Pages

Monday, April 30, 2012

Sola Fide Debate (vs Drake Shelton)

The following are the Essays for this Justification by Faith Alone Debate (vs Reformed Blogger Drake). As the Essays are transferred to Google Docs. Hopefully Google Docs keeps the proper formatting.

-Drake's Opening Essay
-Nick's Opening Essay

-Drake's 1st Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 1st Rebuttal Essay

-Drake's 2nd Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 2nd Rebuttal Essay

-Drake's 5 Cross-Examination Questions
          -Nick's Responses
-Nick's 5 Cross-Examination Questions
          -Drake's Responses

-Drake's 3rd Rebuttal Essay
-Nick's 3rd Rebuttal (including Concluding) Essay

-Drake's Concluding Essay 

31 comments:

Drake Shelton said...

I have my replies to your five questions here:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/justification/justification-debate-with-catholic-nick

Nick said...

Now that the debate is finished people can leave their comments.

At this point in time, I would like to briefly comment on Drake's Concluding Essay and say I understand his frustration in the debate becoming redundant at many points. I was getting tired of going over the same things myself.

However, I was shocked by the way I was caricatured as a liar and how Drake said I was not worth praying for. I assure everyone that I was not intentionally lying or misrepresenting. Based on what I saw, especially in Drake's Concluding essay, was more of a case of talking past each other, for he didn't seem to understand how Catholics understood various concepts.

costrowski said...

Hi Drake,

In your concluding essay you charged Nick with vindicating an argument you previously made as well as logically advocating universalism. Here is where your said this.

“Nick vindicates an argument I made before in my first rebuttal essay (“If his active obedience to God’s law was not required for our justification, why didn’t God just have him killed right out of the womb of Mary? Why wait 30+ years?”) when he says, “St Thomas Aquinas teaches that Christ humility in becoming man was of infinite value and redeemed the whole world the moment of his conception (cf ST 3:46:1; 3:48:1)”. Nick continues, “but the Cross was a tool to best express God's love for us and humiliate the Devil. God could have wiped out the Devil or any sinner the moment they sinned, but there was some stroke of genius behind saving the world through the worst sin imaginable, murdering God.” He offers no statement whatsoever to establish the necessity of eternal punishment and even makes an argument for a Universalist view in Thomas Aquinas. In their na├»ve attempt to rescue God from the ominous doctrines of Calvinism the enemies of Penal Substitution fall headlong into a more gross and monstrous conclusion. On Nick’s Theology God didn’t have to send people to hell as a satisfaction of justice for their sins, but as an arbitrary choice of his good pleasure he will forever enjoy watching millions of human beings suffer in everlasting torment for no other reason but that he arbitrarily felt like it.”

The problem with your claim that Nick’s view logically entails universalism is that it fails to take into account that he already argued that future sins are not yet forgiven, but your argument needs him to argue the opposite in order to make this claim. Another problem is that it doesn’t take into account Nick's view of the scope of the redemption. For example, did he argue for a redemption whereby all mankind automatically goes to heaven (a sort of monergism), or did he argue for a redemption whereby all men are redeemed such that they now have an access to God’s forgiveness which they didn’t have previously (synergism)? So, the first problem with your argument is that it only takes notice of part of Nick’s view and then seems to ascribe to him your own view (that all past, present, and future sins of the elect were forgiven) which he already rejected. The second problem is that you fail to ask what Nick’s view of the scope of redemption is.

costrowski said...

The unstated point of my last comment was that the needless overheated accusatory rhetoric which ascribed sinful motives can cut both ways and so one ought to be really careful when ascribing motives. The charitable thing to do is to chalk up what you see as a bad argument as just that, a bad argument rather than an evil heart.

Drake Shelton said...

costrowski

"The problem with your claim that Nick’s view logically entails universalism is that it fails to take into account that he already argued that future sins are not yet forgiven, but your argument needs him to argue the opposite in order to make this claim."

