tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5114474282799369665..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Christianity, Sola Scriptura, State of Nature, & EvolutionBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-88691990022575257312009-02-03T00:40:00.000-07:002009-02-03T00:40:00.000-07:00I leave this discussion to you, Brad, although I d...I leave this discussion to you, Brad, although I do hope you didn't already order <A>the T-shirt.</A><BR/><BR/>Love,<BR/>TomTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73413454816291657372009-02-02T17:44:00.000-07:002009-02-02T17:44:00.000-07:00Tom: "The Assyrian emissary [Rabshakeh] offered al...Tom: "The Assyrian emissary [Rabshakeh] offered all worldly comforts if the defenders of Jerusalem would just surrender the city. The words you printed were his insults directed at them."<BR/><BR/>hmm ... I'm not sure who comes off looking the worse here. In my opinion, the "Assyrian emissary" sounds morally deficient.<BR/><BR/>Who is supposed to have the moral high ground?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3689925429888230532009-02-02T17:41:00.000-07:002009-02-02T17:41:00.000-07:00.That could be, Ben..But, no matter, it's a person....<BR/>That could be, Ben.<BR/>.<BR/>But, no matter, it's a personal choice.<BR/>.<BR/>From there on out, is where the crazy people get involved.<BR/>.<BR/>And, the world seems to have more and more of them every year.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11192047591376316782009-02-02T17:34:00.000-07:002009-02-02T17:34:00.000-07:00Phil: >>To be "as a little child" ...Phil: >>To be "as a little child" is to trust simply without any rigamarole or suspicion.<<<BR/><BR/>Is that along the line of surrendering your liberty of conscience to another?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7426404115039465282009-02-02T16:53:00.000-07:002009-02-02T16:53:00.000-07:00I'm OK with the pitch of my pot, Brad. You piqued...I'm OK with the pitch of my pot, Brad. You piqued my interest, so I actually looked up the quote in context, unlike many of the other kettles around here. An interesting story:<BR/><BR/>The Assyrian emissary [Rabshakeh] offered all worldly comforts if the defenders of Jerusalem would just surrender the city. The words you printed were his insults directed at them.<BR/><BR/>But the prophet Isaiah told them God wouldn't let Jerusalem fall to King Sennacharib, and indeed that very night, the Angel of the Lord killed nearly 6000 of his army in their sleep.<BR/><BR/>So Sennacharib went home, although it came to pass that while worshiping his false god one day, his sons fell on him and killed him.<BR/><BR/>A Bible commentary said that by Jewish tradition, Rabshakeh was a Jewish apostate, apostates being the most unlovely of the enemies of the Lord.<BR/><BR/>Interesting book, that Bible. And I see that they sell scoffing T-shirts of the Bible passage you quoted. Even more interesting.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66846714609462984032009-02-02T16:12:00.000-07:002009-02-02T16:12:00.000-07:00True that, Tom, but you run the risk of...well...a...True that, Tom, but you run the risk of...well...as Mr. Abbott put it long ago:<BR/><BR/>Pot...kettle...black.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-90601289788703373352009-02-02T15:22:00.000-07:002009-02-02T15:22:00.000-07:00.Jon, my comments come out of my personal experien....<BR/>Jon, my comments come out of my personal experience starting in 1937. I am extremely well founded in Christian Fundamentalism. I sat in congregations and listened to some of the early Fundamental Evangelists. Here is one of them. <A HREF="http://jfranknorris.org/" REL="nofollow">J. Frank Norris</A> I can list a few.<BR/><BR/>.<BR/>Brian Tubbs can verify my comments.<BR/>.<BR/>To be "as a little child" is to trust simply without any rigamarole or suspicion.<BR/>.<BR/>I seldom make absolute statements here; but, I my statement about being born again is absolute.<BR/>.<BR/>Maybe, as I wrote earlier, it can be stated in some other ways; but, they all mean the exact same thing.<BR/>.<BR/>Jesus says, in Revelations 3:2, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear[s] my voice, and open[s] the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."<BR/>.<BR/>No conditions. Period.<BR/>.<BR/>Beyond that, there can be a lot of argument.<BR/>.<BR/>What I've read from Joseph J. Ellis, so far, it comes to me that the Founding Fathers (8 of them) were at odds with each other on a lot of things and religion was just one of them. And, Ellis points out that we're still carrying on the same arguments.