Friday, September 09, 2005

Me 'n' My Bible

I was just going to say that y'all can have your "me and my Bible" fraternity, and good luck with all that.

--- Jonathan Prejean, from the comment box in a thread below.

30 Comments:

Blogger centuri0n said...

That's like throwing a hamburger into the street in front of a hungry dog.

Not Prejean -- you. Why allow him bandwidth by pointing to his comments when he says things as utterly stupid as this?

Friday, September 09, 2005 7:47:00 PM  
Blogger JIBBS said...

Okay, he can have it his way.

Take "me" out of it. He still loses.

Friday, September 09, 2005 8:03:00 PM  
Blogger Jason Engwer said...

I'm sorry, PP, but I have to conclude that you're lying. Prejean is nothing if not a man of his word. And he's told us that he retired. He can't be here arguing with you on this blog. I would sooner believe that you're hallucinating than think that Prejean is being inconsistent.

Rather than being on this blog, Prejean probably is over at Greg Krehbiel's board, where he never mentions "cults" such as NTRMin and AOMin and "cultists" like you and me. We don't concern Prejean at all, so he never writes anything in response to us. He probably never even thinks about us.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Friday, September 09, 2005 8:37:00 PM  
Blogger CrimsonCatholic said...

Not my fault your mentor decided to take shots at me, "Boy Engwer," giving me a rather excellent chance to demonstrate just how much he doesn't know. Figured I'd take two birds down with one stone while I was at it, since I had such an easy shot, and since I doubt many people were paying attention when Hays was spouting his autotheos garbage before.

Enjoy the Kool-Aid, fellas. I've had enough of y'all for a lifetime.

Friday, September 09, 2005 8:55:00 PM  
Blogger Jason Engwer said...

CrimsonCatholic said:

"Enjoy the Kool-Aid, fellas. I've had enough of y'all for a lifetime."

He's retiring again!

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Friday, September 09, 2005 9:03:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Crimson, it's easy to write off living sinners (especially in an environment where people are communicating via internet posts and comments), but do you similarly write off the Puritan divines (just for an example)?

You run into scale problems if you attempt that. (As in: I've just dashed off a treatise that has decimated the widely held view that the U.S. was 'victorious' in WWII.)

Reformation theology isn't what it is because it's defended by internet apologists that you have run-ins with. It has a rather ancient river like history as it has coursed down through the centuries, altering history and making history and indeed making the very world you as a Roman Catholic live in. You live in a nation, in a culture, in a civilization created and founded by Reformation forces.

When you dash off a response to a living, breathing internet commenter (who may or may not be as on-the-mark as one can get with biblical doctrine) do you really imagine you'd do the same, or even be entertained by a Calvin or Owen or Edwards or that you could write them off with the wave of your loyal Roman Catholic hand?

RCs like to appeal to history, and Protestants don't NEED to (we have the Bible and can defend Reformed Theology without appealing to authority or what not), but compare the history! What prior to the Reformation, other than apostolic times itself, comes even close to what Calvinism and Calvinists have done in history? When you write off the Puritans and Puritan theologians you are writing off Christianity, and you know this! You know you can't survive as a serious adult in the presence of men of God such as the Puritans represented to the world while affecting to 'take down' the very biblical, apostolic theology that formed the foundation of those men and that historical movement.

You play games. How long? Until you arrive at the judgment throne of God?

Friday, September 09, 2005 9:22:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

The above snarkery by Prejean is is by the very same Prejean who claims to hate it when people talk to each other as if they're stupid.

Yet, Jason is "Boy Engwer." Hays and Svendsen are, by Prejean's pet-metaphysical-Christological grid, Nestorian because they refuse to bow to his intimidation and snarkery regarding unverifiable deductions from scripture, despite the fact that they're wholly in line with scripture. [I'm Nestorian too I suppose.] They're stupid hacks because they operate with a different standard of heresy than does Prejean, and Prejean is right in calling them stupid hacks because Prejean will tell you so. And, I'll observe the machismo chest-thumping on Prejean's part: it is not a discussion or even an argument, but it seems to be Jonathan's internet exercise in self-importance. You don't discuss things with him; no, in his eyes, he thumps you, beats on you, and then, as if that is not enough for his hungering ego and seeming need for approval, he goes to other boards and thumps his chest there. And this isn't fun buddy-buddy trash talk of a friendly or respectful rivalry either -- you're being dissed, and Prejean is scoring points at your expense. And, to boot, this isn't an isolated occurrence, the product of poor judgement rearing its ugly head merely to remind the sinner that yes it is still there; it is a regular theme as of late.