>>>No it doesn't because those future sins do not necessitate an everlasting punishment. In Shedd's Dogmatic Theology Vol. 2. Eschatology Chapter VI. Hell (Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1888) Shedd begins by pointing out that Clement and Origen had asserted that the punishments of the damned are not eternal but remedial. This affects their view of the atonement directly. Shedd says,

“Thus early was the question raised, whether the suffering to which Christ sentences the wicked is for the purpose of correcting and educating the transgressor, or of vindicating and satisfying the law he has broken”. (pg. 668) The latter plays right into the hands of penal substitution while the former sits right in the lap of your rejection of of penal sub. The fact that a dead sinner has remaining unforgiven sin does not require an everlasting punishment.

"Another problem is that it doesn’t take into account Nick's view of the scope of the redemption. For example, did he argue for a redemption whereby all mankind automatically goes to heaven (a sort of monergism)"

>>>No, but that doesn't mean he necessarily argued for the everlasting nature of hell. Second, Calvinism is not an utter monergy. Regeneration is monergistic. The rest of the economia is synergistic. This was worked out in detail in the Scottish Marrow Controversy and the Westminster Puritans dealt with this against the Antinomians.

"or did he argue for a redemption whereby all men are redeemed such that they now have an access to God’s forgiveness which they didn’t have previously (synergism)?"

>>>Are you operating off the Maximian soteriology where immortality is infused at the level of nature and particular persons use their hypostatic gnomie to choose where they spend this immortal life- heaven or hell? If not, you are going to fall prey to Owen's dilemma: If all are redeemed why aren't they all going to heaven?

"So, the first problem with your argument is that it only takes notice of part of Nick’s view and then seems to ascribe to him your own view (that all past, present, and future sins of the elect were forgiven) which he already rejected. The second problem is that you fail to ask what Nick’s view of the scope of redemption is."

>>>I already asked Nick to describe to me the nature of his afterlife when I asked him in question 2: "If he can forgive without satisfaction then what basis do you have for the necessity of eternal punishment of the reprobate in hell?" He did not answer. The burden is on Nick not me. I tried to get him to make his meaning clear and he could not. I have dug through these issues for years. If you reject penal vindicating justice you have no necessary basis whatsoever for everlasting punishment. This is not misrepresentation. I specifically asked Nick to tell me what he thinks on these issues and he gave me the run around just like every anchoretic Christian I have spoken to on these issues does. You rejected Moses and so you had to fall back on the pantheistic hierarchalism of your pagan ancestors where there is no separation from God. You are God. You are just trapped inside this physical reality and so you need to renounce the physical and animal life of human society, escape to a monastery and devote yourself to the denial of your physical constitution through celibacy and fasting and move up the hierarchy of being whereby you will be dissolved in the infinite Monad.

Nick said...

Drake,

I assure you that if I didn't answer an important question of yours, it was either because I was too tired/busy or because I honestly missed it.

Eternal Punishment follows from someone choosing not to want to be with God, and this choice becomes permanent upon death. I see no absolute link between this and unconditional or non-Psub atonement. Think of the parable in Matthew 18:23-35. The sinner has an infinite burden to pay, else he'll be tortured forever to pay it off. The king unconditionally forgives the infinite debt.

costrowski said...

Drake,
I don’t think you understood my point. I didn’t argue for a theological position in these comments, but rather I wanted to show that your overheated accusations were uncalled for and could apply to you just as you tried to apply them to Nick. I think I sufficiently demonstrated that.

Your reply to me here rests on the presupposition that Nick’s view agrees with Shedd’s analysis. I bet he doesn’t. This exemplifies my whole point. You’re taking bits and pieces of his argument and then loading them with Reformed doctrines in order to come up with your accusation. If you want to say that Nick’s argument affirms universalism, then you can’t pack into his view things he doesn’t hold. You provided further confirmation of my point when you just acknowledged that you didn’t take into account Nick’s view of the scope of redemption. So, this admission means that once again you packed his view with ones that you don’t know are his.

Lastly, the Maximian view isn’t even at issue here (1.) I'm haven't presented any theolical arguments, and (2.)because you already admitted that you didn’t take care to understand Nick’s view before ascribing to him both views he already argued against, as well as views that you don’t know whether or not he holds.

