Discussion:
Life & Death in the EOC
(too old to reply)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-07-25 01:35:02 UTC
Permalink
I have two married friends at church who have come out of the Eastern
Orthodox Church. Their families have rebuffed them for it but still
extended the hand of fellowship, though cool to frosty at times. Their
daughter recently got engaged and set the date for the wedding and
began making plans and arrangements. The mothers father went into the
hospital for heart complications so the daughter delayed the wedding
for two months. The fathers conditions stabilized but did not greatly
improve. Then one day, as her mother parked the car in the hospital
parking lot and was making her way up the sidewalk to the front door,
she had a massive heart attack and died on the spot. Upon be informed
the tragedy, her father also, just hours later, had a massive heart
attack and died. This occurred 35 days before the wedding.

Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in. The family is required
to set aside 40 days for grieving. So the poor girl not only has lost
both her parents, but is now being told by both familes, that they will
not attend the daughters wedding because it isn't proper to have
such an event within 40 days.

Paul employes the term paradosis in Col 2:8. We translate it to read
in English, "tradition," or literally, "that which is handed down."
This is where the OC and other churches place their own "traditions"
over the authority of Scripture. As Paul warns in Colossians today we
find it applicable to those assemblies which raise up such arbitrary,
speculative ceremonial systems as this 40 day morning period and place
them over the freedom won by every believer in Christ.

"Be ever on your guard lest there shall be someone who leads you astray
through his vain speculation, even futile deceit, which is according to
the tradition of men, according to the rudimentary teachings of the
world, and not according to Christ." Col 2:8.
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-26 03:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
I have two married friends at church who have come out of the Eastern
Orthodox Church.
That was a big mistake on their part.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Their families have rebuffed them
Of course.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
for it but still extended the hand of fellowship, though cool to
frosty at times. Their daughter recently got engaged and set the
date for the wedding and began making plans and arrangements. The
mothers father went into the hospital for heart complications so the
daughter delayed the wedding for two months. The fathers conditions
stabilized but did not greatly improve. Then one day, as her mother
parked the car in the hospital parking lot and was making her way up
the sidewalk to the front door, she had a massive heart attack and
died on the spot. Upon be informed the tragedy, her father also,
just hours later, had a massive heart attack and died. This occurred
35 days before the wedding.
Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in.
That isn't 'legalistic'. It is common decency. Somehow, I am not
surprised that you confuse common decency for 'legalism'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The family is required to set aside 40 days for grieving.
This is the right thing to do. But Protestants have set aside this
pious practice because of their _own_ tradition, a tradition that is
_truly a man-made tradation, the tradition of neglecting prayer for
the dead.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the poor girl not only has lost both her parents, but is now being
told by both familes, that they will not attend the daughters wedding
because it isn't proper to have such an event within 40 days.
Ever hear of rescheduling? Why don't they reschedule? It is always
easier to reschedule when there are still so many days before the
event.

As for her family being so inflexible, this is not based on the
Tradition. 35 is close enough to forty that the principle of OIKONOMIA
can apply. But since you describe this family as having _left_
Orthodoxy, they have nowhere to turn to get a valid pastoral
dispensation. Perhaps this is why the family is being so inflexible.

But it is impossible to tell, since your _entire_ account of the
circumstances is poisoned by your intense, irrational anti-Orthodox
bias.

On the other hand, what I _can_ tell is that it is not in a spirit of
any "legalistic rub" that the family is doing this; they genuinely
feel slighted by her decision to go ahead with the wedding anyway. If
you really knew the Christian Tradition, especially what goes on the
forty days after death, you would understand this.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul employes the term paradosis in Col 2:8. We translate it to read
in English, "tradition," or literally, "that which is handed down."
That would be too literal. 'Tradition' is certainly correct here. It
_is_ violating the tradition to have a wedding during a period of
mourning.

And despite your accusations, this is NOT legalism. It is every bit as
justified as ending a party and sending the guests home when the host
dies.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is where the OC and other churches place their own "traditions"
over the authority of Scripture.
You forget, no doubt deliberately: Scripture itself _has_ no authority
except what it derives from Tradition. For without Tradition, we would
have no way of knowing which books belong in Scripture and which do
not. Do you really think that Paul's epistles were the only ones
claiming so great an authority? They were not, which renders your
_entire_ approach to Scriptural authority worthless.

But rather than recognize this basic fact of Christian history, you
resort to a plethora of excuses for avoiding the truth.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
As Paul warns in Colossians today we find it applicable to those
assemblies which raise up such arbitrary, speculative ceremonial
systems as this 40 day morning period and place them over the freedom
won by every believer in Christ.
"Be ever on your guard lest there shall be someone who leads you
astray through his vain speculation, even futile deceit, which is
according to the tradition of men, according to the rudimentary
teachings of the world, and not according to Christ." Col 2:8.
"Vain speculation", Loren, is what you feed us shovels of in this
NG. ALL your 'dispensationalism' is "vain speculation". All your
teachings concerning eschatology are the "tradition of men".
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-07-27 03:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in.
That isn't 'legalistic'. It is common decency.
Common decency does not set a strict standard as the
OC's 40days. There is NO biblical foundation for this "law."
The decent thing to do is to celebrate the lost of the one
who now "sleeps." One mourns because the one who
has died was lost. True grieving comes from recognizing
that there never was a true confession of faith in Christ,
therefore you will never again share fellowship with that
person, even if you yourself are unregenerate.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The family is required to set aside 40 days for grieving.
This is the right thing to do. But Protestants have set aside this
pious practice because of their _own_ tradition, a tradition that is
_truly a man-made tradation, the tradition of neglecting prayer for
the dead.
Did David pray for his dead son?

