Iconize
From Kristos Vocabulary Booster
Verb
1. To form an image or likeness of (Cudworth) 2. To minimize a window on a computer screen (Kahn)
In article
says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>
>> > You
>> >confuse the Greek notion of determinism or "system" with the
>biblical
>> >Christian idea of God's control of all things.
>>
>> You miss the point, Loren. It is you, with your slavery to Calvinism,
>who have
>> confused the Greek notion of determinism with the CHristian idea of
>God's
>> providential control. That is why you reduce us to automota.
>>
>I would suggest the take another look at the fathers.
I have, and that is how I know how wrong you are, Loren!
> This was their
>failure as well.
It was no _failure_. You simply misunderstood what they were doing.
> Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
>Athenagoras, Irenaeus, even Tertulian, the founder of Latin
>Chrisitanity, all failed at exactly the same point that you do,
>Matthew.
It was no 'failure', and no, it was not the same as what I am talking about. You
are simply returning like a dog to its vomit, to your old bad habit of putting
square pegs in round holes.
> And grant you, like these just mentioned, you hold to a
>committment to the Rule of Faith and you readily maintain the truth
>against heresy, yet like these men you seem to think of a general
>theism maintained by the same presuppositions of men who were not
>Christian and of Christianity as adding something to this general
>theism. And like Tertulian, great strides have been made in
>Trinitarian discussion, yet there remains to some extent a bounding to
>the principle of cosmological Logos theology.
What _are_ you talking about? You sound like you are hiding your two-cent ideas
behind 64-dollar words.
>> > You identify more with
>> >the non-Christian idea of indeterminism, namely, that of free will
>or
>> >human autonomy than the biblical view of man being created
>responsible.
>>
>> But what YOU call "the biblical view" is NOT. Again, if you would
>actually LOOK
>> at the Augustine citation, you would see how he explains that that
>> 'responsibility' in turn implies MAN HAS FREE WILL.
>>
>Again, one must distinquish between his earlier work and his later
>work.
But you yourself consistently REFUSE to do this. Haven't you even looked at the
date yet for the work of his I consistently quote? It was written during the
last 4 years of his life. I ahve NOT confused his earlier opinions.
>For instance, his Christian theology did not allow for either a
>non-Christian a priori or for a non-Christian a posteriori type of
>reasoning. Innate knowledge and acquired knowledge are involved in one
>another. They are interdependent as they are limiting concepts one of
>another. They are dilectically related to one another. But they must
>be placed upon the Christian presupposition of the triune God as
>self-contained and the doctrines of creation and providence, and he did
>so place them _in his later work. But in his earliest writings, and
>especially when defending the Christian faith apolgetically, he
>employed a non-Christian notion of abstract Truth and therefore also a
>non-Christian notion of brute fact.
But the _moment_ you start prating about his "earliest writing" you are already
missing the point: I am talking about a view clearly enunciated in his _later_
writings, written within the last four years of his life.
Stop throwing up elaborate smoke-screens. You are not very good at it.
>And what of credo ut intelligam?
What OF it?
>Here he maintains that faith preceeds
>knowledge. This meant that faith is someting practical by which the
>faithful are brought into contact with objects which are already known
>from within. So this extends to mean that the Platonic or neo-Platonic
>theory of truth required a definition of knowldge which assumes that
>man inherently knos all things. Man is potentially omniscient. Does
>he not exist as participant in Truth? And truth is eternal. For the
>soul of man to exist it must exist as eternal and therefore as being
>virtually or potentially omniscient.
>
>The whole point is that even Augustinian theology has a depth of
>weakness which was not expunged from Christian theological
>presuppositional thinking until the Reformation pinned the ears back on
>the Latin (and Eastern) Churches as to the depravity of man as taught
>sola scriptura.
But this NEVER happened! What the 'Reformation' pinned on the CHurch was
neo-manicheanism, NOT CHristianity at all!
>This is why the EOC is like the RCC in that it
>presupposes man's autonomy and authority.
No, that is not why. The EOC and RCC are NOT identical on this issue, but the
very great similarity is because even the RCC understands our common heritage
better than you do.
>> >The basic reason for your failure in both these identifications is
>> >simply your refusal of the absolute authority of the Bible.
>>
>> Because, as I have so often pointed out to you, the Bible itsels
>teaches NO such
>> "absolute authority". Neither does the Church.
>>
>It is both self-attesting and necessitated.
No, it is neither.
> Prior to the fall, man
>could receive direct revelation from God.
And even after. SO what IS your point?
> But now scripturalization is
>required.
So YOU say. But haven't you noticed? Fewer and fewer people find your
'arguments' persuasive. Haven't you wondered why? I'm pretty sure I know the
answer;)
> Any other system reverts to relativistic rationalism.
No, not true.
>> > You refuse
>> >to accept the biblical doctrine that God is in control of every
>thing
>> >-the biblical principle of continuity- which in itself requires the
>> >Christian principle of indeterminism. These are correlative of
>> >another.
>>
>> You give lip service to this idea, but then deny it pretty quickly.
>>
>> > Simply put, it is a mystery and CANNOT be penetrated by the
>> >puny mind of man.
>>
>> So why do you keep denying free will? Don't you see that when you do
>this, you
>> claim to have penetrated into this mystery?
>>
>No, rather I understand the effects of the fall as biblically revealed.
But this is circular reasoning.
> "in that day you shall surely die," meant, in effect, that when man
>sinned, he committed suicide.
But Adam kept on living. So you are still missing the point of this verse.
> And we all know that once man kills
>himself, he cannot undo what he has done by an equal act of the will.
But since Adam kept on living in some sense, it is NOT clear that this aspect of
"killing himself" is meant to be included.
>Therefore, like his sensibilites, like his intellect, equally so the
>will of man fell. The inclination of the will cannot regenerate
>itself. It is sola deo.
More pious sounding gobbldy-gook that doesn't actually _say_ anything!
>> > The relationship between an all controlling,
>> >sovereign God as expressed via the authority He has given to His
>> >written word, and the responsibility of man is NOT contradictory
>since
>> >it is in God that it finds full and final internal coherence.
>>
>> That is a pious _sounding_ non sequitur. But you _do_ display quite a
>penchant
>> for nonsense with a pious ring to it, don't you?
>>
>YOU HAVE NO ANSWER. You have provided no rebuttal to what is written.
How am I suppose to "have an answer" to non sequiturs, except, of course, to
point out that it IS a non sequitur?
Really, Loren, no other answer is needed. And THAT answer I _do_ have.
> That is because there is no answer to the Reformed proposition.
No, it is because no answer is possible, except the answer I already gave. STop
ignoring it. It IS a non sequitur.
Admit it.
--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
