This Week's Fortune Cookie that I ate yesterday
"At 20 years of age, the will reigns; at 30, the wit; and at 40, the judgment."
If judgment means wisdom there, then that would make sense as we put on Christ, are further sanctified, and thus attain greater godly wisdom. If judgment does not mean wisdom there, then that "fortune" would have the serious implication of becoming Judge and thus deifying human nature. (The Apostle James mentioned that there is only one Judge and Lawgiver.)
MY MOST FAVOURITE HYMN/SONG: "SALVATION UNTO US HAS COME"
(all 10 verses of the old Lutheran hymn most often sung during Christmas and Advent but can be sung year round)
"Salvation unto Us has Come"
by Paul Speratus, 1484-1551
1. Salvation unto us has come
By God's free grace and favor;
Good works cannot avert our doom,
They help and save us never.
Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone,
Who did for all the world atone;
He is our one Redeemer.
2. What God did in His Law demand
And none to Him could render
Caused wrath and woe on every hand
For man, the vile offender.
Our flesh has not those pure desires
The spirit of the Law requires,
And lost is our condition.
3. It was a false, misleading dream
That God His Law had given
That sinners should themselves redeem
And by their works gain heaven.
The Law is but a mirror bright
To bring the inbred sin to light
That lurks within our nature.
4. From sin our flesh could not abstain,
Sin held its sway unceasing;
The task was useless and in vain,
Our gilt was e'er increasing.
None can remove sin's poisoned dart
Or purify our guileful heart,-
So deep is our corruption.
5. Yet as the Law must be fulfilled
Or we must die despairing,
Christ came and hath God's anger stilled,
Our human nature sharing.
He hath for us the Law obeyed
And thus the Father's vengeance stayed
Which over us impended.
6. Since Christ hath full atonement made
And brought to us salvation,
Each Christian therefore may be glad
And build on this foundation.
Thy grace alone, dear Lord, I plead,
Thy death is now my life indeed,
For Thou hast paid my ransom.
7. Let me not doubt, but trust in Thee,
Thy Word cannot be broken;
Thy call rings out, "Come unto Me!"
No falsehood hast Thou spoken.
Baptized into Thy precious name,
My faith cannot be put to shame,
And I shall never perish.
8. The Law reveals the guilt of sin
And makes men conscience-stricken;
The Gospel then doth enter in
The sinful soul to quicken.
Come to the cross, trust Christ, and live;
The Law no peace can ever give,
No comfort and no blessing.
9. Faith clings to Jesus' cross alone
And rests in Him unceasing;
And by its fruits true faith is known,
With love and hope increasing.
Yet faith alone doth justify,
Works serve thy neighbor and supply
The proof that faith is living.
10. All blessing, honor, thanks, and praise
To Father, Son, and Spirit,
The God that saved us by His grace,-
All glory to His merit!
O Triune God in heaven above,
Who hast revealed Thy saving love,
Thy blessed name be hallowed.
Hymn 377
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: Rom. 3: 5
Author: Paul Speratus, 1523, cento
Translated by: composite
Titled: "Es ist das Heil uns kommen her"
Tune: "Es ist das Heil"
German melody, c. 1400
What If....nonstop to Mumbai (Bombay), India
Although it is not possible unless one charters a jet (often cost prohibitive), what if the aforementioned pastors and missionaries flew non-stop to India? It would save them 1.6 hours, not including the layover at MXP. (Including the layover, non-stop would save them about 4.2 hours.) The non-stop flight took 12.0 hours and was flown in the unofficial CLC Jet (Boeing 747-400) using the Great Circle route and with real world weather. The flight departed IAD at 12:00p and arrived the next morning around 9:30a.
The Great Circle route from IAD to BOM:
The (unofficial) CLC Jet climbing out of IAD (12,000' over Gaithersburg, MD with the Potomac River in the distance):
The (unofficial) CLC Jet parked at smoggy/smoky BOM:
I've yet to find out how to paint it green (similar to the unofficial CLC Prop below). I chose Orange, which came with MS FS2004, in the meantime since orange is symbolic of Protestant Christianity.
The unofficial CLC Prop (N02CLC) lined up on GAI runway 14:
My first (virtual) air crash in a while
Last night, I was flying AZ flight 623 (Alitalia 623) from Washington-Dulles (IAD) to Milan-Malpensa, Italy (MXP). I crashed into a 14,000' mountain in the Italian Alps about 30 miles NW of Milan in the darkness of night. As I only flew around Milan once (daylight AND IFR), I was unfamiliar with the terrain. There was a group of India-bound pastors and missionaries on board among the 250 passengers. Fortunately, they were alive and miraculously and instantaneously healed, and their luggage only suffered minor scratches.