The reality is "it is appointed unto man once to die THEN comes
judgment." No amount of prayer will change that verdict. No
amount of prayer will lessen their torment or gain them greater
rewards. So why pray for the dead? It's over. The life of faith
only operates this side of the grave.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the poor girl not only has lost both her parents, but is now being
told by both familes, that they will not attend the daughters wedding
because it isn't proper to have such an event within 40 days.
Ever hear of rescheduling? Why don't they reschedule?
Apparently you live a cloistered life.
Post by Matthew Johnson
It is always
easier to reschedule when there are still so many days before the
event.
Ibid.
Post by Matthew Johnson
As for her family being so inflexible, this is not based on the
Tradition. 35 is close enough to forty that the principle of OIKONOMIA
can apply. But since you describe this family as having _left_
Orthodoxy, they have nowhere to turn to get a valid pastoral
dispensation. Perhaps this is why the family is being so inflexible.
Col. 2:23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of
wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of
the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Post by Matthew Johnson
But it is impossible to tell, since your _entire_ account of the
circumstances is poisoned by your intense, irrational anti-Orthodox
bias.
It is anti-legalism. If the OC proscribes non-biblical law, then
it must bear the brunt of the condemnation. The believer in
Christ no longer lives according to "vain decrees." It is a life
of Grace, a paradigmical change which you seem unable to
grasp or the more likely, accept.
Post by Matthew Johnson
On the other hand, what I _can_ tell is that it is not in a spirit of
any "legalistic rub" that the family is doing this; they genuinely
feel slighted by her decision to go ahead with the wedding anyway.
1) you are presuming this for you have no basis to support your
thesis
2) Christ Himself rebuffed your paradigm by stating, "Let the dead
bury the dead."
3) It is purely legalistic and humanistic because there is no
scriptural support for such a dictum. For if there had been surely
you would have presented it at the outset.
Post by Matthew Johnson
If
you really knew the Christian Tradition, especially what goes on the
forty days after death, you would understand this.
Chapter and verse please.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul employes the term paradosis in Col 2:8. We translate it to read
in English, "tradition," or literally, "that which is handed down."
That would be too literal. 'Tradition' is certainly correct here.
Then its not too literal.
Post by Matthew Johnson
It
_is_ violating the tradition to have a wedding during a period of
mourning.
But who decided that 40 days must be observed? This is more
in vein with the Judaisers that with NT freedom from the law.
Post by Matthew Johnson
And despite your accusations, this is NOT legalism.
Well if it isn't then surely you have a strong scriptural mandate
establishing the fact. But there is none which determines it to
be humanistic.
Post by Matthew Johnson
It is every bit as
justified as ending a party and sending the guests home when the host
dies.
You're reaching. You put on aires but you don't argue logically
let alone scripturally.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is where the OC and other churches place their own "traditions"
over the authority of Scripture.
You forget, no doubt deliberately: Scripture itself _has_ no authority
except what it derives from Tradition.
Haven't read 2 Tim 3:16-17 lately, have we? Haven't taken into account
Christ's own uses of the authoritative nature of Scripture in His
wilderness
testing. It was not His Deity which rebuffed Satan, it was the
Authoritative
Word. Peter in his letter holds Pauline letter equal to the OT canon.
Post by Matthew Johnson
For without Tradition, we would
have no way of knowing which books belong in Scripture
It is not "tradition" but by the Spirit that we know. You conviently
overlook
the basis for the inspiration, providential care and canonization. It
was
not by the will of man along.
Post by Matthew Johnson
and which do
not. Do you really think that Paul's epistles were the only ones
claiming so great an authority?
Tradition does not claim equal authority but greater authority than the

Scriptures for it circumscribes them. You like to bally-hoo "exegesis"
all the time but what is the import when you must first take into
account
the presuppositions of your "traditions?"

The difference between your view of "tradition" and the Protestant view
is that the latter grows out of Scripture and always stands subject to
them. Yours did not and do not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
They were not, which renders your
_entire_ approach to Scriptural authority worthless.
A legend in your own mind.
Post by Matthew Johnson
But rather than recognize this basic fact of Christian history, you
resort to a plethora of excuses for avoiding the truth.
Christian history? You mean Jewish history. Certainly there are
principles within which the Church retains, but only in light of the
unchangeable character of God. This 40 day moritorium cannot
be supported by anything more than "he said/she said" evidence.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
As Paul warns in Colossians today we find it applicable to those
assemblies which raise up such arbitrary, speculative ceremonial
systems as this 40 day morning period and place them over the freedom
won by every believer in Christ.
"Be ever on your guard lest there shall be someone who leads you
astray through his vain speculation, even futile deceit, which is
according to the tradition of men, according to the rudimentary
teachings of the world, and not according to Christ." Col 2:8.
"Vain speculation", Loren, is what you feed us shovels of in this
NG. ALL your 'dispensationalism' is "vain speculation". All your
teachings concerning eschatology are the "tradition of men".
And yet you never substantiate your own claims. Even here, the
argument would have been simple to repudiate if indeed there were
scriptural mandates for such. Far greater is the tradition of the
first day of the week being the Christian day of worship when in
scriptural fact, everyday was veiwed as "the Lord's day." This is
clarified by John's use of it in Rev.

"Dispensationalism" finds its support in Scripture. It also
finds established support in every day life even as the Trinity
finds support in both of these realities. The problem lies in
one's hermeneutic, doesn't it. Let's be fair. You believe in
a method of interpretation which arbitrarily reads one passage
normally, but another allegorically, or sometimes even both.
The grammatical/historic methodology, on the other hand,
treats the text normatively. Where the text calls for a
typological interpretation, or a figurative illustration or a
literal application, it follows the normal rules of grammar,
not some ecclesiastical monarchy establishing the rules.

Again, you model leaves little or no room for the ministry
and the authority of the Spirit.
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-28 03:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in.
That isn't 'legalistic'. It is common decency.
Common decency does not set a strict standard as the
OC's 40days.
Sure, it does.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is NO biblical foundation for this "law."
Yes, there is.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The decent thing to do is to celebrate the lost of the one who now
"sleeps." One mourns because the one who has died was lost.
Another pat answer, I see.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
True grieving comes from recognizing that there never was a true
confession of faith in Christ, therefore you will never again share
fellowship with that person, even if you yourself are unregenerate.
No, Loren, this is completely unchristian. Your distinction between
'mourning' and 'grieving' is highly artificial.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The family is required to set aside 40 days for grieving.
This is the right thing to do. But Protestants have set aside this
pious practice because of their _own_ tradition, a tradition that
is _truly a man-made tradation, the tradition of neglecting prayer
for the dead.
Did David pray for his dead son?
Yes. Was it recorded in the historical books? No. Did it have to be
for it to be true. NO.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The reality is "it is appointed unto man once to die THEN comes
judgment." No amount of prayer will change that verdict.
You miss the point. Prayer is commanded anyway. To do less than that
for the departed is inhumane. To insist dogmatically that prayer for
the departed is wrong, as you do, is even more inhumane.