<BR/>.<BR/>What have you got to say to that?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-13937635523624424952009-02-02T14:46:00.000-07:002009-02-02T14:46:00.000-07:00I meant the quote [quotation!] from The Second Boo...I meant the quote [quotation!] from The Second Book of Kings. Sometimes, it's like the blind leading the stupid around here.<BR/><BR/>8-[D>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2852306059017953392009-02-02T14:34:00.000-07:002009-02-02T14:34:00.000-07:00Sorry, Tom. We'll try to slow down for ya! =)Sorry, Tom. We'll try to slow down for ya! =)Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41583294112894227942009-02-02T14:27:00.000-07:002009-02-02T14:27:00.000-07:00Read it in context first. Sheesh, you guys are we...Read it in context first. Sheesh, you guys are wearin' me out, all of you.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1621869774323778342009-02-02T14:20:00.000-07:002009-02-02T14:20:00.000-07:00OMG,I never encountered that passage before. That...OMG,<BR/><BR/>I never encountered that passage before. That's great. I've got to blog about that and see the reactions.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18022170131883483082009-02-02T13:41:00.000-07:002009-02-02T13:41:00.000-07:00And then there is my all-time favorite Bible verse...And then there is my all-time favorite Bible verse: 2Kings 18:27:<BR/><BR/><EM>"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"</EM><BR/><BR/>Yes, the Bible is full of people who eat their own shit!Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40491206197409926832009-02-02T13:34:00.000-07:002009-02-02T13:34:00.000-07:00Pinky I think the problem is that the Bible say a ...Pinky I think the problem is that the Bible say a heck of a lot of things and you can pick and choose what to stress and interpret different sections differently.<BR/><BR/>For instance Jesus said Matthew 18:3<BR/><BR/> <I>Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm waiting for a movement of "child-again" Christians who claim if you haven't been "child-again" you really aren't a regenerate, saved Christian.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42370387470073577252009-02-02T13:20:00.000-07:002009-02-02T13:20:00.000-07:00.Strange, or should I say, curious?.OFT who parade....<BR/>Strange, or should I say, curious?<BR/>.<BR/>OFT who parades himself around here as though he is so knowledgeable about Christianity fails on the simplest and most primary concept of all--being born again.<BR/>.<BR/>The action of being born again occurs when the individual accepts Jesus as their personal connection to God the Father. There might be some other ways of saying the same thing; but, that is it.<BR/>.<BR/>The Fundamentals are not requisites to being born again under any circumstances.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70335808278039672932009-02-02T13:09:00.000-07:002009-02-02T13:09:00.000-07:00.The concept of being "Born Again" is the easiest ....<BR/>The concept of being "Born Again" is the easiest of all religious doctrines to explain.<BR/>.<BR/>All persons are born, once, of water, i.e., physical birth.<BR/>.<BR/>To be Born Again means that one's spirit has been brought to existence in eternal life; thus, the "Second Birth" or "Born Again". As Jimmy Carter put it, "Twice Born".<BR/>.<BR/>Anglicans weren't Born Again because they were Christened into the Family of God on the eighth day of life. Same with Catholics.<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85507091850643262522009-02-02T13:04:00.000-07:002009-02-02T13:04:00.000-07:00"like believing the trinity."Actually th..."like believing the trinity."<BR/><BR/>Actually the Trinity is explicitly part of the Nicene Creed which is the Godfather of "orthodox" creeds. Being "born again" is not.><BR/><BR/>I know. Being "born again" as Jesus said, is a result of accepting the fundamentals.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45030082209390527102009-02-02T12:54:00.000-07:002009-02-02T12:54:00.000-07:00"like believing the trinity."Actually the Trinity ..."like believing the trinity."<BR/><BR/>Actually the Trinity is explicitly part of the Nicene Creed which is the Godfather of "orthodox" creeds. Being "born again" is not.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-84310858545002432032009-02-02T12:52:00.000-07:002009-02-02T12:52:00.000-07:00Traditional Anglican-Episcopalians were "orth...Traditional Anglican-Episcopalians were "orthodox Trinitarian" but were not "born again" or "evangelical" Christians.