So, if you want to argue that Nick was dishonest, I think you should evaluate your own actions first. That was my whole point and your reply only served to bolster it. Please don't take this as though I'm accusing you of dishonesty, because I'm not. Rather, I prefer to charitably chalk it up to some other reason.

Drake Shelton said...

Nick,

"The sinner has an infinite burden to pay, else he'll be tortured forever to pay it off. The king unconditionally forgives the infinite debt."

>>>What is never ending about a sin if not the guilt?

Drake Shelton said...

costrowski,

"but rather I wanted to show that your overheated accusations were uncalled for and could apply to you just as you tried to apply them to Nick."

>>>And I showed already why you were wrong for doing so. I asked Nick and he didn't tell me. He still has not told me. he tried and could not demonstrate how an inifite punishment could be based on anything but guilt.

"loading them with Reformed doctrines in order to come up with your accusation"

>>Are you serious suggesting that Origen and Clement's view of a remedial afterlife is Reformed? This is why you guys get the accusations you do.

"So, if you want to argue that Nick was dishonest, I think you should evaluate your own actions first. That was my whole point and your reply only served to bolster it. "

>>>No it didn't. I gave Nick an open forum with only five questions before him and he missed numer 2. Am I seriously supposed to believe that? Until you show how an never ending punishment can be based on somethign else besides guilt you or Nick falls prey to Universal Redemption.

Drake Shelton said...

Nick,

"Nick,

"The sinner has an infinite burden to pay, else he'll be tortured forever to pay it off. The king unconditionally forgives the infinite debt."

The point that I am making is that when I asked for a basis for everlasting punishment, you just re-phrased the words "everlasting punishment" with "infinite burden" and "infinite debt". You continue to not show why it is infinite. The Reformed answer is the guilt. The guilt never ceases and so their sufferings are penal satisfactions for that guilt.

Nick said...

The infinite debt in the parable is figurative for the gravity of guilt. Thus, as long as the guilt remains, he's subject to punishment.

The Guilt is of infinite value because it was an offense against a Divine Being. Similar to how harming a civilian does not bring as much guilt as harming a king. The resulting punishment will be greater.

costrowski said...

Drake,
I said: “Your reply to me here rests on the presupposition that Nick’s view agrees with ***Shedd’s analysis***. I bet he doesn’t.”

You responded: “Are you serious suggesting that Origen and Clement's view of a remedial afterlife is Reformed? This is why you guys get the accusations you do.”

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

Nick, thanks for your blog and debates such as these. It must be frustrating. Drake did not attempt to answer your questions with Scripture. I am also saddened by his tone in his concluding essay. Your questions are good and must be addressed honestly by Protestants. They do affect our salvation.

Let us continue to pray for the salvation of Protestants who have been so led astray.

Drake Shelton said...

Nick,

"The infinite debt in the parable is figurative for the gravity of guilt. Thus, as long as the guilt remains, he's subject to punishment.

The Guilt is of infinite value because it was an offense against a Divine Being. Similar to how harming a civilian does not bring as much guilt as harming a king. The resulting punishment will be greater."

So you admit it? You are giving me the point? Then Christ must have taken the redeemed person's guilt and punishment! That is penal substitution man.

Nick said...

Drake,

I'm not sure what I am "admitting" that's new. I've held to this the entire time, as has all of Catholicism.

For you to say "then Christ must have taken the redeemed person's guilt and punishment" is jumping to conclusions. In the Matthew 18 parable I quoted, the king didn't take guilt/punishment of the man upon himself, rather the king unconditionally forgave the debt. The parable gives no indication that the king had to transfer the debt and punishment to a substitute.

Further, and this is more fundamental, the idea that a substitute can take a person's guilt and punishment is flatly unbiblical. The Biblical term "atonement" does not function that way. Thus, by strict definition, the concept of Penal Substitution is right out of Paganism - to which God repeatedly states in the Torah, "You shall not do the abominable things the other nations do".

Sean Patrick said...

I notice that often Drake will answer a question or problem that Nice raised by begging the question.

