Pugilism contra Calvini Derisores

Theology
21

Read my thread on “Free Will” and I am willing to concede on the “L” on Limited Atonement.

And here you really need to work from the Scriptures themselves. Since KP has made it clear that he is neither “Calvinist” nor “Arminian,” where would you place yourself? We all have the same Scriptures before us, but the issue is how we handle them. Are we actually doing exegesis, drawing meaning from the text, or are we practising eisegesis, reading our own conclusions into it?

When we are dealing with the Oracles of YHWH, those distinctions matter. Once we begin placing our own philosophical framework above the text, it becomes possible to drift in all sorts of directions, whether toward Open Theism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, Universalism, annihilationism, or simply constructing an alien construct of our own thoughts and calling it biblical interpretation.

So I would rather ask a much simpler question. What does the text actually say, in its context, and how does the rest of Scripture speak to that same question? Labels can be useful for identifying theological systems, but ultimately it is the Scriptures that must judge our theology, not our theology that judges the Scriptures.

Correct?

J.

22

The text says that the tree of life was in the garden. It also says that God took steps to prevent Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of life after they disobeyed God.

I asked if you had an opinion as to God’s placing the tree of life in the garden, with the understanding that it wasn’t accidental.

It wasn’t accidental that it was there, and it wasn’t accidental that it’s’ placement in the garden is recorded in the scriptures.

So, do you have an opinion as to why it’s there, and why it’s’ placement there is recorded in the scriptures?

23

Open a thread on the “Tree of Life” as I am not willing to give you my “opinions”

In closing we must ask ourselves what Ecclesiastes is, and is not. We must be clear on the answers to these two questions.

Ecclesiastes is not a comfort zone for the proud. Fallen humanity is incapable of making sense of its own existence.

Ecclesiastes puts man in his place East of Eden, in a fallen world groaning in the bondage of corruption.

Ecclesiastes dashes all human philosophy apart from the revelation of God in the dust. In other words, what begins “under the sun” ends “under the sun.” Apart from the supernatural intervention of God the natural realm is hopelessly empty of ultimate meaning. Any who have been lulled into a false sense of security in their worldly wisdom are exposed by Der Prediger.

There is a Preacher who is the Prophet of prophets.
There is a Son of David, David’s “Greater Son” who is also David’s Lord.
There is a King who was in Jerusalem, and will be there again, as the King of kings.

Ecclesiastes is His Word. He is the Logos. As the Logos, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, He embraces in His very being the words and the truth of the words of this book.

He is the only connection between our fallen race “under the sun,” and the Creator Who is over all, God blessed forever. He is what makes sense of it all, all of life, all of labor, all of our searching and thinking.

Apart from Him nothing makes sense, nothing is rational, nothing is logical. Apart from the revelation of God in Christ as the Mediator there is nothing but the curse of futility, and meaninglessness, or absurdity and nonsense.

[Sermon preached 4 OCT 2015 by Pastor John T. “Jack” Jeffery at Wayside Gospel Chapel, Greentown, PA.]

Genesis 3:19-24 — 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

  1. The Curse of Death Realized

Gen. 5:5, 8, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31 — “….and he died…. and he died…. and he died…. and he died…. and he died…. and he died…. and he died….”

Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Methuselah, and Lamech.

All died. Their years differed. Their ends did not. That “one event” was common to all of them.
There were more deaths than these, but the ones included are the direct line of descent from Adam to Noah. One that we know of who was not included, at least in this “Book of Generations” is Abel. Read between the lines. All died, whether they are mentioned in this line of descent or not. All died.

Rom. 5:12, 14 — 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:….14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

All die. ALL. DIE.

Bleak, but you get the picture.

J.

24

Also, just so you know, I never use AI for anything. I have a personal aversion to it.

In as much as google is AI driven these days, I suppose it’s true that I use AI whenever I google something, but since AI is indifferent to the truth, I don’t use it at all except for the google searches as I said.

My questions, my suppositions, and my conclusions have nothing to do with AI.

25

What the heck?

Okay, it’s your thread.