><BR/><BR/>JOn, being born again is not referring to subscription of religious tenets, like believing the trinity. It's hard to explain; the Bible's explanation is the best one. Only a student of the bible, or theologian, would refer to it. Some Christians don't write about it, or even refer to it until it is explained to them.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85244172203834009442009-02-02T12:21:00.000-07:002009-02-02T12:21:00.000-07:00Not only is there evidence of low church membershi...Not only is there evidence of low church membership from the Founding era but the largest sect was Anglicanism-Episcopalianism. And they don't hold being "born again" as a central doctrine of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Traditional Anglican-Episcopalians were "orthodox Trinitarian" but were not "born again" or "evangelical" Christians. Likewise Roman Catholics are "orthodox Trinitarian" Christians but do not embrace being "born again" as a central tenet of Christianity.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73851107155620893712009-02-02T11:18:00.000-07:002009-02-02T11:18:00.000-07:00There's the Bible, and then there's Bible ...There's the Bible, and then there's Bible interpretation. Remember that the early unitarians argued against the Trinity using the bible itself.><BR/><BR/>Have you read Priestley's work on God? I have, and it's absurd. He didn't argue from the evidence (the scriptures in context), he used his own private interpretation to satisfy his own will. You know I could post fifty verses right now that clearly present the duality and trinity of God; even as far back as Genesis 1!<BR/><BR/>The entire "that's your interpretation thing" is totally bogus, and is ultimately the Devil talking! That's what he does; he says "did God really say that?" "No, that's not what God meant" <BR/><BR/>He's a liar from the beginning, leading people astray, and wants to spread doubt, and for two-thousand years, has did a good job. <BR/><BR/>Tom, can you get a hold of Lindsey, I sent her my post.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-66838930582454409512009-02-02T11:05:00.000-07:002009-02-02T11:05:00.000-07:00Well Babka certainly more than meets the religious...Well Babka certainly more than meets the religious test Hamilton set out when looking for a wife which is she must at least believe in God and hate a saint. Hamilton didn't mention she must be a Christian at all or believe ANY of the Bible is inspired. A strict Deist could have met his religious test for his wife.><BR/><BR/>The key word you use is "could." Actions speak louder than words, and Hamilton married an orthodox Christian.<BR/><BR/>While human nature is vastly heterosexual (90% plus) only a minority of self proclaimed "Christians" or those living in "Christendom" are "born again" who believe the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This is true today as it was during the Founding era.><BR/><BR/>So, don't assume!<BR/><BR/>For the founding fathers and the people of 18th century America, you need facts to back up what you say, not just another assumption. Where are the facts the people of 18th century america were not born again? How the heck can you know a person's heart from two-hundred years ago?<BR/><BR/>Comparing today with the 18th century is a bad analogy.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78328510629012776982009-02-02T11:03:00.000-07:002009-02-02T11:03:00.000-07:00I don't want to argue the bible either. So why is ...<I><BR/>I don't want to argue the bible either. So why is it ok to argue for a distorted bible that is out of context, and proclaiming the correct view, which is in context, and consistent with the rest of the revelation not ok?</I><BR/><BR/>There's the Bible, and then there's Bible interpretation. Remember that the early unitarians argued against the Trinity using the bible itself.<BR/><BR/>So here's the thing---I see the Bible quoted out of context all over the internet, or stuff made up of whole cloth by people who have only skimmed it, like that the Bible supports fundamental inequality. It's fine to make corrections.<BR/><BR/>But to argue about interpretation, well, that's above our pay grade here, and in neutral fora like this one, it's good to heed the wisdom of Matthew 7:6. <BR/><BR/>Best to remain at arm's length from truth claims, or let it pass if you can't. Bible interpretation is in the realm of opinion, no matter how convinced we are that our opinion is truth. Opinions are not facts, and as 2000 years of doctrinal hassles have shown, the truth will not be reconciled until the Second Coming.