Yes, this is the Prejean-of-late who merely wants people to not talk to him as if he's stupid or irrational or denying the truth or whatever. Yet, my position is "Kool-Aid." The quote on this blog reveals the condescension he holds for my position, which is that of classical Protestantdom. He's been requested to calm his tone down [not that he has to change his positions in the slightest], but instead he grows more belligerent that we do not adopt his metaphysics.

I for one have grown tired of Prejean's intellectual/scholarly affectations in these matters. He has been pretentious, relying heavily on the snark factor to make his points for him. And, when people don't agree with him, he labels them as hacks and frauds. No --- people aren't wrong with Prejean --- they're fraudulent. Remember, Jonathan hates it when people talk to each other as if they're stupid, because that really isn't very nice. He's a Christian, you know, and he believes that there is supposedly a higher standard of conduct that is to be followed.

My final comment on this whole affair is that for the Prejean-of-late, it seems to be all about appearances. And, just remember all --- you're stupid, you're hacks, and you're frauds. Jonathan will gladly inform you of that as well as whatever message boards exist to which he can play. But please, in the case where you disagree with him, extend to him the courtesy of merely thinking he's wrong --- don't personalize it or anything, as that isn't being a good boy.

The Prejean of today is not the friendlier Prejean of old --- somebody with whom I could disagree amicably, to say the least. Perhaps that is just one of his duplicitous faces to cover up the ugly reality that has manifested itself, perhaps it isn't. I'm in no position to know which is the case.

Yes, this post is strongly worded, but these are my thoughts and, in my own possibly faulty judgement, such things need to be said. I popped off to Jonathan once and apologized, as well I should, since such behavior is really unacceptable. But, for Jonathan, such behavior is acceptable; the more, the better, it seems. I'd like the old Prejean back, if the old Prejean ever existed. But it is a fact that people change, and maybe that is just the simplest explanation of what has gone on as of late.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 1:24:00 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

There's nothing essentially wrong with snarkery -- if there was, there'd be no PP or centuri0n for that matter.

The problem is when people can dish it out but can't take it. If what Prejean (and Sippo, and Armstrong, and c.t., and Enloe, and Owen, and Johnson, and ... oh, you get the idea) wants is a license to snark-and-run, he can forget that. If the rules of engagement are "all rhetorical forms", then he has to expect to get shelled went he starts shelling.

I am SOOOOOO tired of these fellas who, as Jason pointed out, "retire" when they are pinned down and then simply come back a week later as if that voided the last conversation. They bitch about history, but they mean "history that you find in textbooks" and not "personal history, like mine" --there is no history for them as far as they are concerned. Every day is a new day and we are all newly-plucked from the cabbage patch.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:44:00 AM  
Blogger CrimsonCatholic said...

Fine, Prince of Pedantry, because you have posted in my interest, and you seem genuinely concerned, I will explain my difficulties.

"The above snarkery by Prejean is is by the very same Prejean who claims to hate it when people talk to each other as if they're stupid."

No, I hate it when people treat others as if they're intellectually dishonest when they aren't. Conversely, I hate it even worse when people who are being intellectually dishonest then accuse their opponents of being intellectually dishonest, as Svendsen did with the Cyrillene scholarship. If you're going to criticize my handling of scholarship, you'd better at least do the research to make sure you're right.

"Yet, Jason is 'Boy Engwer.'"

He's a guy with a bachelor's degree in English who accuses Perry Robinson (a Ph.D candidate in philosophy, and one of the best-read human beings I've ever met; puts Hays to shame) as if he doesn't know anything about argumentation. It's immature. Sometimes, you need to defer to people who know more. I can't imagine the McGrews making the kinds of arguments that Jason is making. Ditto Hays; this whole thing about me confusing "hermeneutics" and "apologetics" without presenting an argument in favor of that proposition is just cheap ad hominem.

