Pithy quotes from our current reading which give us pause to reflect

For a moment I thought you were making a reference to your friend… I met someone who claimed to be a friend of his not too long, and tried initiating contact with Trueman about a discussion on Kant. Never got a response from either one.

Trueman made a pretty common remark in an article that was linked in the thread I’m referring to from before:

“Kant ruled out-of-bounds any possibility of knowing transcendent realities. In effect, Kantian philosophy, which rapidly came to dominate German intellectual life, made it impossible to sustain classical Christian theism.”

And so I wondered what he’d think about Sproul and Gerstner’s work in classical apologetics. Specifically how their version of the ontological argument overcomes Kant’s thinking against it.

Thanks for clarifying about Byrd.
I read.more introductory info on the Sheologian website. They have a beautiful.sense of humor so far.
I am looking forward to hearing a podcast and soo will while I make supper.
I might dive into their Feminism is Poison series. Why start with the light stuff. Just throw myself in.
Eventually, churches need to decide what women really are and how we fit in the Body. I’m seeing a lot of ugly corset tightening these days. Many of us will never be willing to accept what is widely offered as “our place” in the churches with confessional theologies we value, particularly those moving farther and farther into the BM&W camp.
So, off to Sheologians.
I promise not to bring up baptism.
:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Can’t help feeling like I was missing out on an inside joke regarding baptism. Any clues welcome.

1 Like

Sorry about what feels like inside jokes. Please, ALWAYS ask anyone around here that you feel comfortable asking.
On the website, after describing the THeologian podcast, the hosts warned, Never, never bring up baptism.

Differing understandings on baptism are major doctrinal differences among the big denominational groups that came out of the Reformation, plus a few others, like Baptists to throw in a wrench.
Big questions that revolve around baptism and lead to heated arguments:
Mode: Drizzle, Dip, Dunk?
Timing: Infancy? After profession of faith?
Purpose: Bringing persons into a covenant community? Salvation? Demonstration of faith?
[EDIT] Who does what?: Is the thing (whatever it is) that is going on at the point of baptism an act of God performed through a human agent (the baptizing pastor) or a human act in obedience to God or some variation.

Finally, where Baptists REALLY throw a wrench into the machinery: Is it ever necessary (or appropriate) to rebaptize someone, because the mode and timing was not done according to Baptist doctrine, that is by dunking (immursion) after a profession of faith. Baptists say it’s necessary and will not allow one to join a church without being rebaptized, if they were sprinkled and/or baptized as an infant.

This last one is in my experience the most divisive, and I think for good reason. As I heard a Reformed theologian express it straight from the Bible: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
I think he nailed it.

Never would have imagined, eh?

THere might be more fine points, but i think I hit the biggies. [But see the edit above, because I definitely forgot a biggie earlier.]

1 Like

I prefer glazed. :doughnut:

True story … many years ago when the elders at our [Mennonite] church got a visit from conference authorities, there was apparently some concern expressed that we should be using the proper mode of baptism. One of our own is said to have (maybe partially seriously) replied: “Well - we could just take them water-skiing at the local resevoir, and then we’d have every possibility covered: immersion, spraying, drizzling … what have you.”

Word has it the visiting elders were not amused.

3 Likes

:rofl::joy: and I didn’t know for sure it would come with a side of humor. :+1:

Maybe I’ve already been baptized. My relatives in SC used to take us skiing. I’m sure my uncle wasn’t ordained though. In fact he May not even be able to handle holy water without risk of grave injury.

1 Like

Well - then I guess it might be an open question for you as to which church or faith you’ve been baptised into! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

1 Like

Well I just took the ride … I never inhaled!

That’s beautiful, Merv. As long, I guess, as it’s done in the name of the Trinity!
I am wondering how one would achieve “glazed”. In Michigan I think that could be achieved in the winter in a lake baptism. Hopefully, it takes place near an emergency room, though.

1 Like

Sometimes we have to laugh at ourselves and our seriousness over things that don’t make sense to anyone else.
And then get back to proof-texting. :innocent:

1 Like

I imagine with a skill like proof texting it would be a shame to let it get rusty. It it probably helps with internalizing The Book. :wink:

1 Like

The best possible use. Deep deep down, where it works to make the soil good.

2 Likes

It is rather bizarre in a way, as Baptists generally are quick to say that salvation is in no way dependent on baptism, but you are right that while immersion from another denomination is accepted, you gotta be dunked to be a church member. So, evidently Baptist churches have a higher bar than heaven.

1 Like

Ya gotta have ears, too (not corn ; - ), to mix another metaphor.

Good point, Phil.
I was talking with my girlfriend, who has been at “our new church” (Presbyterian) a good while longer than us, and the pastors offered to baptize their girls by immersion, in case they ever wanted to join a Baptist church in the future. (Probably considering that both of the girls’ grandfathers are Baptist pastors.)
I find that an almost overwhelming attitude of grace–pretty heavenly.

A different girlfriend, who was raised Reformed, agreed to be rebaptized to join our old church (which would have been required at ANY Baptist church I’ve ever gone to).

I think you may have nailed it, Phil.