26

I will let you know, Pater, if I ever decide to use AI or Google to do my Bible studies for me. I do not need you making that assumption on my behalf. When I cite sources, I link them precisely so that anyone can examine them for themselves. Most of what I use is exegetical material from my e-Sword resources, together with the actual, verifiable writings of the Reformers and the historic Creeds. I am quite capable of checking the sources rather than simply repeating something I have heard.

If you are a “Incurable Luddite” that’s not my problem, it’s yours.

And that is precisely why I object when Luther, Calvin, the Reformers, or the Reformed Confessions are repeatedly caricatured or misrepresented. If we are going to criticise a theological position, at least have the intellectual honesty to represent what its proponents actually said and believed, rather than attacking a straw man.

I have spent enough time on this exchange already. And frankly Pater, I now regard this as a waste of my precious time on my own thread. I came here to discuss Scripture, not to spend the evening defending myself against assumptions about how I study or against caricatures of historical theology. My time is valuable, and I have better things to do with it.

J.

27

Translation - You use AI all the time. I didn’t assume it, you just told us by your reactive answer.

I’m just saying, AI tells you what you want to hear. I don’t recommend it.

This may be a waste of your time. That depends on what you want, that you aren’t getting. All of your lofty protestations aside, what you seem to want is to elevate yourself. God has a way of humbling us when we refuse to humble ourselves. Something I well know, from tragic experience, brother.

All the best to you.

PS - “Incurable Luddite”. I had to look it up - hilarious!

28

Isn’t it? Thanks for making my point.

2Co 10:1 Now I myself, Sha’ul, appeal to you gently in Moshiach and in his anavah (humility) I who am peh el peh (panim el panim, face to face) “lowly” among you [1C 2:3] but have “chutzpah” with you when absent. [1C 2:4; 7:8]

2Co 10:2 Now I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show enough chutzpah to oppose certain persons, [1C 4:21] the ones considering us to act according to the standards of the basar of the Olam Hazeh.

2Co 10:3 For though walking in basar, we war not according to the basar,

2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the basar, [Ep 6:13 17] but full of ko’ach through Hashem to the overthrowing of strongholds, reasonings [Jer 1:10; 23:29]

2Co 10:5 And every high minded thing rising up against the da’as of Hashem, and leading captive every machshavah (thought) into the mishma’at of Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, [Isa 2:11,12]

Have a blessed “chutzpah” achi.

J.

29

Glad to see you eschew the Calvinist’s obvious disregard for the scriptures when it comes to speaking in tongues. As Paul said, “I speak in tongues more than any of you.” Good for you.

However, he also mandated that you give an interpretation, when speaking in tongues, if you don’t mind.

Maybe the gist of what you’re saying is that if we were speaking face to face, things would be different. I agree whole-heartedly. A lot of communication gets lost in the absence of facial expression and body language.

You would see that I mean nothing confrontational or malicious.

And there would be hugging (but no kissing please).

30

Zigexactly correct Frater meus.

Huggings, no kisses.

The Kiss of Judas [Wouldn’t want that, now would we?]

“Now he that betrayed Him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He: hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him” (Matthew 26:48-49). The word used here means fervently. This betrayal kiss was more demonstrative than the ordinary kiss of a formal greeting. Never in all the years of His association with the intimate band of disciples did Judas ever call Jesus, Lord! Just (Rhabbi) His discipleship had been play acting, the very essence of hypocrisy.

Judas had privileges few men ever had. He companied with our Lord and belonged to a band of men who were to attend Him in His impeccable walk on earth, to hear His purpose to undergo the uttermost of God’s wrath and to drink the very dregs of anguish for man’s redemption. He must have seen the signs of coming distress on our dear Lord’s face as He approached the mysteries of His substitutionary sacrifice and the shameful cross.

Was Judas so perverse and hardened that he never at any time read the language of the Saviour’s heart, interpreted His incessant prayers, the meaning of His mighty pleadings, the appeal of His outstretched hands? Yet Judas betrayed Him, and did so with the sweetest symbol of love. It is the only time we read of anyone kissing the Saviour’s face, and it was with the filthy lips of this wretch of all humankind, whose very name has become a symbol of infamy.