But of course, this is not the first time you have blindly insisted,
based on your own false dogmatic convictions, on doing and teaching
something inhumane. Oh, no. You have a deeply ingrained tendency
towards the inhumane, as you revealed when you called the love of a
child "completely without value".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
No amount of prayer will lessen their torment or gain them greater
rewards.
This is not true.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So why pray for the dead?
Because what you said is not true. Because it is inhumane to refuse to
do it, just as it is inhumane to walk right past the wounded and dying
while doing nothing for them.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's over.
This is the answer of the pharasaical.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The life of faith only operates this side of the grave.
And in those who deny the duty of prayer for the deceased, the "life
of faith" does not even operate on this side of the grave.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the poor girl not only has lost both her parents, but is now
being told by both familes, that they will not attend the
daughters wedding because it isn't proper to have such an event
within 40 days.
Ever hear of rescheduling? Why don't they reschedule?
Apparently you live a cloistered life.
Now that is a cop-out. It is not even the cop-out I expected from you.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
It is always easier to reschedule when there are still so many days
before the event.
Ibid.
I said 'easier', I didn't say 'easy'. But look at it this way: if she
had scheduled the wedding in an Orthodox Church, they would have
understood the need to reschedule. It is only because she scheduled it
with the heterodox that she has a problem.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
As for her family being so inflexible, this is not based on the
Tradition. 35 is close enough to forty that the principle of OIKONOMIA
can apply. But since you describe this family as having _left_
Orthodoxy, they have nowhere to turn to get a valid pastoral
dispensation. Perhaps this is why the family is being so inflexible.
Col. 2:23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of
wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of
the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
You just described your entire theology, Loren. Especially your
pastoral theology.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
But it is impossible to tell, since your _entire_ account of the
circumstances is poisoned by your intense, irrational anti-Orthodox
bias.
It is anti-legalism.
Then it is entirely out of place here. For as I have already
explained, 'legalism' is NOT the basis of her family's objection.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
If the OC proscribes non-biblical law, then it must bear the brunt of
the condemnation.
Do you know what 'proscribe' means, Loren? It is you who proscribes
it, and you are wrong to do so.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The believer in Christ no longer lives according to "vain decrees."
And when you say the OC "must bear the brunt of the condemnation",
that IS a vain decree.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is a life of Grace, a paradigmical change which you seem unable to
grasp or the more likely, accept.
Despite all your hype, you know nothing of grace. You know only a
counterfeit, which you preach loudly in this NG.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
On the other hand, what I _can_ tell is that it is not in a spirit
of any "legalistic rub" that the family is doing this; they
genuinely feel slighted by her decision to go ahead with the
wedding anyway.
1) you are presuming this for you have no basis to support your
thesis
No, I already explained my basis. Rather than admit it, you simply
trumpet "you are presuming".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
2) Christ Himself rebuffed your paradigm by stating, "Let the dead
bury the dead."
That was NOT "refuffing my paradigm". If only you would actually pat
attention to what He said! Then this would be easy to explain.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
3) It is purely legalistic and humanistic because there is no
scriptural support for such a dictum.
In your unholy zeal for tossing accusations about, you have confused
three different notions: 1) being 'legalistic', 2) being 'humanistic',
and 3) having/lacking scriptural support. There is NO WAY that being
"purely legalistic and humanistic" follows from lacking "scriptural
support".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
For if there had been surely you would have presented it at the
outset.
Not at all. Rather, I know your pernicious habit of insisting on
thoroughly broken hermeneutical principles. And because I know this
pernicious habit of yours, I knew you would deny the basis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
If you really knew the Christian Tradition, especially what goes on
the forty days after death, you would understand this.
Chapter and verse please.
I said "Christian Tradition". Only a part of the Christian Tradition
is expressed in "Chapter and verse".

Also, unlike you, I do not miss the irony. You objected, and rightly
so, when Sarah Kanary stamped her feet demanding "chapter and verse"
proof of the Trinity. Yet here you are doing the same.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Paul employes the term paradosis in Col 2:8. We translate it to read
in English, "tradition," or literally, "that which is handed down."
That would be too literal. 'Tradition' is certainly correct here.
Then its not too literal.
No, because the two you mentioned, "tradition" and "that which is
handed down" are NOT identical.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
It _is_ violating the tradition to have a wedding during a period
of mourning.
But who decided that 40 days must be observed?
The Church decided.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is more in vein with the Judaisers that with NT freedom from the
law.
No, it is not. This is just another of your favorite false accusations
to toss around.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
And despite your accusations, this is NOT legalism.
Well if it isn't then surely you have a strong scriptural mandate
establishing the fact. But there is none which determines it to be
humanistic.
This is such nonsense, it is shocking. How can you keep confusing the
two? 'Legalism' does NOT equal "not having a strong scriptural
mandate". Nor does it "determine it to be humanistic".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
It is every bit as justified as ending a party and sending the
guests home when the host dies.
You're reaching.
No, I am not.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You put on aires but you don't argue logically let alone
scripturally.
You come up with your logical gaffe of confusing 'humanistic' with
'legalistic' and you think you know when others "don't argue
logically"?

Stop and think about it Loren: is there _anyone_ who is fooled by such
reasoning from you? I doubt it. I really do.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is where the OC and other churches place their own
"traditions" over the authority of Scripture.
You forget, no doubt deliberately: Scripture itself _has_ no
authority except what it derives from Tradition.
Haven't read 2 Tim 3:16-17 lately, have we?
Of course I have. But I do not believe in your eisegesis of
it. Remember that Paul was _not_ including his own Epistles as
"Scripture" when he wrote that.

Do you still not see how you have painted yourself into a corner? If
we are really faithful to your much- beloved 'normative' hermeneutic,
then we must recognize that by 'Scriptures', Paul meant Old Testament
Scipture. But then we also have to recognize that everything _Paul_
wrote, even the _entire_ New Testament, are NOT included. But then
finally, this would imply that NONE of the New Testament is in the
canon.