"Hays and Svendsen are, by Prejean's pet-metaphysical-Christological grid, Nestorian because they refuse to bow to his intimidation and snarkery regarding unverifiable deductions from scripture, despite the fact that they're wholly in line with scripture."

It's not a "pet metaphysical Christological grid;" it's the meaning of the word! Being Scriptural doesn't mean you're not Nestorian, and "Nestorianism" does have historical meaning. If you confuse nature and person so that having a rational soul equates with being a human person, that's Nestorianism. There's no way around that; anyone who denies that Christ as a divine person who assumed a human nature is Nestorian. Regardless of whether you accept my normative assessment of that declaration, the problem is that we're not dealing in facts here.

"[I'm Nestorian too I suppose.]"

Could be. I don't know. That's why this is so ridiculous. I'm not making an argument that sola scriptura entails Nestorianism. I am not trying to hang all Protestants with the label "Nestorian." These are *individuals* who make particular arguments that are Nestorian, and also make counter-accusations based on historical terms (like Hays calling Nicene Christology "modalist" or "subordinationist," entirely in the absence of any Biblical argument, or Svendsen calling Catholics "Apollinarimonophysites," whatever that is). The arguments these particular individuals are making are considered wacko by the majority of Protestants. Even Protestant scholars these days admit that Harnack was way off base saying that Cyril's Christology was Apollinarian. The problem isn't ME accusing people of heresy; the problem is that they BOTH accused me of heresy without an argument before I even said a word based on nothing substantive! What's so rich about this is that I'm supposedly the "heresy-hunter" when they are the ones throwing around terms of heresy without evidence.

"They're stupid hacks because they operate with a different standard of heresy than does Prejean, and Prejean is right in calling them stupid hacks because Prejean will tell you so."

No, they're stupid hacks because they throw around nasty words like "subordinationist" and "Apollinarism" without having a clue what they mean (or for that matter, terms like "hermeneutics" or "publicly verifiable" in their technical philosophical context). When I use "Nestorian," I mean it in a very specific and technical way. When they use these terms, they're just swear words.

"And, I'll observe the machismo chest-thumping on Prejean's part: it is not a discussion or even an argument, but it seems to be Jonathan's internet exercise in self-importance."

Please. Did you see my rebuttal to Svendsen on Cyrillene scholarship? The guy jumped on my supposed admission about not having read the reviews to think he was going to just do a quick Internet search and make me look like an ass. He didn't even think that I might have known the content of later research or had three monographs sitting on my shelf that surveyed the relevant literature. It's got nothing to do with me being brilliant; it's got to do with these guys faking it!

"You don't discuss things with him; no, in his eyes, he thumps you, beats on you, and then, as if that is not enough for his hungering ego and seeming need for approval, he goes to other boards and thumps his chest there. And this isn't fun buddy-buddy trash talk of a friendly or respectful rivalry either -- you're being dissed, and Prejean is scoring points at your expense."

OK, sure. Couldn't have a thing to do with John Bugay popping off about how "dishonest" we are and citing "Boy Engwer's" and Steve Hays's inane rants about having "presented an argument" for their case (which I must have missed). I couldn't care less about scoring personal points; nothing on earth could make most people interested in the relatively obscure philosophical theology that is my primary interest. What irritates me is this bogus attempt to score points at MY expense because I've supposedly "conceded" something or "refused to present an argument" when that is a total misrepresentation of what happened. The way it ordinarily works is that someone (Hays, Svendsen, or Engwer) says something stupid about history or makes a bad argument, I point out that it's stupid, and the chest-puffing comes from the other side to the effect of "Well, if my argument is so bad, what's yours, tough guy?!?!" Of course, I decline, because most of my arguments would run book-length, and I have no doubt that they would not get a fair hearing in such an atmosphere, not to mention that it's not the least bit relevant.

"And, to boot, this isn't an isolated occurrence, the product of poor judgement rearing its ugly head merely to remind the sinner that yes it is still there; it is a regular theme as of late."

