Know Your Lifts: The Romanian Deadlift (RDL)
-
In the Know Your Lifts series, we’ve covered the high-bar back squat, the
low-bar squat, the power jerk and split jerk, and the overhead press. It’s
been...
14 hours ago
9 comments:
We're still awaiting your reply over at Veith's blog.
I, in particular wouldn't mind hearing back from you.
And more or less, you and your cohorts are participating more or less in mockery rather than in serious theological inquiry--there is a point where a wise man chooses to disengage.
I will comment once more, but knowing that as the thread has exceeded 150 comments, many of them angrily accusing brothers in Christ of unfaithfulness to Scripture as they understand it, it may be a useless proposition.
Go back and read the one comment you left in the middle of that conversation (@53, before we requested you to follow up) and think really hard before you complain about "mockery", Bubba. After leaving that comment, are you now going to complain about "more or less" mockery and being picked on?
I would think that someone worried about "useless propositions" and lengthy, angry discussions wouldn't have suddenly inserted himself some 50 comments into a discussion that was pretty clearly not in agreement with him, only to lob some bombs he knew would be controversial, and not follow up on them once they produced the inevitable response.
Hmm?
Also, I wrote two replies to your comments (starting here) which were completely earnest. Thought I'd point that out, since you don't seem to be following that discussion over there. Hate to be taking up your comments here, but you haven't told me your email address.
tODD, the ugly reality here, now that I think about it, is that you and Bror, among others, are more or less assuming that those with whom you disagree are not only wrong, but rather are willfully ignoring the clear counsel of Scripture--more or less sinning against the Holy Spirit's clear counsel.
Which is also to accuse all of the non-Lutheran theological greats of willful sin. I want you to think about that a minute; obviously Spurgeon, Augustine, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Menno Simons, Wesley, and a host of others have missed what you see as the "clear intent" of the passages to which you refer.
In refusing to admit that a plausible explanation for a non-Lutheran view of the ordinances exists, you and Bror are clearly crossing a line into a distinct lack of charity--one that speaks more strongly against your view than anything Spurgeon, Gill, or MacArthur ever wrote.
Bubba, the ugly reality is that we disagree and at least one of us is wrong. Beyond that, it's just semantics.
For instance, you draw a line between being merely "wrong" and "willfully ignoring the clear counsel of Scripture". Frankly, I consider this -- and any other distinctions between sinning and "willful" sinning -- an unbiblical distinction.
I mean, can you really argue that your position isn't "willful"? You appear to be engaging it in quite voluntarily, or else you wouldn't be so forceful about it. But failing that, you would be forced to claim that the "counsel of Scripture" isn't clear -- that God biffed it, in other words, when it came to inspiring Scripture.
But if Scripture is understandable, and absolute truth exists and has been communicated to us by God through Scripture, and if you willfully hold to that which is contrary to Scripture ... what else would you call it?
For what it's worth, I fully expect you to accuse me of the same. That you don't is, I believe, a sign of how much modern Christianity is afflicted with liberal relativism: you can't bring yourself to actually say I'm holding to heresy, can you?
Appealing to authority, as you do, won't work on me -- it is, ultimately, a logical fallacy. Nor will appealing to popularity. We both know that men are sinful. Pointing to people and saying "But they're really good people!" is foolish. I know a lot of really great atheists that have likewise missed the "clear intent" of Scripture. They know what it says, they just don't think what it actually says is true.
And sorry, but it is never "charitable" to defend error -- actively or passively. Nor, frankly, do I believe you really hold to this line of thinking. Why else would you so ardently defend your theology against ours, time and again? And would you pull out that "charity" line if we were talking about the "bad" Christians in liberal mainline denominations?
Look, sin is sin. And denying God's truth is sin. There are not multiple "truths" we can pick from. I don't know why you think otherwise.
Nice bit of semantics, but the fact of the matter is that you, Bror, and others are accusing people of knowingly deceiving others--and in the process, you're accusing every non-Lutheran theologian of the same.
You don't need to defend yourself there. You need to apologize; there is a difference between being wrong and lying, and accusing someone who is merely wrong of lying is simply slander.
Bubba, I would expect someone who complains about "semantics" wouldn't engage in the behavior he decries.
"You ... are accusing people of knowingly deceiving others." Um, no. That kind of sounds like slander on your part.
I'm accusing you of "willfully ignoring the clear counsel of Scripture" and of "willful sin". And it would be specious semantics for you to claim that that's equal to "knowingly deceiving others". If we must use your phrasing, I would argue that you are willfully deceiving yourself, allowing your reason to trump the actual words of Scripture, and believing that reasonableness makes theology true.
Of course, I would add that there is no one who isn't guilty of such willfulness. We are not saved by having the perfect doctrine, any more than we are saved by living a sinless life -- to claim otherwise would be to exalt ourselves. Our sinful nature fights every day against both of these, and wins.
I will not apologize for holding to the truth. Nor will I concede that doing so is "slander".
tODD, I'm not telling you to apologize for telling the truth. I'm telling you to apologize for accusing people of willful sin, when all they've done is interpret the Scriptures to the best of their ability and knowledge.
Sorry, but being wrong is not "willful sin." It is "being wrong," and right now, you're doing a great job of being wrong in your confusion abou this. It's akin to calling someone a "liar" for merely being wrong.
By the way, you're wrong about the ordinances. Your trouble is that you're reading the Gospels and epistles as if they were written to tenth generation Lutherans, not to first century Jews and Greeks.
Post a Comment