The absurdity of this is proof enough that your hermeneutic is badly
broken.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Haven't taken into account Christ's own uses of the authoritative
nature of Scripture in His wilderness testing.
More eisegesis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It was not His Deity which rebuffed Satan, it was the Authoritative
Word.
The same eisegesis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Peter in his letter holds Pauline letter equal to the OT canon.
What "OT canon"? No one had _ruled_ on the canon yet. At that time,
there was only the Tradition to rely on, the same Tradition you are
denying. Not to mention the _same_ Peter quoted the Book of Enoch in 2
Peter 2:4. Are you going to claim that Enoch should be in the canon
too now?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
For without Tradition, we would have no way of knowing which books
belong in Scripture
It is not "tradition" but by the Spirit that we know.
That is a cop-out, not a rebuttal.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You conviently overlook the basis for the inspiration, providential
care and canonization. It was not by the will of man along.
You miss the point. The Armenians claim to see the same "basic for
inspiration, providential care and canonization" for III
Corinthians. Who are you to say they are wrong? The Ethiopians claim
to see the same for the Book of Enoch.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
and which do not. Do you really think that Paul's epistles were the
only ones claiming so great an authority?
Tradition does not claim equal authority but greater authority than
the Scriptures for it circumscribes them.
'Circumscribes'? This is not as bad a mistake as your misuse of
'proscribe', but you really should stop using words you do not
understand.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You like to bally-hoo "exegesis" all the time but what is the import
when you must first take into account the presuppositions of your
"traditions?"
I have tried to explain the 'import' before, but you have proved
impervious to reason.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The difference between your view of "tradition" and the Protestant
view is that the latter grows out of Scripture and always stands
subject to them.
No, the Protestant view does not. This is a MYTH. It is precisely the
myth that keeps the Protestant movement alive when all common sense
says it should have died long ago.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Yours did not and do not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
They were not, which renders your
_entire_ approach to Scriptural authority worthless.
A legend in your own mind.
No, it is not a 'legend', nor is it just in my mind.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
But rather than recognize this basic fact of Christian history, you
resort to a plethora of excuses for avoiding the truth.
Christian history?
Yes.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You mean Jewish history.
No, I do not. Alas, this misreading of yours is _typical_ of your
stubbornness.

Not to mention ow it is you who reveales himself to be a Judaizer. Yet
you so recently tossed this accusation against me and the entire
OC. Don't you know that such behavior is 'proscribed' by the NT,
Loren?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Certainly there are principles within which the Church retains, but
only in light of the unchangeable character of God.
What was this supposed to mean? You are stumbling over your own words
again.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This 40 day moritorium cannot be supported by anything more than "he
said/she said" evidence.
Not true. Rather this slighting label, "he said/she said evidence"
shows the real problem here: you arbitrarily and fallaciously equate
claims of 'Tradition' with "he said/she said evidence". They are not
the same.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
As Paul warns in Colossians today we find it applicable to those
assemblies which raise up such arbitrary, speculative ceremonial
systems as this 40 day morning period and place them over the
freedom won by every believer in Christ.
"Be ever on your guard lest there shall be someone who leads you
astray through his vain speculation, even futile deceit, which is
according to the tradition of men, according to the rudimentary
teachings of the world, and not according to Christ." Col 2:8.
"Vain speculation", Loren, is what you feed us shovels of in this
NG. ALL your 'dispensationalism' is "vain speculation". All your
teachings concerning eschatology are the "tradition of men".
And yet you never substantiate your own claims.
So you love to repeat. But this is not true.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Even here, the argument would have been simple to repudiate if indeed
there were scriptural mandates for such.
No, because you refuse to _recognize_ "scriptural mandates". You
refuse to recognize them because your broken hermeneutical principles
are more important to you than Scripture is.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Far greater is the tradition of the first day of the week being the
Christian day of worship when in scriptural fact, everyday was veiwed
as "the Lord's day." This is clarified by John's use of it in Rev.
"Dispensationalism" finds its support in Scripture.
No, it does not. We have been over this one before.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It also finds established support in every day life
No, it does not. But seeing support where there is none seems to be
your favorite creative activity, so you are quite creative in finding
'support'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
even as the Trinity finds support in both of these realities.
And yet you are employing the same broken hermeneutical principles
that were used to try to _deny_ the Trinity.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The problem lies in one's hermeneutic, doesn't it.
Finally, you admit the problem, but no doubt in words only. Yes, Loren
it does. In _your_ hermeneutic.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Let's be fair. You believe in a method of interpretation which
arbitrarily reads one passage normally, but another allegorically, or
sometimes even both.
No, that is not 'fair'. There is nothing 'arbitrary' about it. That is
just your biased language which you use to throw mud on the method,
even thought Paul used it himself -- a fact you try desperately to
sweep under the rug.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The grammatical/historic methodology, on the other hand, treats the
text normatively.
No, nothing 'normative' about that.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Where the text calls for a typological interpretation, or a
figurative illustration or a literal application, it follows the
normal rules of grammar, not some ecclesiastical monarchy
establishing the rules.
This is a 'straw-man' argument. Perhaps you would have noticed this if
you did not dogmatically, habitually, and _fallaciously_ lump OC and
RCC together as one.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, you model leaves little or no room for the ministry
and the authority of the Spirit.
No, it is your model that leaves no room for this. For your model
denies that the Spirit _could_ reveal to us the 40 day rule. I say
that the Spirit could and did.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-07-31 03:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in.
That isn't 'legalistic'. It is common decency.
Common decency does not set a strict standard as the
OC's 40days.
Sure, it does.
Now which book of etiquette so states that other than your own. And
how does this differ from say, the Westminster Confession of Faith?
Again, as per usual, you debate without reference.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is NO biblical foundation for this "law."
Yes, there is.
Chapter and verse, dear. I asked before and you have
not accomodated the request.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
True grieving comes from recognizing that there never was a true
confession of faith in Christ, therefore you will never again share
fellowship with that person, even if you yourself are unregenerate.
No, Loren, this is completely unchristian. Your distinction between
'mourning' and 'grieving' is highly artificial.
Here you are again, revealing to all your cloistered experience. There
is clearly an experiential difference. It is one thing to mourn the
loss of a loved one but quite another to grieve over it. If you don't
know the difference then you need to come out of your closet every now
and then and live in the real world.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Did David pray for his dead son?
Yes. Was it recorded in the historical books? No. Did it have to be
for it to be true. NO.
The biblical record is quite clear. What you are now doing is trying
to paint yourself out of the corner you just painted yourself into.
You are scheming to answer. You are a deceiver of the record. So much
for you and your highbrow "exegesis!" Whereis it now? Suddenly you
slink back into the shadows of the argument from silence. David's
record is clear. Once the boy was dead, there was no point in
petitioning God. It was over. You have a problem with understanding
death, don't you. You likewise refuse to acknowledge the fact that all
are born dead in their sins.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The reality is "it is appointed unto man once to die THEN comes
judgment." No amount of prayer will change that verdict.
You miss the point. Prayer is commanded anyway.
Chapter and verse. Where is the great biblical debater now?
Where is it written, "Thou shalt pray for the dead?" Where is it
even hinted at? And beyond this, what is the purpose for it?
Post by Matthew Johnson
To do less than that for the departed is inhumane.
It doesn't involve humanity at that point. You have no answer to my
quote, "It is appointed once to die and then comes judgment." Not
much wiggle room there!
Post by Matthew Johnson
To insist dogmatically that prayer for
the departed is wrong, as you do, is even more inhumane.
vain speculation. You present no biblical argument to support your
case. Why is that?
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, this is not the first time you have blindly insisted,
based on your own false dogmatic convictions, on doing and teaching
something inhumane.
Hey, don't turn the tables here. You are the one who has to defend
a doctrine, not me. Slippery little fellow aren't you?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, no. You have a deeply ingrained tendency
towards the inhumane, as you revealed when you called the love of a
child "completely without value".
this entire paragraph was nothing less than flutter-tonguing.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
No amount of prayer will lessen their torment or gain them greater
rewards.
This is not true.
Chapter and verse please.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So why pray for the dead?
Because what you said is not true. Because it is inhumane to refuse to
do it, just as it is inhumane to walk right past the wounded and dying
while doing nothing for them.
You know what your argumentation reminds me of? You remind me of my
last trip to the Field Museum in Chicago. There the young man showed
us the some bones and told they were X million of years old. Asked I,
"How do you know that?" He answered, "Because of the rock strata they
were found in." Not must later he proceeded to explain the exhibition
rock strata. Asked I, "How do we know how old each strata is." He
answered, "Because of the bones that are found in each."
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It's over.
This is the answer of the pharasaical.
Here, seeing as how you seem incapable of finding the verse yourself:
Heb. 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and
after this comes judgment,