Let's talk about the regular theme of crowing about me not presenting an argument based on people who don't present rigorous arguments themselves. Or how about the regular theme of me supposedly trying to heresy-hunt against people who call me an "apollinarimonophysite" or a "subordinationist" first? These people are acting like butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, but they're insulting people's intelligence far more intently than I am.

"Yes, this is the Prejean-of-late who merely wants people to not talk to him as if he's stupid or irrational or denying the truth or whatever. Yet, my position is 'Kool-Aid.'"

It sure is if you can't see what's going on around here. It's easier for you to think that I'm going after Protestantism as a whole than that you've got a couple of friends who seem to have a problem with intellectual honesty.

"The quote on this blog reveals the condescension he holds for my position, which is that of classical Protestantdom."

No, and you've just slipped into "drama queen" mode yourself. I said nothing about "Protestantism." Heck, I didn't even speak judgmentally about Nestorianism, and if you're still Lutheran, you're probably not Nestorian anyway. I didn't even say anything negative about sola scriptura. All I said is that the charges of "Apollinarimonophysitism" and "modalism" were not supported by any kind of scholarly support, and that the arguments used to make that charge are themselves Nestorian and tri-theist respectively. You seem to be able to refrain from making idiotic remarks about Catholicism, so this criticism doesn't apply to you. Your EXCUSING this behavior is a different matter entirely. The fact that you don't care about church history doesn't make it OK for people to abuse it.

"He's been requested to calm his tone down [not that he has to change his positions in the slightest], but instead he grows more belligerent that we do not adopt his metaphysics."

I don't care whether you adopt my metaphysics or not! I care if you call it incoherent without presenting an argument to the contrary (because I do spend one heck of a lot of time working on it), and I really care if you attach some swear word to it like "subordinationism" or "apollinarimonophysitism" without backing it up.

"I for one have grown tired of Prejean's intellectual/scholarly affectations in these matters. He has been pretentious, relying heavily on the snark factor to make his points for him. And, when people don't agree with him, he labels them as hacks and frauds."

No, when people are dishonest by basic standards of scholarship, I call them hacks and frauds. I've found that to be the case with disturbing frequency among NoTRoMans.

"No --- people aren't wrong with Prejean --- they're fraudulent. Remember, Jonathan hates it when people talk to each other as if they're stupid, because that really isn't very nice. He's a Christian, you know, and he believes that there is supposedly a higher standard of conduct that is to be followed."

Yes, and when that standard of conduct is violated, it isn't un-Christian to call people on it. This isn't a matter of disagreement; this is a matter of basic intellectual honesty. These people ought to be smart enough to know how to honestly cite sources, and somehow, they can't manage it.

"My final comment on this whole affair is that for the Prejean-of-late, it seems to be all about appearances. And, just remember all --- you're stupid, you're hacks, and you're frauds. Jonathan will gladly inform you of that as well as whatever message boards exist to which he can play. But please, in the case where you disagree with him, extend to him the courtesy of merely thinking he's wrong --- don't personalize it or anything, as that isn't being a good boy."

If my charges of Nestorianism were as slimy as their charges of heresy or inconsistency, you'd have a point. As it is, this isn't about disagreement. It's about not even having the basic responsibility to have an intelligent discussion.

"The Prejean of today is not the friendlier Prejean of old --- somebody with whom I could disagree amicably, to say the least. Perhaps that is just one of his duplicitous faces to cover up the ugly reality that has manifested itself, perhaps it isn't. I'm in no position to know which is the case."

Amicable disagreement requires both sides to take the basic honesty of the other side for granted and to behave according to appropriate standards (including not impugning the other side's honesty without evidence). I've never seen you break them. Can't say that for your compadres.

"Yes, this post is strongly worded, but these are my thoughts and, in my own possibly faulty judgement, such things need to be said. I popped off to Jonathan once and apologized, as well I should, since such behavior is really unacceptable. But, for Jonathan, such behavior is acceptable; the more, the better, it seems. I'd like the old Prejean back, if the old Prejean ever existed. But it is a fact that people change, and maybe that is just the simplest explanation of what has gone on as of late."