The Great Circle Route from IAD to MXP:
I'm redoing the flight today, but I routed the flight to steer clear of the mountain.
My longest flight in FlightSim on Saturday
Until Saturday, my longest flight was from Sydney, Australia (SYD) to Richmond, VA (RIC) with a non-stop duration of 16.5 hours (10% payload) and a fuel stop duration of 17.0 hours (regular payload, fuel stop at LAX).
Last Saturday, I made my longest flight from Perth, Australia (PER) to Washington, DC (IAD). The route was 10,031 nm (11,543 mi) with a 10% payload and full fuel load. The duration of the flight was 18.6 hours, and the aircraft used was the unofficial CLC Jet (a Boeing 747-400 with registry "N01CLC"). The routing was GPS to give the Great Circle Route (the shortest distance between 2 geographic points). The following picture is the very route (red line). (I didn't use "real world" weather as I wasn't hooked up to the internet at the time.)
With the time acceleration feature in the flightsim, it didn't take 18.6 hours in real time. It took 2.5 hours while I did things around the house.
I will fly the route again except with a fuel stop at HNL (Honolulu, HI) . Or maybe a more realistic route will be flown (PER-SYD-LAX-IAD) to reflect actual airline flights.
Another fortune cookie
I ate lunch at the same Chinese restaurant as a few weeks ago. The cookie had the following "fortune": "A carrot a day, may keep cancer away.'
That "fortune" is medically validated as carrots are have fibre and are rich in Vitamin A (beta carotene that gives it its orange color), which help prevent gastrointestinal cancer and skin cancer.
TWO Anapra shows scheduled
Anapra is playing the following dates:
Tomorrow (7/Jan) at Kriders United Church of Christ in Westminster, MD
Next Friday (13/Jan) at Basement Coffee House of Elias Lutheran Church in Emmitsburg, MD
I would highly recommend seeing one or both of the shows if you can (especially if you are a CLC-er). The band's website has more details.
Flight Simulator Log (21/Dec/05 - 2/Jan/06)
(Leg, Duration, Aircraft, Altitude, Speed, Registry)
BGI-CBL, 1.2 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 260, 310 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA Flt. #0061)
CBL-BLA, 0.8 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 160, 310 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0062)
BLA-CUR, 1.1 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 290, 310 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0062)
SJO-ATL, 3.3 h, Boeing 757-200, FL 330, M 0.8, N604DL (Delta 1742)
SJO-HSE, 3.5 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 330, M 0.82, PJ-TXA (TCA charter)
HSE-RDU, 0.7 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 160, 310 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA charter)
RDU-CUR, 3.1 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 330, M 0.82, PJ-TXA (TCA charter)
CUR-PMV, 0.9 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 290, 300 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0060)
PMV-BGI, 0.9 h, Airbus 320-200, FL 250, 300 kts, PJ-TXA (TCA 0060)
MXP-AMS, 1.7 h, Boeing 737-800, FL 350, M 0.76, PH-BXA (KLM 1624 for TCA)
AMS-MXP, 1.5 h, Boeing 737-800, FL 330, M 0.75, PH-BXA (KLM 1631 for TCA)
IATA Airport Codes
AMS = Schiphol Intl., Amsterdam, Netherlands
ATL = Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl., Atlanta, GA
BGI = Grantley Adams Intl., Bridgetown, Barbados
BLA = General Jose Azoategui Intl., Barcelona, Venezuela
CBL = Aeropuerto Ciudad Bolivar, Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela
CUR = Hato Intl., Wilemstad, Curucao
HSE = Billy Mitchell Airport, Hatteras, NC
MXP = Milan Malpensa Intl., Milan, Italy
PMV = Del Caribe Intl. General Santiago Marino, Margerita/Porlamarar, Venezuela
RDU = Raleigh-Durham Intl., Raleigh, NC
SJO = Juan Santa Maria Intl., San Jose, Costa Rica
Dialogue on worship - Part 4
("RA" is the intentionally abbreivated alias of a Reformed Baptist that advocates John Frame's "non-traditional" view of worship. Reformed Baptists are historically more conservative than Frame.)