Now is the author of Hebrews being pharasaical?
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
The life of faith only operates this side of the grave.
And in those who deny the duty of prayer for the deceased, the "life
of faith" does not even operate on this side of the grave.
Faith is always based in knowledge. There is no revelation given to us
from God that we are to pray either to or for those who have died.
There is no scriptural passage for this except perhaps Saul's
visitation to the witch of Endor to summon up Samuel.

1 Sam. 28:15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by
bringing me up?"
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the poor girl not only has lost both her parents, but is now
being told by both familes, that they will not attend the
daughters wedding because it isn't proper to have such an event
within 40 days.
Ever hear of rescheduling? Why don't they reschedule?
Apparently you live a cloistered life.
Now that is a cop-out. It is not even the cop-out I expected from you.
It was an answer based upon reality. You do not apparently have
any experience in these things therefore you cannot comprehend
what you so blithely propose.
Post by Matthew Johnson
I said 'easier', I didn't say 'easy'. But look at it this way: if she
had scheduled the wedding in an Orthodox Church, they would have
understood the need to reschedule. It is only because she scheduled it
with the heterodox that she has a problem.
The Church? You think that is all that needs to be rescheduled?
What closet are you living in?
SNIP
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
1) you are presuming this for you have no basis to support your
thesis
No, I already explained my basis. Rather than admit it, you simply
trumpet "you are presuming".
Ha! Ha! Ha! You are so funny! You've explained nothing. But that
is totally beside the point. You have defended nothing as well. Why
is that Matthew. You are so strict with everyone else having to
provide this or than to prove a point. Yet here you have done nothing
except exert your own definition of "inhumane," and "legalistic."

WHERE IS YOUR SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?
Post by Matthew Johnson
In your unholy
How do you know this? Let me now answer as you have done.
Post by Matthew Johnson
zeal for tossing accusations about, you have confused
three different notions: 1) being 'legalistic',
No. I have not.
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) being 'humanistic',
No. I am both well trained in its definition and quite correct in it
application.
Post by Matthew Johnson
and 3) having/lacking scriptural support.
Action speak louder than words, Matthew. Show us all just
on verse that you have quoted or expounded upon to support
your position. Just one. Just one little verse.
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is NO WAY that being
"purely legalistic and humanistic" follows from lacking "scriptural
support".
Then it is you who does not understand the term. You are being
humanistic in that the basis for your doctrine is self-originating.
It is not Divinely originated and ordained or it would be revealed
to us in Scripture. This is an either/or situation.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
For if there had been surely you would have presented it at the
outset.
Not at all. Rather, I know your pernicious habit of insisting on
thoroughly broken hermeneutical principles. And because I know this
pernicious habit of yours, I knew you would deny the basis.
You argue like a spoiled child. Are you so blind? I just read
another rebuttal to one of your replies and they more or less
have arrived at the same conclusion. Stop tap dancing and
give a biblical defense for prayer to or for the dead.
l***@hotmail.com
2006-07-31 03:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
If you really knew the Christian Tradition, especially what goes on
the forty days after death, you would understand this.
Chapter and verse please.
I said "Christian Tradition". Only a part of the Christian Tradition
is expressed in "Chapter and verse".
There you have it folks. "Christian Tradition" stand in judgment of
the
Scriptural record. This is exactly what I have been saying all
these many years.

TRUE, as opposed to humanistic, tradition is BASED on
the Scriptural record. However, prayer for or to the dead is
not to be found in scripture implicitly let alone explicitly
which this thread requires. If you are going to hold peoples
feet to the fire for a "tradition" .i.e. rule/law so strictly, then
there must be an explicit scriptural basis for such.

The ball is in your end of the court, Matthew. Are you going
to play or are you just going to stand there with that stupid
look on your face? Put up or shut up. It's high time someone
called you out. You bash anyone and everyone on either
of these two newsgroups when they fail to give you a proper
answer and yet here you are doing the very same thing.

And I would here petition the moderator to allow this paragraph
for there is little difference between this and the Pauline
experience in dealing with the gnostics who claimed to have
a greater pleroma of sophia, sunesis and epignosis. The
treasures of wisdom are hid in Christ and if this doctrine
of praying for the dead is sound, then there should be
a biblical defense for it. If there is not, then it should be
soundly rebuffed.
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-02 01:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Here's where the legalistic EOC rub comes in.
That isn't 'legalistic'. It is common decency.
Common decency does not set a strict standard as the OC's 40days.
Sure, it does.
Now which book of etiquette
Ah, here is your problem. After raising such a stink when others turn
outside the Bible for legitimate reasons, you yourself turn outside
the Bible, after claiming that it it wrong to do so!
Post by l***@hotmail.com
so states that other than your own. And
how does this differ from say, the Westminster Confession of Faith?
What would that have to do with anything?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Again, as per usual, you debate without reference.
So says the man who turns to bomtast & fallacies so quickly that he
repeatedly demonstrates he does not even know what 'debate' MEANS.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is NO biblical foundation for this "law."
Yes, there is.
Chapter and verse, dear. I asked before and you have not
accomodated the request.
And I explained why. But you snipped the explanation with no rebuttal, not even
a comment.