You're not paying attention. Svendsen came out against my standards of scholarship. I was happy to let sleeping dogs lie until he was dumb enough to come at me personally. I let Engwer crow about my supposed "lack of argument," despite Perry's rather-extensive demonstration of why his claim of having made an argument for his side was unwarranted. I let Hays continue to spout his unsupported idiocy about hesychasm. But Svendsen just teed me off with that shot about "dubious scholarship." For that dishonest hack (at least where historical theology is concerned) to complain about my scholarship was far too much for me to take.

There's a simpler explanation really. Maybe your friends really are hacks. You ought to think about it.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 9:18:00 AM  
Blogger Jason Engwer said...

CrimsonCatholic said:

"He's a guy with a bachelor's degree in English who accuses Perry Robinson (a Ph.D candidate in philosophy, and one of the best-read human beings I've ever met; puts Hays to shame) as if he doesn't know anything about argumentation. It's immature."

Actually, what's immature is your misrepresentation of what happened. I didn't say that Perry "doesn't know anything about argumentation". To the contrary, I said, in my discussion with him on the Reformed Catholicism blog several months ago, that his education and his efforts to study the issues are commendable. But I don't have to agree with him on every issue in order to recognize that there's some value in his educational background and knowledge. For example, when he misrepresents my beliefs, to the point where he had to admit that he had misapplied his definition of evidentialism to me, then there's nothing wrong with my saying that he was in error. Or when Robinson equates my historical argument for scripture with arguing like an atheist, there's nothing wrong with my saying that he's wrong, since he is. Again, I think your tendency to misrepresent issues like these tells us more about your immaturity than mine.

You go on:

"The way it ordinarily works is that someone (Hays, Svendsen, or Engwer) says something stupid about history or makes a bad argument, I point out that it's stupid, and the chest-puffing comes from the other side"

None of the people you've named have said anything as "stupid" as your claims about church history. Your errors on Papias and Eusebius, for example, were of a basic nature, and they spanned multiple discussions in multiple forums lasting several months. You repeatedly got basic facts wrong (on issues that are easy to understand), even after being corrected, and you made claims that no patristic scholar agrees with, all the while saying that your opponents should be supporting their patristic claims with citations of patristic scholarship. Even worse, your system of authority is so unsupportable that you repeatedly refused to make a case for it, all the while putting forward an occasional argument here or there, followed by backtracking whenever those arguments were shown to be indefensible. You tell us of the infallibility of the church being "axiomatic". You tell us that apostolic succession was universally accepted all along, then you tell us that it was universal "after Nicaea", and you leave your claims largely undefined and undocumented along the way. You make vague references to how the early churches were in fellowship with the Roman church, but you do nothing to show how such a fact leads to your conclusions. Etc.

Any errors I, Steve Hays, or Eric Svendsen have made are minor relative to your vastly erroneous system of authority, your incoherent and unverifiable appeals to allegorical interpretation, and your frequent arbitrariness and double standards. The fact that you place so much weight on things like Cyril of Alexandria's Christology and your newfound appreciation for John McGuckin's work on Cyril, all the while relying on all sorts of speculation and error on more significant issues, tells us something. All that you're doing is trying to focus people's attention on the areas where you consider yourself most knowledgeable, all the while wanting us to overlook your weaknesses in more significant areas.

You said:

"Let's talk about the regular theme of crowing about me not presenting an argument based on people who don't present rigorous arguments themselves."

These are online forums. If you don't want to present summaries, then don't participate in online forums. All of us could write book-length material on our beliefs. That isn't something unique to you. But truths can be argued for in summary form, or you can argue for one element of your system in detail without having to present every piece of evidence for your entire system. (And, no, it doesn't make sense to begin an argument for Catholicism by discussing an Eastern Orthodox scholar's view of Cyril of Alexandria.) Is the alleged truthfulness of Roman Catholicism so difficult to see that you can't present any summary form of it, but instead must write a book about it? On the one hand, you tell us that people like Karl Keating and Phil Porvaznik have already adequately addressed these issues. On the other hand, you want us to believe that you refrain from making a case for Catholicism only because it would require a format such as a book rather than an online forum. Which is it? Should we be convinced by the sort of material we see in Catholic Answers tracts? Or should we wait for Jonathan Prejean's book?

You said:

"These people ought to be smart enough to know how to honestly cite sources, and somehow, they can't manage it."

