Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." (Emphasis mine)
I replied,
Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)
So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."
In his latest response he makes mention of this post of mine and responds,
"Mr. Manata further reveals the fact that he is just a bit bitter and not apt to debate fairly by posting what ranks as one of the lamest cheap-shots in blogging history about how my theology is not 'associated with the teachings of Jesus', because, "I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." He cites that, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; but apparently has not been very diligent in his Bible study, else he would have gotten as far as the part where Christ Himself says, I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18)"
Now let's recall why he made the initial claim. He was responding to someone asking if he was an Arminian. He said that he doesn't want to associate his beliefs with those of mortal men. I then pointed out that Jesus died, receiving mortal wounds. His comeback is to point out that the resurrected Jesus is "alive for evermore." Well, assuming that Thibodaux doesn't believe Arminianism is damnable heresy, then he probably believes that Jacob Arminius is in heaven right now. he will "live for evermore." He has everlasting life and will never die. If that's the case, then what's the problem with "associating" your beliefs with Arminius? Thibodaux used the "mortal man" comment as a reason he won't do so. But that was negated with Jesus' death. To escape my response by saying that Jesus is "alive for evermore" just lets Arminius right back into the equation and shows Thibodaux didn't think through the moves far enough in advance. We'll see a more potent display of his failure to catch set ups when I respond to his latest response to me.
He's just digging a deeper hole for himself by trying to salvage his original statement. Rev 1:18 doesn't disprove the mortality of Christ. Indeed, it affirms the mortality of Christ. By virtue of the Resurrection, Christ went from being moral to being immortal. So both statements are true of Christ, depending on the timeframe.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as Manata has already pointed out (in email correspondence), his appeal to Rev 1:18 either proves too much or too little, for the very same thing can be said of anyone who died (or will die) and then passed into the afterlife.
Only if he's an annihilationist can he escape from the pit he's dug for himself. And annihilationism would just transfer him to another pit.
Or he could go the Docetic route and deny the true humanity of Christ. His choice of pitfalls to fall into.
You guys really need to grow up.
ReplyDeleteI agree with zacsdad: examining the logical implcations of things is pretty dang childish.
ReplyDeleteSon, you need to grow up and take responsibility for the thinsg you and your peers say. I always tried to teach you that words have consequences. Oh had you listened to me.
ReplyDeleteYou guys need to grow up.
ReplyDeleteThibodaux tried to offer a rebuttal. I don't think he agrees with what he said since (a) his beliefs aren't taught in the Bible and so he can't associate himself with them, and (b) his blog is called "Arminian" perspectives, and of course this is just associating his blog and his beliefs with that mortal man, Arminius.
ReplyDeleteHoisted by yer own petard, again!
Fine example of how to get bushwhacked indeed, but I'm afraid you have it backwards. BTW, I don't run Arminian Perspectives, kangeroodort does; I'm just a contributor with very similar beliefs. The marsupial decor isn't a dead giveaway?
ReplyDelete[Thibodaux] Unfortunately, he's actually serious -- he even has Steve Hays showing his support by tossing atta' boys in the combox. If they really need to have it spelled out, Arminius isn't the firstfruits from the dead: he's still in his grave due to his acute mortality and has not as of yet been changed or glorified, just like Paul, Peter, Irenaeus, Clement, Augustine, Spurgeon, Wesley, and everyone else that's died so far.
ReplyDeletehttp://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-see-your-triablogue-colors-shining.html
To judge by this statement, Thibodaux subscribes to soul-sleep, which is a form of annihilationism or conditional immorality. And I specifically anticipated that possible move in my original comment.
So he subscribes to a heretical eschatology.
I said nothing of their souls sleeping or being annihilated, I merely said that they (i.e. their bodies) were in their graves and had not been glorified, hence they are not immortal men as of yet, since man in his entirety includes soul spirit, and body (1 Thessalonians 5:23). You are merely playing word games, this time even using them to justify slapping on a heresy charge. Truly sad.
ReplyDeleteI believe the point was that your fingers don't seem to be attached to your higher cortical functions when you write some of what you write. Look before you leap.
ReplyDeleteThe point here is that you said you don't like to attach the name of your beliefs to a mortal man (eg. Arminius).
1. Christ was a mortal man, insofar as He is fully human. He's simply in a glorified state and embodied. Resurrection assumes mortality.
2. Arminius was certainly a mortal man, one who is dead.
3. You appealed to Revelation 1 to disprove the mortality of Christ, but every appeal to the resurrected Lord assumes He is a mortal man.
4. And in your statement about the grave, you did not refer to their bodies with their spirits in the intermediate state, rather you referred to them simply being in the grave. So now, you're coming back with clarifications not in your original. Steve is merely framing his statements to the way you chose to frame the issue. You are perfectly welcome to clarify your statements, but you should have the integrity to admit it when you come back with caveats not in your original statements.