So now I will not explain, I will merely repeat the conclusion you
failed to rebut: you have NO right to demand chapter and verse.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
True grieving comes from recognizing that there never was a true
confession of faith in Christ, therefore you will never again
share fellowship with that person, even if you yourself are
unregenerate.
No, Loren, this is completely unchristian. Your distinction between
'mourning' and 'grieving' is highly artificial.
Here you are again, revealing to all your cloistered experience.
Of course, we have it only on _your_ unreliable word that this
"reveals cloistered experience".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is clearly an experiential difference.
The use of such pretentious malapropisms as "experiential difference"
does not give weight to your argument, Loren.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is one thing to mourn the loss of a loved one but quite another to
grieve over it.
Not according to any dictionary _I_ would trust. So, for example,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mourn gives:

mourn:
1. To feel or express grief or sorrow. See Synonyms at grieve.
2. To show grief for a death by conventional signs, as by wearing black clothes.
3. To make a low, indistinct, mournful sound. Used especially of a dove.

So you see, already the dictionary has contradicted your overconfident
expression of abysmal ignorance. 'mourn' = 'grieve'. You would see the
same if you looked up 'grieve'.

Or will you claim that the dictionary authors have only "cloistered
experience" as well?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
If you don't know the difference then you need to come out of your
closet every now and then and live in the real world.
I have a good enough memory to remember how many have said the same to
you. And they with better justification. At least I did not try to
claim that the love of a child is "without value" as you did.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Did David pray for his dead son?
Yes. Was it recorded in the historical books? No. Did it have to
be for it to be true. NO.
The biblical record is quite clear.
No, the biblical record says nothing about whether or not David prayed
for his dead son.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
What you are now doing is trying to paint yourself out of the corner
you just painted yourself into. You are scheming to answer. You are
a deceiver of the record. So much for you and your highbrow
"exegesis!" Whereis it now?
What are you talking about? It is you who has painted himself into a
corner, not me. Why, you even confirm this by prating about 'exegesis'
here. I never _did_ claim to base my claim on _exegesis_. I claim to
base it on _hermeneutic_. I used to think you knew the difference, but
now you have shown I was wrong: you do not know what 'hermeneutic' is.

And how did you miss that you have painted yourself into a corner? Do
you really think that other readres have missed it as you did? For you
who demand a "Biblical mandate" are yourself doing and insisting on
things for which there can be no "Biblical mandate".

This means that it is you, not I, who has "painted himself into a
corner".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Suddenly you slink back into the shadows of the argument from
silence.
The "argument from silence" is NOT "The shadows". And for you to shout
out that I am "slinking" is _really_ rash wishful thinking.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
David's record is clear.
No, it is not.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Once the boy was dead, there was no point in petitioning God.
No, that is not what the record says.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It was over.
The record doesn't say this either.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You have a problem with understanding death, don't you.
Hardly. You are just resorting to base, groundless accusations again
to cover up your failure to engage in honest debate.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You likewise refuse to acknowledge the fact that all are born dead in
their sins.
Post by Matthew Johnson
The reality is "it is appointed unto man once to die THEN comes
judgment." No amount of prayer will change that verdict.
You miss the point. Prayer is commanded anyway.
Chapter and verse.
Again: you have no right to make this demand.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Where is the great biblical debater now?
Trying to do my bragging for me, Loren? I always knew better than to
make this claim. You win no creidibility for yourself by trying to
make it for me -- especially in a tone so sarcastic it reveals your
bitterness.

Evidently "the great biblical debater" is not in this thread. For any
"great biblical debater" would have realized that this thread is in
SRC, not SRC.B-S. The topic is Christian _society_, NOT the Bible. So
it is perfectly within the Charter to base my argument on Tradition
rather than on Scripture alone as you pretend to do.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Where is it written, "Thou shalt pray for the dead?" Where is it
even hinted at? And beyond this, what is the purpose for it?
So many questions, so little patience for listening to the answers!

The answer to the first is, in many places, most conspicuously in the
text of the Liturgy itself, in the prayer after the sanctification of
the Holy Gifts. As for where it is 'hinted' at, in the Tradition, it
is far more than 'hinted' at. In Scripture, it is hinted at in 2 Macc
12:46 and Mt 12:32 (and parallel passages).

But this is why I warned you not to ask when you lack the patience to
listen, and specifrically to admit that your hermeneutic is
broken. For as long as you rely on your broken hermeneutical
principles, you will find excuses to ignore the hints and explain them
away.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
To do less than that for the departed is inhumane.
It doesn't involve humanity at that point.
Sure, it does. This is explained in _detail_ in the Kneeling Prayers
at Pentecost.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You have no answer to myquote, "It is appointed once to die and then
comes judgment."
Not true. See below.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Not much wiggle room there!
"Wiggle room" would be such an inaccurate term for the refutation of
your eisegesis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
To insist dogmatically that prayer for the departed is wrong, as
you do, is even more inhumane.
vain speculation.
No, it is not "vain speculation". It is the 2000 year old Christian
Tradition.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You present no biblical argument to support your case. Why is that?
Because that would be your methodology, not mine. I argue based on
Tradition, not Scripture alone. You know this. Why are you pretending
not to know?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
But of course, this is not the first time you have blindly
insisted, based on your own false dogmatic convictions, on doing
and teaching something inhumane.
Hey, don't turn the tables here.
Why not? That is all you have been trying to do since you started this
thread with its vicious attack on the entire Orthodox Church,
slandering us all as 'legalists'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are the one who has to defend a doctrine, not me.
No, you have to defend _your_ doctrine. You have to defend your
unreasonable claims that 1) such revelation has to be in
protocanonical Scripture alone ('sola scriptura') and 2) prayer for
the dead is wrong. But you never do. Instead, you turn to bombast and
false accusations, just as you have done in this thread. You do this
whenever it is pointed out to you that you are relying on eisegesis on
2 TIm 3:15-17 for your 'sola scriptura' error.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Slippery little fellow aren't you?
Not as slippery as you, since you have labored so hard to turn this
thread into one long ad hominem rather than face the facts.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, no. You have a deeply ingrained tendency towards the inhumane,
as you revealed when you called the love of a child "completely
without value".
this entire paragraph was nothing less than flutter-tonguing.
No, it was not. How can that phrase of yours be anything _other_ than
inhumane, Loren? YOU may fool yourself into thinking it is
"flutter-tonguing", but precious few will follow you into your
delusion. The rest of us are revolted by your words:

Begin quote fm EX_Ua.8768$***@nwrdny02.gnilink.net------------

When your child curls in your lap and whispers, "I love you," you must
understand that that love is completely without value.