RA:
My point was, you are quite versed and eloquent when it comes to quoting or citing the historical views of several reformers as it pertains to this issue; moreso than in rendering Biblical warrant. You appear to represent a persuasion of their reasoning rather than primarily relying upon the Scriptures.
For example, the whole notion, as cited by Spurgeon (and concurred by many 'reformers'), of the Old Testament spiritual infancy of Israel, and God seemingly pandering to their immaturity by allowing music, song and dance etc. As much as I love and respect much of Spurgeon, his [their] reasoning is eloquent, even rather persuasive, but devoid of Scriptural basis and premise and thus, non-persuasive for those whose conscience is taken captive by Scripture.
WHIT:
I am persuaded and convinced by primarily and foremost, Scripture and the person's rightly handling it. A person can use tons of Scripture, but if (s)he is not rightly handling it, I reject it as error. Similarly, if a person tries to handle the Word without providing any Scripture, I don't reject it outright, but I take it to Scripture to test it.
For example, take James 2.
A person would say that we are not saved through faith alone because James clearly says that we are justified by works and not by faith only and that that faith alone in Matthew 7 would cut it since works must be couple with faith. Then, he would provide teaching from supposed Christians with the gift of teaching (theologians, teaching elders, ECF's, etc.).
Another person would say that works are a necessary evidence and good fruit must happen according to James 2, but according to Titus 3 and Is. 64, our salvation is based entirely on God's Mercy since our works of righteousness fall short. Hence, James 2 is talking about works justifying us before man, and thefore, we are neither justified before God by works alone, or by faith and works. Then as with the first person, he provides teaching from Christians gifted in teaching.
The first paragraph and the second paragraphs are a condensations of arguments that I've heard regarding salvation. They may use very good reasoning, but I must reject the 1st person's teaching/argument as error because it does not consider the whole of Scripture and the person does not rightly handle the Word of Truth. I accept the 2nd person's argument as true, not simply because it may be well reasoned, but because it considers the whole of Scripture and the person rightly handles the Word.
RA:
Such views, of which have been enormously cited, are utterly blinded by what I would regard as an intellectual yet cultural disassociation that is found to be quite consistent amongs many covenanters. As is par for the course, most proponents of said view have a difficulty in understading the difference between secularism and cultural relevance. Unfortunately, the intellectuals blur the two, needlessly creating a doctrine and theology and reflects the blur, thus legalistically demonizing that which is thought to be secualr.
Like it or not, the form of teaching/preaching that you and I are most accustomed to is not, culturally, what Christ and his disciples exemplified. Culturally, they practiced a virtual backwards version of what you and I experience. They focussed upon discussion oriented teaching with a dose of occasional monolgue; contrary to our monologues/sermons with a touch of discussion elsewhere.
But the staunch "non-secularist" does not wish to hear that. They believe the paradigm that exists now, always existed. It did not. The spread of the Greco-Roman empire changed all of that in the early first century. However, a simple study on Jewish education and instruction will quickly shed light on their practices. We practice a culturally 'practical' way of instruction that differs from that of Jesus, and that is because, WE, yes EVERYBODY, believes, deep down, that we retain the freedom of carrying out the regulated principle of 'teaching the Scriptures.'
WHIT:
From John 15:19, it plainly says that we are not of the world. Hence, we are not to follow the particular parts of culture and nation that are not in obedience to God's Word such as immodest fashions, gluttonous portions/sizes of food, movies that falsely portray evil, and any unjust law of the State.
I was skimming through the chapters in Grudem's ST this morning about teaching Scripture and the 2 chapters on the gifts. There are those gifted with the ordinary gift of teaching and are called to teach the Word such as theologians, Teaching Elders, and such. I don't believe every one has the gift of teaching in equal amounts.
RA:
The house of God, the temple etc., is not anti-typically fulfilled in the building wherein corporate worship transpires. It is within you and I. You know that. So why cite the writings of men that espouse somehow that temple worship (primarily conducted by priests, again, a type of Christ) equates NT church buildings? Perhaps nobody pressed them or challenged them, but I do not believe that you believe that.
WHIT:
Only recently have I encountered "type" and "anti-type" and am not familiar with with how that fits into Scripture. So, I am having difficulty following you here.
RA:
Please do not misunderstand me. I do recognize the difference between corporate and individual gatherings, but not as RPW would. The purpose and function of the church is to aid, or Scripturally speaking, "equip the saints" or the child of God for ministry. God has given me primary charge over my family, to teach them His ways (Deut. 6). He has not commanded me to delegate that
WHIT:
I would agree as you have parental and leadership authority over your household and children.
