (read infant baptism for believers' children) and damnation by inheritance (of those who weren't Pharisees).
1. As usual, this is a complete mischaracterization of Presbyterians on infant baptism. In mainstream Presbyterian theology, baptism is merely an outward sign of the covenant and in the Princetonian tradition, which is the dominant tradition in American Presbyterianism, infants are presumed UNregenerate, not regenerate. Of course EM doesn't bother with such facts, because, as he freely admits, his just not interested in studying topics about which he opens his mouth.
2. "Calvinist" is not synonymous with "Paedobaptist." How does EM explain the First and Second London Baptist Confessions, the theology of the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention, etc.?
3. Calvinism flatly denies "salvation" by inheritance. In fact, its EM who affirms the equivalent of the Pharisaic belief, by affirming the Judaizer's doctrine. He doesn't believe in faith plus circumcision; he affirms justification by faith plus baptism.
4. The Jewish belief in "damnation by inheritance" is not convertible with the imputation of Adam's sin. In the former, sin is passed from generation to generation. To get from Adam to me, it would have to be, for example, passed via every chain in the link, literally. The imputation of Adam's sin to a person is DIRECTLY from Adam to that person without any intermediaries. The comparison thereby fails at the critical point of comparison.
Further, EM has to ignore what the Bible says about the nature of covenants and primogeniture. In Jewish theology, one generation was "in" another. For example, Aaron and Levi were "in" Abraham and paid honor to Melchizedek as a higher order of priest, even though neither would be born for many years. One generation could also accept and renew the covenant on behalf of the following generations, placing the following generation(s) in the position of moral responsibility such that if the generation renewing the covenant failed, the following could be presumed cursed as a whole. Repentance from sin of those in that following generation was the cure.
So, individuals in Generation X could well be "damned by God" for the sins of Generation A and those in between. They must repent of their sins to avoid the curse. That's what going on with the Jews in the New Covenant era. That's why the phrase "His blood be upon us and our children" is so important in the Gospels. So,where the Bible denies "damnation by inheritance" it does so on condition that the one standing as the current generational representative does not agree with the sins of his fathers. He agrees to the sins of his fathers when he commits them and/or gives approval to them. A good paradigm case would be the Pharisees who bragged about building the tombs of the Prophets. In so doing, said the Lord, they were guilty of their murder, the sin of their fathers. EM's view is thereby defeated without necessary recourse to the imputation of Adam's sin as articulated within Reformed theology, but simply by the fact that when a person sins or desires to do so, he agrees to his fathers' sins. In fact, EM is left to argue, in denying original sin, that there is, in fact, an infant who might well not have chosen to fall in the Garden. That, of course, is pure 100 percent unadulterated false teaching.
By the way, Anonymous, we give people plenty of time before we throw out comments like the above. I'd point out that EM has posted the same sorts of comments at Timmy Brister's blog, Turretinfan's blog, and James Swan's blog. He has yet, I believe, to call James White and interact with him. Personally, I'd love to hear that interaction if it occurred.