End quote--------------

THAT, Loren, is inhumane. It shows you _do_ sink to saying terribly
inhumane things.

No wonder not just I, but several other contributors to both these NGs
believe you worship an inhumane caricature of the Christian God.

After saying such words, you have no right to expect anything better.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
No amount of prayer will lessen their torment or gain them greater
rewards.
This is not true.
Chapter and verse please.
Again: you have no right to make this demand. Not only for the reasons
I already stated, but also because the Typicon is NOT written in
"chapter and verse".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
So why pray for the dead?
Because what you said is not true. Because it is inhumane to refuse
to do it, just as it is inhumane to walk right past the wounded and
dying while doing nothing for them.
You know what your argumentation reminds me of?
What it reminds you of is quite irrelevant, since you have repeatedly
shown no ability to discriminate between logical argumentation and
bombast. That is why you repeatedly and habitually post bombast and
call it 'argumentation' or 'debate'.

[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
It's over.
This is the answer of the pharasaical.
Heb. 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and
after this comes judgment,
Now is the author of Hebrews being pharasaical?
Of course not. You are. For you are demanding "Biblical mandate" from
me, but yourself are insisting on things that can have no "biblical
mandate".

Really, Loren. I am amazed that I have to point this out to you: the
verse says A happens after B, but it never says how _long_ after B A
happens.

Nor does it say that that judgment is the only judgment. On the
contrary: the Tradition has always distinguished between a "particular
judgment", which every Christian normally experiences within 40 days
of death, and the "general judgment" which takes place on the Last
Day. It is only after _this_ judgment that no change in state is
possible.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
The life of faith only operates this side of the grave.
And in those who deny the duty of prayer for the deceased, the
"life of faith" does not even operate on this side of the grave.
Faith is always based in knowledge. There is no revelation given to
us from God that we are to pray either to or for those who have died.
Yes, there is. It is expressed in various places in the Tradition,
clarifying the very limited hints in Scripture itself.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
There is no scriptural passage for this
There does not have to be. Remember 2 Thess 2:15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you
were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2Th 2:15 RSVA)

I claim he taught this by word of mouth. It was not germane to ANY of
his Epistles, so it does not appear there.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
except perhaps Saul's visitation to the witch of Endor to summon up
Samuel.
This was COMPLETELY different. Saul was not _praying_ for Samuel.

You aren't even _trying_ to engage in honest debate, are you?

[snip]
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by l***@hotmail.com
So the poor girl not only has lost both her parents, but is now
being told by both familes, that they will not attend the
daughters wedding because it isn't proper to have such an event
within 40 days.
Ever hear of rescheduling? Why don't they
reschedule?
Apparently you live a cloistered life.
Now that is a cop-out. It is not even the cop-out I expected from
you.
It was an answer based upon reality.
No, it was an answer based on a _wordly_ notion of marriage, not a
Christian one.

ON the other hand saying as YOU said, that the love of a child is
"without value", now THAT is really a symptom of "living a cloistered
life". And in a very bad cloister, too.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You do not apparently have any experience in these things therefore
you cannot comprehend what you so blithely propose.
No, I do have experience. Some of the best marriages I have seen have
been between couples who avoided all the hoopla of fancy flower
arrangements, dresses and receptions, opting instead for a private
celebration among friends after the Church ceremony. They did not have
_any_ of these scheduling problems.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
I said 'easier', I didn't say 'easy'. But look at it this way: if
she had scheduled the wedding in an Orthodox Church, they would
have understood the need to reschedule. It is only because she
scheduled it with the heterodox that she has a problem.
The Church? You think that is all that needs to
be rescheduled?
That is all there is a "Biblical mandate" for. Have you forgotten that
it was you, not me, who insisted on a "Biblical mandate"? So you have
no right now to insist on her right to all the hoopla, NONE of which
has a "Biblical mandate".
Post by l***@hotmail.com
What closet are you living in?
No, Loren, I am not "living in a closet". Rather, I have exposed you
for the hypocrite you are, insisting on all these trappings of a
worldly wedding when there is NO Biblical mandate for them. Yet you
are the one who always so loudly protests whenever others insist on
something without that mandate.

So it is your turn, not mine, to admit how wrong you are.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
SNIP
Post by Matthew Johnson
1) you are presuming this for you have no basis to support your
thesis
No, I already explained my basis. Rather than admit it, you simply
trumpet "you are presuming".
Ha! Ha! Ha! You are so funny!
No one will find your posts 'funny'. They will find them tragic instead.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You've explained nothing.
Not true. If you would read to the end of a post before replying, you
would have known better than to make such a rash and false
assertion. But you make the same mistake over and over.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
But that is totally beside the point. You have defended nothing as
well. Why is that Matthew. You are so strict with everyone else
having to provide this or than to prove a point. Yet here you have
done nothing except exert your own definition of "inhumane," and
"legalistic."
WHERE IS YOUR SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?
Where is your unbroken hermeneutic? I already explained to you: as
long as you insist on the same broken hermeneutical principles you
have long displayed and _still_ display in this thread, you will not
recognize any 'proof' presented. You will always find excuses to
reject it.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
In your unholy
How do you know this?
From Prov 15:2.
Let me now answer as you
have done.
You haven't. Your imitation is very poor. Of _course_ you missed the
essential differentiae between your trash and my writing.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
zeal for tossing accusations about, you have confused three
different notions: 1) being 'legalistic',
No. I have not.
Yes, you have.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
2) being 'humanistic',
No. I am both well trained in its definition and
quite correct in it application.
No, you are not trained in it at all. I already explained in detail
why your 'application' is wrong, you have no rebuttal.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
and 3) having/lacking scriptural support.
Action speak louder than words, Matthew.
Which is exactly why you should be hanging your head in shame after
making the posts you made in this thread, Loren.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Show us all just on verse that you have quoted or expounded upon to
support your position. Just one. Just one little verse.
And how did you answer when Sarah made the same request of you? Did
you give "just one little verse"? Or did you protest that it required
several verses, read together?