I may not be understanding them correctly, but would not the qualifications you've provided seem to render untenable your doctrines during those days that Christ's body lie in the tomb?
ReplyDeleteBTW, in case there's any confusion, my last post was directed to J.C. I would have addressed it to him, but I thought it was going to appear directly under his last post, as Gene's wasn't there yet. (The PC I'm currently at has an amazingly bad connection; so bad, in fact, you can go in the kitchen and make a grilled cheese quicker than you can navigate from one webpage to another. I know -- I've done it)
ReplyDeleteIs Arminius "alive"? Calvin?
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeletePresent mortality implies being presently killable. Christ who died once now dies no more and is therefore immortal, the exact opposite or being mortal. That's a no-brainer. I don't need to express the state of the spirit to describe someone being physically dead and buried, or are you going to go after Peter next over his words?
"Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day" (Acts 2:29)
One would have to insert premises and make sweeping assumptions to come up with Steve's conclusions. So of course I'm now having to clarify myself, as I'm being blunderingly accused by the dispassionately impaired.
Thibodaux is now propoundin physicalism:
ReplyDelete"If they really need to have it spelled out, Arminius isn't the firstfruits from the dead: he's still in his grave due to his acute mortality and has not as of yet been changed or glorified, just like Paul, Peter, Irenaeus, Clement, Augustine, Spurgeon, Wesley, and everyone else that's died so far."
Arminius is not identical to his body. Hence if he is in heaven, he is alive, and a male. Hence he is, by the very force of the logic, an immortal man in that he cannot die anymore.
To say that he doesn't count as an immortal man while not having a body implies, as Helton noted, that Christ was not an immortal man while he awaited his resurrected body. But Christ is always and forever the God-MAN. Thus if Christ can be a MAN while not having a body, so can Arminius! Thibodaux's position is getting weirder by the moment. Rather than correct his claim, he'll go down with the ship.
"Present mortality implies being presently killable."
ReplyDeleteIs Arminius presently killable?
I gotta give Satan some credit for the topics you guys pick.
ReplyDeleteActually I find all of this quite amusing. Some people out there on the net hate Triabloggers so much that they'd never try to consider the reason that a post is written.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that Paul and Steve care that Thibodaux made a silly grammatical mistake?
Of course not. Paul set a trap for Thibby, and Thibby walked straight into it even after he knew it was a trap. This has nothing to do with Thibby's poorly worded statements.
But it does show you Thibby's character.
Hey, maybe that was the reason Paul began this topic....
Nah, it must be the debbil.
Thanks for proving my point. Satan is once again glorifed.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure they have medication for those kinds of delusions, Luke.
ReplyDeleteIt really is a shame how you guys act. If my kids acted like this in church (or anywhere else for that matter) I'd be ashamed. Satan rules this site.
ReplyDeletePresent mortality implies being presently killable. Christ who died once now dies no more and is therefore immortal, the exact opposite or being mortal. That's a no-brainer. I don't need to express the state of the spirit to describe someone being physically dead and buried, or are you going to go after Peter next over his words?
ReplyDeleteWell if that's true about mortality, then, as Manata asked, why are you using Arminius, Wesley, Augustine, etc. as examples? These men are not "presently killable." They are already dead. The dead are not killable presently are they? So, on your own criterion, these men are not mortal. Thanks for clarifying. That's a real timesaver.
As has been pointed out, Jesus is immortal now, but He died. Every appeal to the Resurrection takes assumes the mortality of the one resurrected, when framed on your chosen grounds of rebuttal, namely Revelation 1.
By the way, "mortal" can also simply mean "human," it need not imply present ability to die.
So of course I'm now having to clarify myself,
You have only yourself to blame. We wouldn't be having this conversation if you hadn't looked before you leaped.
as I'm being blunderingly accused by the dispassionately impaired.
No, you're being accused of being a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain when you write before you think through your statements and demonstrating your character when pressed. Notice you said simply that he (Arminius) is still in the grave. You then inserted a statement about their bodies,and the intermediate state, etc. This was not in the original. Steve made his comment to illustrate a point. Then, rather than admit you made a stupid mistake. when caught, you've become intractable, and then you've become even more intractable when answered on your own level. Like I said, you're free to modify your statements, but man up and admit that you entered caveats not in your original to get out of it.
This is what you get for playing the "I choose not to associate my theology with a mortal man" game, because, presumably, you want to define your theology in question-begging fashion, presumably as "biblicist/biblical" or "Christian." I suppose this is to gain some sort of (imagined) high ground. Of course, there is a long history of the usage of such terms in both church and secular history, but if you want to overlook that, then by all means go ahead.
This is really dumb.