The Kiss of Love by a Woman
“Seest thou this woman?” said our Lord in a gentle but stinging rebuke to Simon the Pharisee, who had given Him no water to wash His feet, no kiss of greeting, no oil for His refreshing. “This woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet” (Luke 7:45). It is not likely that the woman was Mary Magdalene, nor Mary of Bethany, though the latter did much the same in anointing the Lord. This woman was a woman of sin, and our Lord’s forgiveness had brought forth this act of pure devotion. She had tasted that the Lord is gracious and expressed her love of Him in this lowly and loving act of kissing His feet.

This act of complete devotion brought from the Saviour an assurance to Simon of her sins forgiven, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much” (verse 47). That word must have dropped in her guilt-ridden soul like “sweet smelling myrrh” and carried its own blessing and refreshing. Her kisses upon His feet expressed her deep sense of her un-worthiness, but also demonstrated a soul now filled with love of Him. She had no doubt heard His public utterances of good news and sought Him out. What vehemence of affection! How much her heart was set upon God’s beloved Son! How desirous she was of His word of forgiveness! Her kisses on His feet were out of the abundance of her heart and must have given a great deal of satisfaction to our Lord.

The Kiss Desired by His Elect Bride, the Church

“Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth” (Song of Solomon 1:2). This book is “the song of songs” that is, unexcelled by any other song and unsurpassed by any other song, whether of divine or human origin. There is no adequate interpretation of this song except that which relates it to the love union between Christ and His Church. He is the Bridegroom-Lover; she the elect bride.

Here she desires a new discovery of His love, a new touch of His love upon her life. Here the kiss has spiritual significance since in this book we are in the realm of heavenly things. She seeks something more intimate and real than mere form and ceremony. Rather, she seeks “the kisses of His mouth.” The love of Christ is a believer’s true desire. It is the purest desire of the human soul to long after some special manifest demonstration of it, which has the effect of raising our affections toward Him.

To have such a touch of His love upon our lives is a believer’s heaven on earth, and the beginning of glory. A believer prefers this to all the most excellent things of earth. It is a surprising and astonishing grace that the blessed Lord of glory would stoop to kiss such wretches as we are, and to receive us into His loving embrace.

When we gather to Him, we should do so with this fond desire. True, we are here at the remembrance feast to express our devotion to Him, but the best incentive to do that will be to feel His touch of love upon our own lives. It would not be inappropriate at all to come to this feast of love with this desire: “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth.”

Longing for the Bride, Lord Jesus,
Of Thy heart,
To be with Thee in the glory,
Where Thou art:
Love so groundless, grace so boundless,
Wins my heart.

When Thy blood-bought Church, Lord Jesus,
Is complete;
When each soul is safely landed
At Thy feet;
What a story in the glory
She’ll repeat!

Then Thy Church will be, Lord Jesus,
The display
Of Thy richest grace and kindness
In that day;
Marking pages, wondrous stages,
O’er earth’s way.

Miss C. A. Wellesley

Uh, no AI Pater [Father] Achi.

J.

31

Achi - “A term used in Chinese-Filipino groups to address an elder sister.”

I resent that - you’re obviously way older than me.

1 Like
33

Hebrew word for “Brother” Father, last time I’ve checked, and good to see how prolific you are in searching Google, but it can make mistakes.

I speak Zulu, and would call you Mfowethu wam’ othandekayo…my dear bother…

Ingabe bakhona abakhuluma isiZulu lapha? Ngifuna ukushumayela uJesu Kristu obethelwe esiphambanweni…Translation, Any Zulu speakers in this place? I want to preach Jesus crucified, and Him resurrected…

Shalom Achi.

J.

34

I would rethink this, ponder on, chew the proverbial cud, Selah. And oh, I am not strongly averse to being called a “Luddite.” Know it’s strengths and weaknesses, we should have an unction from the Holy Spirit, discern truth from error. And we wrestle not against what?

Nice chatting with you today. 02.48 Morning time here.
Signing off.

J.