You do this often. You demand that we cite sources for a high percentage of the claims we make, yet you yourself rarely cite sources. Even in the same posts in which you criticize us for not citing enough sources, you go on to make all sorts of claims without the citation of a single source. Yes, you'll cite sources on a subject you know more about, like Cyril of Alexandria's Christology, but you also make all sorts of claims about many other subjects without citing many, if any, sources in the process. You need to stop applying a double standard. You would never have made some of the claims you've been making about Galatians, First Clement, Papias, Eusebius, apostolic succession, and other subjects if you were as concerned with scholarly support as you profess to be.

Like Pedantic Protestant said, you seem to be more concerned with appearances than substance at this point.

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Jonathan and I are at loggerheads, apparently, with irreconcilable differences.

Jonathan thinks it is drama-queenish for me to equate his condescenion in the "Bible-n-me" quote with condescension for Protestantism. Given that one of the planks of Prot'ism is SS, I find the inference I made to be quite reasonable. He doesn't. The comment wasn't made in any three-hankie he-hurt-my-widdle-feelings sense, btw [I'm a big boy], but merely to illustrate what I saw as his earlier pretense.

Jonathan claims that one can be scriptural and still possibly be Nestorian. I claim that if one is scriptural, one is not in any soul-destroying heretical danger. Call me whatever you'd like if I'm scriptural. This is the RC/Prot divide at work again.

There are plenty of other disagreements. In my estimation, it is pointless to go into them while things are charged.

Oh well, I've had my say in this matter.

Life now goes on for everybody, heretics and Nestorians included [both real and alleged]. Let's all have a pleasant Saturday, despite the fact that it is only going to be in the low 70's in NorCal.

[Edited, re-edited, and re-re-edited.]

Saturday, September 10, 2005 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger CrimsonCatholic said...

PP:
"Jonathan thinks it is drama-queenish for me to equate his condescenion in the 'Bible-n-me' quote with condescension for Protestantism. Given that one of the planks of Prot'ism is SS, I find the inference I made to be quite reasonable. He doesn't."

Well, then, I sincerely apologize for that. My reference was solely to people who are so "Bible-n-me" that they think that things like Nestorianism and anti-Nicene Christology can be found "in Scripture," and I have difficulty comprehending how anyone who sets the normative content of Scripture that low could possibly be "respecting" it. I think the former is simply from careless lack of study among Protestants and willingness to take the word of flaming liberals like Harnack no matter how implausible their opinion becomes (Harold O.J. Brown is a glaring example), because they dislike Catholicism just that much. I think the latter is just
nuts; Warfield was absolutely off his rocker on that point in even claiming that Calvin taught that garbage, and I think the Old Princeton school (particularly Warfield and Charles Hodge along with J. Gresham Machen) represent exactly the point when most American Evangelicalism went off its rails entirely in terms of being a Christian religion. There are lots of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Barthians, Wesleyans, Anglicans, and even Baptists that don't follow along with it, and by some miraculous coincidence, they're the ones who aren't rabidly anti-Catholic.

But I have enjoyed the weather in SoCal, and I am going out to enjoy more of it.

Jason:
You asked for it, kid. I was going to spare you since I had already taken down your boss.

http://p090.ezboard.com/fgregsdiscussionboardgodtalk.showMessage?topicID=4132.topic

Saturday, September 10, 2005 4:18:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

centuriOn, when have I ever 'retired' from an exchange with you? Or run, or whatever? You delete and edit (and ban) me, I've never deleted or edited a single word you've written.

I'm a 'snark and run' type? No, I'm the type where you need to get a swat team to drag me away from your door...

I hold the field once I've 'retired' every challenger. I don't leave. I'm still here.

I mean think about it: I'm currently banned from making comments on your haloscan system. You know where I am, and your comments have never been deleted or left unresponded to.

It's hilarious how defeated lukewarm Protestant types always want to class me in with Roman Catholics. It actually doesn't work if I'm not of the Beast, sorry... Retreat into unreality isn't a choice in battle. It only seems to work when you accompany it with deleting and banning...

Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:42:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

It occurs to me, centuriOn, that you were just following along in the wake of Steve Hays and then the P.P. in associating me with Roman Catholics.