2 Likes

I’m having a little difficulty visualizing pouring in that though. ; - )

1 Like

Some good stuff in here:

This may be novel to most unbelievers, many professing Christians too:

 


* “Not With Our Mortal Eyes” - Isaac Watts

Thank you, Mark! Very much!

Beautiful. A quickly learned lesson, I imagine. And Maryland is rather mild, I understand.
Living in Michigan helps reinforce my love of working with wool. Not only do I enjoy the fiber (for my uses, it’s THE perfect fiber) but there’s no substitute for its performance in keeping a body warm in the cold.

I DO believe you. Your joy in and appreciation for “your” spot on this planet is very evident. I love your point about planting a garden for real roots.

1 Like

Merv,

I hope you haven’t lost sleep waiting for this. I’m not sure I’ve even addressed what you intended in my notes below. Feel free to ask further.

A couple of prefatory things:

I spent time over the last few days looking over Job 32-38, then I looked back over Job’s parts in the previous chapters and God’s reply at the end. I never located what I thought sounded like the relevant discussion in the Forum, so I decided not to spend more time looking, and just get reading and take some notes. It was good to dig into the book. I don’t remember the last time I’ve heard sermons on the book, and I don’t remember doing anything much more with it than just reading it through, when I read through the OT. So, thanks for asking about it. That may have been the most fruitful part of this exchange.

I read Job as a theological work, not as a biographical piece. Perhaps there was an actual person, on whose experiences this book is based, but I think it’s irrelevant to the purpose of the book. The book showscases an ideal man in a worst-case-scenerio of suffering, and provides for our analysis the responses of Job, 4 “Concerned Individuals” and God himself, assuming that the writer has leave to write for God.
I didn’t do any background study on this. I just dove right in to the text.

Here are some things I noticed:

Unlike the other three friends, Elihu rebukes Job for repeated sin, that Job actually commits with his words throughout his discourse. The other friends conclude that Job must have sinned, because he was suffering. Elihu doesn’t so much seek to explain a cause and effect relationship, and therefore way of escape from the suffering, but rather that Job’s response to it is the problem.

I don’t have any strong feeling about whether Elihu was intended to be rebuked or not, but I think his points are different from Jobs other friends. If I had to choose, I’d say he probably wasn’t required to come back and repent. But I probably would never have noticed that detail anyway. However, reading it now, he almost appears like the warm up band for God himself.

More detailed but pared down notes from Elihu’s section of Job:
Chapter 33
Elihu frames Job’s complaint in a nutshell: “I am righteous, yet God counts me as an enemy and will not answer me.”

Then he describes two ways that God does speak to men (not just Job) and for a purpose, although they don’t percieve it:

  1. (33:15-18) Through terrifying visions at night, which are intended to cause a man to change his deeds and conceal his pride, and in doing so protect his life.
  2. (33:19-28) Through intense physical suffering, which is intended “to declare to man what is right for him” and ultimately lead the man to repentance AND redemption/restoration.

I don’t think the other friends talked about a relationship between repentance, redemption and restoration in this way. They were focused on getting health and wealth back.

Chapter 34
Elihu addresses Job’s claim that it profits a man nothing that he should take delight in God, saying that Job is accusing God of wickedness and the perversion of justice, and claiming that God is unfit to rule his own world.
Elihu then applies this argument regarding men in general to Job in 31-33:

"For has anyone said to God, ‘I have borne punishment; I will not offend any more; teach me what I do not see; if I have done iniquity, I will do it no more’?
Will he then make repayment to suit you, because you reject it?

In Chapter 35, Elihu expands on Job’s question: How am I better off than if I had sinned? In vs 6 and 7 Elihu points out that man’s righteousness and sinfulness make no real difference to God, as God has no needs. However in vs 9 - Elihu shows that human wickedness leads to oppression of other people, but even in that suffering, “There they cry out, but he does not answer, because of the pride of evil men” (v. 12).

In Chapter 36, Elihu contrasts the way of the righteous and the wicked. God does NOT take his eyes form the righteous as Job repeatedly accuses. He uses suffering to open their ears to instruction, and restore them if they listen, or let them perish by the sword if they don’t, they suffer.
Elihu also gives Job some very stern warnings. “Beware lest wrath entice you into scoffing, and let not the greatness of the ransom turn you aside.” And “Take care; do not turn to iniquity, for this you have chosen rather than affliction.”

Throughout the section, Elihu talks about specific sins general to man, but also applies them to Job. So, I think the reading you mentioned earlier would make sense, at least the way I’m reading the text.

PS: [I’d like to think more about how the methods of thinking differ between Elihu and Job’s other three friends, but that is for another time, I think. But here I’ll note that all three seem to attempt to work from observations. But the way they develop/establish the patterns from observations, on which they base their conclusions, seems to be different.]

PPS: [I’d like to look more at “the mediator” that Job mentions. It’s common to a lot of Protestants to focus heavily on this mediator in Job.]

PPPS: [I recognize that Horton comes from a tradition that deliberately seeks to see Christ and the Gospel in every book of the Bible. While I like the idea, I’m not convinced that it always works. It’s something else I will be engaging with more directly in a PCA church. So there will be time to learn more about it and draw more informed conclusions.]

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.