RA;
nor has He instructed how I ought to do so.
WHIT:
Is Scripture not sufficient to equip us to love and follow God?
RA:
I may use dialogue or drama, monologue or music, videos, nature, humor or anything conducive to teaching them his ways.
WHIT:
What is the Scriptural warrant for that?
RA:
And therein is what regulates what I use, HIS ways. This keeps me from employing unethical or ungodly means/principles when doing so.
WHIT:
How's that?
RA:
And nowhere in Scripture does God grant another greater spiritual authority over my family.
WHIT:
The husband is the immediate authority. That I can see. The family is in a local church, and you, as an individual and as the head of the household, would be overseen by the collective Session (the group of Elders that govern a congregation). Hence, the Session would be a mediate authority of the family but only through the lower, immediate authority of the husband. Nowhere in Scripture does it place the husband as the only presbyterial authority over the family.
Any authority rests in its soundness to God's Word. The moment an authority departs from God's Word by false teaching or belief, he looses that authority. If heresy, the authority is categorically lost and becomes apostate; if error, then authority in the area concerning the error since our conscience is not bound by error.
RA;
Whit, my belief is that your heart truly desires to worship and honor God. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. I believe that you want to be faithful to His word, so as to enjoy life as He has called us to do so.
WHIT:
It is my primary goal to enjoy AND glorify God. SGM over the years and Campus Crusade and Navigators in college taught me what enjoying God in worship (whether corporate or private) was like especially considering that I was raised in a very staid mainstream church (the United Methodist Church). Aside: I believe that the UMC has not followed totaly the vision of John Wesley who promoted a more lively, experiential view of worship and the rest of Chrsitianity. I do remember one Easter, the Introit was a brief song on Christ's Resurrection, and from the words, it seems that it would be a lively song.
RA:
However, I also know what the fear of man can also conjure up.
WHIT:
Is that an observation (SGM-ese for an enquiry regarding sin in my life)?
RA:
And sometimes, even in our beliefs, we are taken captive moreso by the influence or reasoning of a mentor or hero than we are by the words of Christ alone. I would encourage you to step back, and ask yourself, what has God's word said to me concerning these things? I think perhaps you might see things in a different light, and either enjoy God in another/different light, or, enjoy the fact that others are enjoying Him different than you.
WHIT:
I refer back to the first section regarding what persuades me and takes captive my thoughts. The Word takes captive my thoughts and my conscience; the Word and the right handling of it persuades and convinces me. I think Luther (before he became a Protestant heretic) referred to that when the Harlot Church of Rome called him to Worms to account for his teaching. If testimony from history is agreeable to God's Word, then that would be additionally convincing. Frame and his supporters definitely use the Word; however, the right handling of the Word is not there. Hence, his ideology is effectively not found in Scripture, and I reject it as great error. As I told my CG brethren at CLC, I give many thanks for the marvelous work that God has done through CLC (and hence, SGM and other similar churches in the Church Universal); however, I cannot give thanks to God for their errors (being few in number) or enjoy their errors whether in worship or other areas.
Neither view is perfect, whether the RPW view or the Catholic-leaning "non-traditional" view. Hence, there is room for sanctification on both ends, and my rejection of Frame's ideology is not final.
RA:
Your Friend and brother in Christ,
WHIT:
That is mutual. We are indeed in general fellowship due to the Gospel, and I regard a friend to Christ as a general friend. I long for the day where we can enjoy and glorify God in full fellowship and sit at the Lord's Table together.
Part 5
SKROOTA:
~i have to tell you man, myspace is something i do as leisure when i get a few minutes here and there. i appreciate your thoroughness (though i think you spent alot of time defending things not in contention) but i am not going to be able to devote the time a post like that last one requires. i think short concise thoughts are best for the forum format. i'm going to try and make this my last lengthy reply.<br>
WHIT:
Not in contention? Should we not be concerned about idoltary (worshipping God in any way not warranted by Scripture)? Should we not be concerned about Sola Scriptura? Should not be spurring each other towards Christ? I do advocate the RPW, which has been in contention for the past 1700 years especially from 1517 onward.
My friend in Richmond (a PCA Christian and Church Officer) is married and has a few children, which take a lot of time in addition to his serving his local church. So, your case is understandable and reflects proper prioritisation. I am single (though desirous of marriage). Hence, I would have more time.