You're the kid who's always half a block behind on your bike from the other kids, but you eventually catch up...

Saturday, September 10, 2005 5:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>There are lots of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Barthians, Wesleyans, Anglicans, and even Baptists that don't follow along with it, and by some miraculous coincidence, they're the ones who aren't rabidly anti-Catholic.


But they are usually also the ones that are theological liberals, yet you condemn Harnack for being a flaming liberal. So, it seems you accept liberals when they favor you and reject them when they disfavor you, so the real determinant of your preference is yourself not the views of others.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:15:00 PM  
Blogger Jason Engwer said...

Jonathan, you sweet talker! Your flattery won't work on me. I've got a response posted on the blog:

http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/another-look-at-jonathan-prejeans.html

I think that Jonathan's latest replies illustrate, once again, not only the falsity of his claims to be retiring, but also the falsity of his claim that his Evangelical critics aren't upsetting him. He does seem to be upset, doesn't he?

Jason Engwer
http://members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
http://www.ntrmin.org

Saturday, September 10, 2005 6:51:00 PM  
Blogger Eric Svendsen said...

"You asked for it, kid. I was going to spare you since I had already taken down your boss"
You have? That's news to me, ambulance chaser. Why don't you answer my questions? Oh yes, that's right; it would expose you for the liar you are. What a loser.

Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this really does not mean anything what so ever, but what is the gospel??

Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:43:00 AM  
Blogger c.t. said...

I know this really does not mean anything what so ever, but what is the gospel??

It's the light that the Roman Catholic church so desperately and tirelessly attempts to keep in the dark.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:06:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Anon asked about just what the gospel is.

It is that God has punished *your* sins --- sins that should merit your damnation --- in the person of Jesus Christ, so that you may be freely accounted as righteous in God's sight through faith-alone, being at peace with God, and in turn receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And not only are you at peace with God, your are an heir to His eternal kingdom that is to be established a the eschaton.

See Rom 1:16-17, 3:21-28, the argument given in Rom 4, 5:1-11, and, so I'd say, all of Rom 8. Actually, a detailed study of Romans will fully explain the gospel.

John 3:16 is much more brief, but it is about as handy a slogan as one can have.

In literature, Christian in The Pilgrim's Progress had the burden [which neither he nor anybody could remove] on his back fall off on its own accord upon gazing at the cross.

The Cross

Now I saw in my dream, that the highway up which CHRISTIAN was to go was fenced on either side with a wall; and that wall was called "Salvation".

"In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks."
~ Isaiah 26:1 ~


Up this way, therefore, did burdened CHRISTIAN run; but not without great difficulty, because of the load on his back.

He ran thus till he came at a place somewhat ascending; and upon that place stood a Cross, and a little below, in the bottom, a sepulchre. So I saw in my dream, that just as CHRISTIAN came up to the cross, his burden loosed from off his shoulders, and fell from off his back, and began to tumble; and so continued to do till it came to the mouth of the sepulchre, where it fell in, and I saw it no more.

Then was CHRISTIAN glad and lightsome, and said, with a merry heart,

"He hath given me rest by his sorrow,
And life by his death."

Then he stood still awhile to look and wonder; for it was very surprising to him, that the sight of the cross should thus ease him of his burden. He looked therefore, and looked again, even till the springs that were in his head sent the waters down his cheeks.

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
~ Zechariah 12:10 ~


Now, as he stood looking and weeping, behold three shining ones came to him, and saluted him with, "Peace be to thee!" so the first said to him, "Thy sins be forgiven thee";

"When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee."
~ Mark 2:5 ~


the second stripped him of his rags, and clothed him with change of raiment;

"And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment."
~ Zechariah 3:4 ~


the third also set a mark in his forehead, and gave him a roll with a seal upon it,

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise"
~ Ephesians 1:13 ~


which he bade him look on as he ran, and that he should give it in at the Celestial Gate: so they went their way. Then CHRISTIAN gave three leaps for joy, and went on singing:

"Thus far did I come laden with my sin,
Nor could aught ease the grief that I was in,
Till I came hither. What a place is this!
Must here be the beginning of my bliss!
Must here the burden fall from off my back!
Must here the strings that bound it to me crack!
Blest cross! blest sepulchre! blest rather be
The Man that there was put to shame for me!"