ReplyDeleteYou owners of this site ever thought of praying before you post? You are obviously unregenerate and will stay that way until God gives you his faith. We will know your father by how you behave. As it is, you are bound to sin, and you wallow in it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the latest permutation in his evolving series of explanations, if Thibodaux were a 1C Palestinian Jew, he would, under no circumstances, associate, his doctrinal beliefs with Jesus (would never call himself a Christian or a follower of Jesus) since, at that time, Jesus was still a mortal man. On the other hand, Thibodaux will associate his doctrinal beliefs with Arminius after the resurrection of the just, since, at that point, Arminius will be "immortal."
ReplyDeleteMason said:
ReplyDelete---
It really is a shame how you guys act. If my kids acted like this in church (or anywhere else for that matter) I'd be ashamed. Satan rules this site.
---
Here's a suggestion.
DON'T READ AND COMMENT ON SITES YOU BELIEVE SATAN RUNS.
I'm sure your brilliant analysis will be horribly missed, and without you here poor Triablogue will fade away into nothingness.
By the way, does anyone else ever wonder why people who get offended when Steve uses the word "heretic" to describe a person who holds heretical beliefs seem to have no problem with Triabloggers being called Satanists? Where are the masses of whiners moaning about how "You ought not call a professing believer a Satanist, you meanies" now?
Tim the Degenerate said:
---
You owners of this site ever thought of praying before you post? You are obviously unregenerate and will stay that way until God gives you his faith. We will know your father by how you behave. As it is, you are bound to sin, and you wallow in it.
---
All unfounded assertion with no argumentation. Is this the best you have?
I'm pretty sure that if your claims are true you'd be able to substantiate them. If you cannot, then you are a liar. So back it up or repent.
To pick up on Peter’s observation, it’s both instructive and unintentionally amusing to see the lack of emotional control exhibited by some of the commenters. They don’t do a very creditable job of emulating the charitable tone they’re quick to urge on others. They are very judgmental about judgmental Christians. And they are very harsh in their condemnation of harsh condemnations. Commenters who are so lacking in emotional discipline or moral consistency are contributing to the low tone of discourse which they feign to abhor.
ReplyDeleteTo purpose of this exercise is to see if Thibodaux is a rational opponent. Thus far, he has a track-record of making very careless statements. When challenged, he then salvages his original careless statement with another careless statement. This leaves one with the impression that he’s not the sort of person you can reason with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, "Satan" is not the name of a mortal man. Would a timely denial of the antecedent be doubly ironic, or just wasted wit.
ReplyDelete-Turretinfan
See what I mean. You guys are not regenerate. What kind of person posts what you just posted, Bernebe? Do you know what those letters mean? You are a servant of the devil, imho.
ReplyDeletePeter, you need to be doctrinally regenerated. You aren't even thinking about what you're posting. I offered sound advice, and it's from the bible. Read it and weep.....oh yeah, you can't because you're unregenerate.
ReplyDeleteTim the Regenerate said:
ReplyDeletePeter, you need to be doctrinally regenerated. You aren't even thinking about what you're posting. I offered sound advice, and it's from the bible. Read it and weep.....oh yeah, you can't because you're unregenerate.
***************
Yes, that's why Peter has all those voluptuous girlfriends, fast cars, Rolex watches, Italian suits, and fancy mansions in Newport, Malibu, Tuscany, and Monte Carlo. He made a pack with the Devil. Same thing with Berny. Under ultraviolet light, you can see the Beastly barcode stamped on their brow.
Riiiight, Steve. Well, I think the devil is a little too smart for that. I don't think he's gonna be wearing a neon sign on his head saying I'M THE BUD OF THE DEVIL.
ReplyDeleteTim the Regenerate. said:
ReplyDeleteRiiiight, Steve. Well, I think the devil is a little too smart for that. I don't think he's gonna be wearing a neon sign on his head saying I'M THE BUD OF THE DEVIL."
Riiiight, Tim. Well, if the devil is so smart, I reckon he'd masquerade under a Christian moniker like, say, Tim the Regenerate—just to throw folks off his sulfuric scent. After all, I don't think he's gonna be wearing a neon sign on his head saying I'M TIM THE UNREGENERATE.
Not that I believe Tim the Degenerate is anything other than our resident hillbilly atheist anyway, but I find it funny that someone would consider a challenge to back up slanderous charges to be the mark of the unregenerate.
ReplyDeleteSeems like you guys don't think the fires of hell are hot enough for you. Listen, buster/s they're something you should look forward to.
ReplyDeleteSteve said, "To judge by this statement, Thibodaux subscribes to soul-sleep, which is a form of annihilationism or conditional immorality ... so he subscribes to a heretical eschatology.
ReplyDeleteIs Conditional Immortality a heresy? If so why?
If you are interested in following up the idea of "conditional immortality" as a biblical alternative to the traditional view of eternal conscious torment go to www.afterlife.co.nz.
If you would like to discuss the matter further you could join our new yahoo group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afterlife_theology/