SKROOTA:
~when i made the above remark (how do you... heresy.) i had the below statement of yours in mind. particularly the last sentence.<br>
<br>
"Yes, the non-traditional approach to worship is indeed growing. While it does teach us to have great passion in worship, the extremity of it and its line of reasoning is not good. Shall we sin that Grace may abound? Reading non-traditional documents reminds me too frequently of my reading about Catholicism. Considering the signs of rapid growth and given how much it appeals to the world at this time, it typifies the speed through which yeast works its way throughout the leaven. The movement is not heretical but strongly appears one step from heresy."<br>
<br>
~are you saying your above statement (yes, the... heresy.) does not extend to SGM?<br>
WHIT:
That is correct. SGM is nowhere near heresy and would not fall fully under that statement.
SKROOTA:
"So, since CLC is sound, passionate church, I have no reservations about inviting people to Public Worship."<br>
<br>
~that's just got to be majorly awkward when someone you brought says afterward: "the music was really great huh? it really helps you enter in doesn't it?"
WHIT:
I've encountered that. Not awkward at all for me since worship music at CLC is words, tune, AND instrumentation. This morning, I was skimming Grudem's ST in the chapter on worship. Instrumentation is not found in his definition of worship at the beginning of the chapter. Nowhere in the chapter does he discuss instrumentation. He does bring up a verse that includes instrumentation, but he emphasises the other part of the verse.
SKROOTA:
also, i'm confused because over on the SGM myspace group you said one reason you like CLC for the sound worship and here you say things like "we can still do things that may bring about good and that is not obedient to God. (in reference to CLC)". "not obedient" and "sound" wouldn't seem to jive.<br>
<br>
WHIT:
An author's words would certainly not seem to jive if the reader isolates them from the author's context and the rest of the words. The "can" I used there is the formal "can" (ability), not the colloquial "can" (the formal "may" as in permission or warrant).
SKROOTA:
"We might as well pray by machinery as sing by it" and "Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... we do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto Him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." -- Commentary on Psalm 42<br>
<br>
~wow, this is the first Spurgeon quote i find to be rubbish. agreed, there is no instrument like the voice but those childish things were God given and required skill to master. children don't master instruments (generally).
WHIT:
Spurgeon was not talking about literal children. Spurgeon was contrasting pre-Christ Israel and the Christ-prefiguring ceremonies taught them.
SKROOTA:
as for "one can make melody...this is the sweetest and best music", we're forgetting not everyone can sing and some know it.
WHIT:
When we worshipped God just after the New Year, there was one that was off tune. It was spiritually sweet. The people that don't sound aesthetically sweet are a small minority. Some people consider dissonance to be aesthetically sweet.
SKROOTA:
what do we say to those God has gifted instrumentally rather than vocally. "your gift is not admissable here. if you can't sing, i guess you're out of luck."
WHIT:
No, we would not say that. There are other ways to use them in the Church that are not part of worship. For example, before Christ-mass Eve worship, some instrumentally-gifted CLC-ers were playing Christmas music (even secular music, one selection being "My Favorite Things") in the lobby. Some people in the congregation have formed bands and have played during wedding receptions at the church.
SKROOTA:
as for "that would hinder not help our praise" i think he has been indeed proved wrong by history.
WHIT:
Elaborate please as in the study of history, I have a different conclusion.
SKROOTA:
"We might as well pray by machinery as sing by it" speaking of childishness, what a childish statement. sounds like a personal preference to me.
WHIT:
Spurgeon was not known to mince words as he didn't struggle with the fear man just like Knox and others. It does sound more like Luther who, in the midst of accurate teaching before he became a heretic, would sometimes use his mouth in an unrestrained manner. So, yes, I would agree that it sounds like a personal preference. However, in the midst of his exegesis, I would say that it is a sanctified personal preference.
SKROOTA:
i guess he would say computers and the internet are no way to send prayer requests, praise reports, handle church administration, communicate the gospel or further our understanding of God through forums like this, etc., etc.. after all, a computer is machinery. no one's perfect charles - but you're still the man.<br>
<br>
WHIT:
His commentary was on worship, not church administration. He was also against the Anglican church which uses Prayer Books (hence, prayer machinery). Which reminds me. Just as the Anglican doesn't seem that it can pray without their Prayer Books, it seems that SGM cannot pray without instrumentation. Anyway, he used the machinery of the printers for his writings and "Sword and Trowel". He is not categorically condemning the use of machinery in the Church.