<BR/><BR/>If then.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-36811920446711986462009-02-02T10:59:00.000-07:002009-02-02T10:59:00.000-07:00So while American political theology is not necess...So while American political theology is not necessarily hostile to orthodox Christianity, the orthodox Protestant Sola Scriptura crowd who 1) rejects natural law discoverable by reason that has its foundations in Aristotle><BR/><BR/>The churches I follow do not reject reason. Aquinas may have used Aristotle, but Natural Law (God's law in the heart) was espoused by David and Solomon, seven-hundred years before Aristotle.<BR/><BR/>Natural Law is mentioned in Psalm 40, Proverbs 3,7, etc.<BR/><BR/>Yet, they embraced Locke and Locke posited theories that were as foreign to the Bible as were Darwin's.><BR/><BR/>None of Locke's theories were foreign to the Bible. Natural Law is not foreign to the Bible.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14617455813605842852009-02-02T10:57:00.000-07:002009-02-02T10:57:00.000-07:00Well Babka certainly more than meets the religious...Well Babka certainly more than meets the religious test Hamilton set out when looking for a wife which is she must at least believe in God and hate a saint. Hamilton didn't mention she must be a Christian at all or believe ANY of the Bible is inspired. A strict Deist could have met his religious test for his wife.<BR/><BR/>And not that you should get personal, but the homosexuality issue is a very good analogy to this issue we are discussing. Homosexuals, for various reasons have lived closeted, semi-closeted or otherwise on the "down low" for reasons of prudence. It's for a similar reason that many of America's Founders kept their explicit religious cards to themselves on invoked a generic Providential God.<BR/><BR/>You can often figure out that someone is a homosexual by putting two and two together without an explicit admit from a particular person. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately an "I don't know" is a more fair response when there is a question than presuming without certain knowledge that a particular person was X. <BR/><BR/>There is one big difference in the analogy: While human nature is vastly heterosexual (90% plus) only a minority of self proclaimed "Christians" or those living in "Christendom" are "born again" who believe the Bible the inerrant, infallible Word of God. This is true today as it was during the Founding era.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7425772144371236852009-02-02T10:36:00.000-07:002009-02-02T10:36:00.000-07:00OFT, I don't want to argue the Bible with you,...OFT, I don't want to argue the Bible with you, nor does anyone else. I don't want to argue anyone's religion with you [except the Founders'], nor does anyone else. In fact the Founders didn't want to argue the Bible with each other, as it leads to unpleasant things.><BR/><BR/>I don't want to argue the bible either. So why is it ok to argue for a distorted bible that is out of context, and proclaiming the correct view, which is in context, and consistent with the rest of the revelation not ok? <BR/><BR/>Why is the hostility towards orthodoxy, and not against heresy?<BR/><BR/>The faith of our framers is what we should be talking about. <BR/><BR/>Hey Lindsey, did you get my post?<BR/><BR/>Even at the end of his life when he was most "orthodox," Alexander Hamilton never 1) claimed to be "born again" or 2) claimed he believed the Bible the "infallible" word of God.><BR/><BR/>Jon:<BR/><BR/>I judge by the Bible, not by what a person says or doesn't say. If there isn't concrete words about orthodoxy, it's not right to assume something. Hamilton affirmed mysteries (miracles), and attacked infidelity (inspiration of the scriptures) way before 1800.<BR/><BR/>However, according to this "strict" test for "Christianity" that excludes Jim Babka, there is not a shred of evidence that more that a handful of Founding Fathers would pass it. Again, Hamilton, at NO point in his life, gives evidence of passing such a strict, narrow test for "Christian."><BR/><BR/>It isn't fair to label someone without proper evidence. If you don't ever say anything against homosexuality, can I claim you're a homosexual?Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.com