Sunday, September 11, 2005 2:13:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

See the latest thread.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 2:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prot said "It is that God has punished *your* sins --- sins that should merit your damnation --- in the person of Jesus Christ, so that you may be freely accounted as righteous in God's sight through faith-alone, being at peace with God, and in turn receiving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And not only are you at peace with God, your are an heir to His eternal kingdom that is to be established a the eschaton."

There was a time I really believed that, I have learned though, mercy is for the weak and weakness will not be tolerated. Rather sad what has happened to the "Gospel".

Sunday, September 11, 2005 3:07:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Anon --- if you have an issue with me, please don't be elliptical, just say it. If you think "*your*" was directed at you, it wasn't, as "your" includes me and the guy down the street.

I don't understand the cryptic allusions in your post.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

prot said "Anon --- if you have an issue with me, please don't be elliptical, just say it. If you think "*your*" was directed at you, it wasn't, as "your" includes me and the guy down the street.

I don't understand the cryptic allusions in your post. "

Actually no, you are one of the very few who have even taken the time to answer that, on the internet I fully understand it. In real life with people you go to church with for years it tears ones guts out and makes one, like myself, very Cynical. It just seems that when people are at their weakest and they need the Gospel the most is when they are Abandoned.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 4:57:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

To combat your cynicism, just remember that the truth and efficacy of the agents behind the gospel is in no way affected by your actions nor the actions of others. I left a church after something very meaningful to me crumbled against my will, and, cynical though I was about people, the truth of the gospel was never in doubt because of the events.

People must be confronted with the fact that they're in a wretched and deficient state before they can appreciate and appropriate the contents of the gospel. Some people view this as kicking somebody when they're down. But, hopefully, the gospel is presented as well. Actually, Rom 1:18-3:20 will kick you pretty hard in the teeth, but all of a sudden 3:21-3:28 will pull you up to the very heart of the good news. Note too that the truths of Rom 3:21-28 in no way depend upon you or others --- they are what they are.

Let that be a comfort if you're oppressed, or if your own conscience oppresses you with the reality of your sin. I have much experience with the latter option.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

prot said"People must be confronted with the fact that they're in a wretched and deficient state before they can appreciate and appropriate the contents of the gospel. Some people view this as kicking somebody when they're down"

Not at all its the being ignored that causes the pain. Personally I think we all are born alone and from what I have seen we all die totally alone, Maybe God gives us rest in that, I have not seen it. Which of course does not mean anything. I am not cynical about God, I am cynical about people who speak for God, not referring to you of course.

There comes a time that a hug, a handshake, even an I understand would Go miles for a wounded soul. That of course is emotionalism but it is where most people live at when in need. From that I thank you for your kind response. I will not trouble folks anymore, I have been given something to think on.

A point of view from someone, like myself, who is very far in the cheap seats. I do not see Catholics and protestants that far apart. Take it for what very little I am sure it is worth.

Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:10:00 PM  
Blogger c.t. said...

Anon, you sound like the famous 'brian' who posts the 'what is the gospel' question everywhere, and no matter what answer you get (I gave you one on Armstrong's site when I thought you were genuinely interested in a response), again, no matter what answer you get you respond with the same spiel. In other words, you don't care what the answer is. Now respond with the part about your father, etc., etc...

Sunday, September 11, 2005 8:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ct I thought long and hard about what you said, It was really Callous, though unitentional. I was not toying with you and I did read what folks say. But I wont try to excuse my behavior and you are correct. I do ask for your forgiveness. Thanks for the kick in the pants.

Monday, September 12, 2005 6:01:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

C'mon, c.t., unless you know something I don't, which I'll grant is possible, that's pretty harsh.

I personally try to ask "What is the gospel" every time I approach the sacred text. After all, the law and the prophets testify to the gospel, so saith St Paul.

Monday, September 12, 2005 9:32:00 PM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

If the day comes that I add "MDiv" to my titles, God help me to preach the gospel 'til the parishoners are blue in the face.

However, the MDiv route is a route of very small probability.

Monday, September 12, 2005 9:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home