No, Loren, you did not. Instead, you explained why she was wrong to
ask for that. And you are just as wrong to ask for the same thing now.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
There is NO WAY that being "purely legalistic and humanistic"
follows from lacking "scriptural support".
Then it is you who does not understand the term.
No, I do understand all of them. It is you who misunderstand them,
just as you misunderstood 'greive' and 'mourn' above.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
You are being humanistic in that the basis for your doctrine is
self-originating.
FIrst of all, my doctrine is not 'self-originating'. Secondly, even if
it were, that would not make it or me 'humanistic'.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
It is not Divinely originated
"Divinely originated"? Your pretentious, stilted expressions do not
give weight to your arguments, Loren. But I know what you really mean,
and you are wrong. Of _course_ it is of Divine origin. The revelations
to Sts. Macarius, Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen _all_ back me
up, and are _all_ of Divine origin, as shown by
http://pagez.ru/lsn/0264.php.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
and ordained or it would be revealed to us in Scripture.
No, that does not follow, except from your eisegesis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
This is an either/or situation.
So you love to proclaim. But again, that does not follow, except from
your eisegesis.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Post by Matthew Johnson
For if there had been surely you would have presented it at the
outset.
Not at all. Rather, I know your pernicious habit of insisting on
thoroughly broken hermeneutical principles. And because I know this
pernicious habit of yours, I knew you would deny the basis.
You argue like a spoiled child.
So says the man who repeatedly resorts to base, groundless accusations
again to cover up your failure to engage in honest debate.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Are you so blind?
No, Loren, as Banjo pointed out when you called the love of a child
"without value", it is you who are blind. And to many in the NG, this
will be obvious, since saying such a thing about the love of a child
is _so_ outrageous.

Unfortunately, this is only one of the more prominent examples of your
blindness; it is far from alone.
Post by l***@hotmail.com
I just read another rebuttal to one of your replies and they more or
less have arrived at the same conclusion.
This is not convincing, Loren. Unless, of course, you want to convince
people that you love making groundless personal attacks. Is that why
you could not be bothered to give a message-id for the post you claim
to have read?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Stop tap dancing and give a biblical defense for prayer to or for the
dead.
But you are changing the topic. As long as you change the topic like
this, it is YOU, not I, who is engaging in "tap dancing".

And yes, you did change the topic. The topic was prayer FOR the dead
only. But here, you have changed to try to confuse the issue, talking
about prayer TO the dead as well.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
l***@hotmail.com
2006-08-04 01:25:17 UTC
Permalink
After all that you have written, I think it is best to let someone else
reply to you both on your tradition of 40 days and on your
tradition/doctrine of praying for the dead.

Commenting on Col 2:8
Quote:

"According to the tradition of men." He [Paul] points out more
precisely what kind of philosophy he reproves, and at the same time
convicts it of vanity on a twofold account -because it is 'not
according to Christ', but according to the inclinations of men; and
because it consists in the 'elements of the world.' Observe, however,
that he places Christ in opposition to the 'elements of the world,'
equally as to the 'tradition of men,' by which he intimates, that
whatever is hatched in man's brain is not in accordance with Christ,
who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher, that he
might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel. Now, that is
corrupted by even a small portion of the leaven of 'human traditions.'
He intimates also, that all doctrines are foreign to Christ that make
the worship of God, which we know to be spiritual, according to
Christ's rule, to consist in the 'elements of the world,' and also such
as fetter the minds of men by such trifles and frivolities, while
Christ calls us directly to himself.

But what is meant by the phrase -'elements of the world?' There can be
no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he immediately afterwards
adduces one instance by way of example -'circumcision.'

End Quote.

John Calvin, Commentary to the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, Baker
Press, vol 21, pp 181-182.
Matthew Johnson
2006-08-07 02:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@hotmail.com
After all that you have written, I think it is best to let someone
else reply to you both on your tradition of 40 days and on your
tradition/doctrine of praying for the dead.
Good idea. So why are you still continuing to comment on it? Why do
you find it so hard to do what you say you will do?
Post by l***@hotmail.com
Commenting on Col 2:8
"According to the tradition of men." He [Paul] points out more
precisely what kind of philosophy he reproves, and at the same time
convicts it of vanity on a twofold account -because it is 'not
according to Christ', but according to the inclinations of men; and
because it consists in the 'elements of the world.' Observe,
however, that he places Christ in opposition to the 'elements of the
world,' equally as to the 'tradition of men,' by which he intimates,
that whatever is hatched in man's brain is not in accordance with
Christ, who has been appointed us by the Father as our sole Teacher,
that he might retain us in the simplicity of his gospel. Now, that
is corrupted by even a small portion of the leaven of 'human
traditions.' He intimates also, that all doctrines are foreign to
Christ that make the worship of God, which we know to be spiritual,
according to Christ's rule, to consist in the 'elements of the
world,' and also such as fetter the minds of men by such trifles and
frivolities, while Christ calls us directly to himself.
But what is meant by the phrase -'elements of the world?' There can be
no doubt that it means ceremonies. For he immediately afterwards
adduces one instance by way of example -'circumcision.'
End Quote.
John Calvin, Commentary to the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, Baker
Press, vol 21, pp 181-182.
Fine, so what you have here is _Calvin's_ opinion concerning what
St. Paul meant by "traditions of men". But by now you should know that
I consider Calvin's opinion totally without merit.

Nor will I go into detail concerning _why_ I consider his opinion
totally without merit, since I have covered this often enough before
-- and discovered that you NEVER listen to the reasons before you
criticize them. And you criticize them mercilessly and ignorantly
and groundlessly.

But I will say this much: even in this small Calvin quote, you have
failed to notice how he contradicts Scripture: for he calls Christ our
"sole teacher". But Paul said quite clearly, "you have many teachers
[guides] (1 Cor 4:15)".

Nor is this the only contradiction.

HOW can you fail to see the problem here? Is it because you blind your
eyes to the many great faults of your hero? That is the best
explanation I have been able to come up with over the years of
watching your deluge of fallacies in your posts. Or at least it is the
best explanation I came up with that can be repeated in public.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...