SKROOTA:
"~wow, again. heavy dependendence on the OT passages and particularly Psalms to refer to and distinguish NT corporate gatherings? isn't this breaking you're own rules.
WHIT:
No, I don't believe so.
SKROOTA:
at the same time you say we can't use OT Psalms to refer to and distinguish NT worship aspects.
WHIT:
I don't remember saying that. I said and asked for a warrant either from the OT or NT that carried over the OT ceremonies and any of its trappings into the NT dispensation.
SKROOTA:
i'd have expected you to use strictly NT passages to refer to and distinguish NT corporate worship gatherings.
WHIT:
Why? We have the entire Bible, and I have never denied the possiblity of warrant from the OT to carry things over to the NT dispensation.
SKROOTA:
so we can use the OT & Psalms on corporate gatherings unless an instrument is mentioned then we nix those?<br>
WHIT:
Can we use the OT and Psalms on corporate gatherings to include instrumentation?
SKROOTA:
~come now, because i made reference to their wisdom in knowing the times and that we should emmulate it you honestly would reply in a manner that suggests such wisdom is locked into the OT "prefiguring" of Christ.? just the same, even in THIS dispensation we are prefiguring and anticipating the arrival of Christ. so the wisdom is equally needed by the Church, if not more so. even you talk of "knowing the times" when it comes to NT things such as spiritual gifts.<br>
WHIT:
It seems that your feelings are coming out more.
I was not necessarily expressing disagreement. My intention was to phrase that as a question to see where you were coming from as I did not fully understand you. Sorry for not being clear enough.
SKROOTA:
~not as concise as i would have liked but you did keep it to 2 sentences
WHIT:
(No comment)
SKROOTA:
when you say "Christ in the NT did not perpetuate the OT warrant." (i'm not great with technical wording) do you mean he was not recorded in the NT as worshipping with instrumentation or instructing others to?"
WHIT:
I am saying in the NT, (1) that Christ's fulfilment of the Law (including the ceremonial part of the Law) and thus his use of the temple in the NT was not to provide warrant for the Church to celebrate the OT ceremonies and their trappings, (2) that Christ did not instruct them to use instrumentation by word or example, and (3) the Apostles and early Church did not receive instruction nor used instrumentation.
SKROOTA:
so if the NT doesn't record instances of or instruction on aspects of worship then we may not proceed with them?
WHIT:
Almost there. A warrant is either (1) command/instruction or example in the NT OR (2) a command/instruction or example in the OT or NT that would carryover a warrant from the OT to NT. In summary, the Reformed principle is "what is not warranted in Scripture is not permitted".
In contrast, the Lutheran principle is "what is not warranted in Scripture may be permitted."
SKROOTA:
could you expound in another one or two sentences where this rule originates from?
WHIT:
The principle orginates from Sola Scriptura (1.Tim. 3:16-17), God's command to not do anything more or anything less than what he wants (Deut. 12:32), and God's warning against idolatry and his exhortation to keep the Sabbath holy (Ex. 20:2-8).
PART 6
RANDI:
Lastly, as I stated at the beginning of my last post, your demonstration with the writings and views of other teachers transcends your demonstration and Scriptural warrant for your position(s).
WHIT:
If it is not clear to you, the RPW camp has the negative position: The "non-traditional" position is not Scriptural and thus does not have any Scriptural warrant. Hence, what you say is true since it is up to the positive position ("nontraditional" position) to demonstrate.
Again, the Word of God takes my mind captive, and it is the Word of God AND a person's correct handling of the Word that persuade and convince me. Since the "nontraditional" Catholic-leaning ideology, although using Scripture, has not Scriptural warrant or substance and he does not handle the Word of God correctly concerning worship, the RPW camp must reject it because it is not persuasive, convincing, or compelling.
RANDI:
All too oft, you cite another individual who attempts to use a proof text in their conclusion.
WHIT:
What of that?! Using a prooftext or responding to Frame's or Grudem's or another's prooftext determines right or wrong? Using Scripture and claiming Scriptural support does not mean the position right or wrong because he must demonstrate that he correctly handles the Word (which the non-traditionals have yet to do).
If you are up to demonstrating Frame's ideology and correctly handle Scripture, then please do so. Your allegations greatly exceeds your demonstration, and allegation does not necessariily equal demonstration.
Indeed, I am familiar with type and anti-type and already knew what you said about that regarding priests and Christ. I am currently diving deeper in that.
Recent Comments