For example, when Nick says:

"When Drake asks how a “present act of righteousness” remit a past sin, I'm not sure I follow his question, since the “present act” of repentance (manifested Sacramentally through Baptism) is explicitly stated as the act that remits sin (Acts 2:38).”

Drake responds by simply posting a passage from the WCOF and says that Nick is 'confusing the sign which it signifies.'

It is begging the question because Drake does not show that Nick is confusing the sign and what it signifies. Drake merely posted a passage from the WCOF and then he acts as if that settles it. I missed where Nick agreed to view the WCOF as some kind of final authority.

I've seen Drake do that before in other discussions. He'll be presented with an argument and then simply copy/paste some statement from some Scottish churchman and act like the matter is settled. He does not attempt to show that the WCOF or the particular Scottish churchman is right. He just posts it and acts incredulous when anybody questions it.

Drake did that all throughout his responses. If we accepted the authority of the WCOF and Scottish Presbyterians than we'd all be Presbyterians!

Sean Patrick said...

Regarding penal substitution, a Catholic can affirm it in a qualified sense so its not time for a victory lap, Drake.

See this discussion

See Bryan's post and this comment:

"Christ really is our substitute. He really did bear the curse, by bearing in His body the suffering and dissolution of death, and by bearing in His spirit the desolation that is the absence of spiritual consolation. By taking these upon Himself, freely, in self-sacrificial love, Christ offered something more pleasing to the Father than all our sins are displeasing. And in that way Christ merited for us the grace by which our sins are forgiven, we are restored to friendship with God, and we are saved from the punishment of hell. So Christ bears the curse, and in doing so participates in our punishment (i.e. the punishment of the curse), so that we can participate in His divine life, and avoid the ultimate punishment (i.e. eternal separation from God, in hell). In that (carefully qualified) sense, Christ’s atonement was one of penal substitution. But it was not one in which the Father imputed all our sins to Christ, and then poured out all His wrath for that sin, on Christ. The Father never hated the Son or hated any sin in the Son, because the Son was always sinless, and God the Father always sees the Son as the Son really is, sinless. Christ took on all human sin not by becoming intrinsically guilty (and thus deserving of punishment), or by imputation (and thus being falsely accused by an omniscient Being), but by (1) allowing Himself to suffer the effects of the curse, and (2) by seeing all the sin of all men for what it is in all its evil, and in solidarity with us (as one sharing our nature), with the grief of contrition freely and lovingly offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice for it."

Drake Shelton said...

Nick,

“In the Matthew 18 parable I quoted, the king didn't take guilt/punishment of the man upon himself, rather the king unconditionally forgave the debt.”

>>So then you admit that the reprobate in hell are not suffering according to a necessity of divine justice but are suffering for no other reason but that God arbitrarily chose to punish their sin everlastingly when he didn’t have to.

Drake Shelton said...

Sean,

“Drake responds by simply posting a passage from the WCOF and says that Nick is 'confusing the sign which it signifies.'”

You leave out that whenever I quote the confession I also quote its scripture references don’t I? Why did you leave that out Sean?

“It is begging the question because Drake does not show that Nick is confusing the sign and what it signifies”

>>>Yes I did. Nick wants Baptism to remit sin and I showed how the sacraments are signs and seals of that which redeems. That is through which redemption comes. Baptism is not the act that remdeems, it can be an act through which Christ redeeems.

“Regarding penal substitution, a Catholic can affirm it in a qualified sense so its not time for a victory lap, Drake.

See this discussion”

I have dealt with Bryan’s view in detail and I notice that after misrepresenting my use of the Puritans’ summaries of scripture AND THE SCRIPTURE REFERENCES I CLEARLY ACCOMPANIED THEIR QUOTES WITH, you turn around and give a Bryan cross (Is he even ordained?) quote with no scripture reference whatsoever. I dealt with Bryan’s view in detail here:

http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/schaff-hodge-and-murray-on-jesus-natures/#comments

It is not a penal sub view; it is the typical bribery and intrigue placation of your Roman Hierarchy. See post 224. Your view is not a satisfaction of justice but a satisfaction of debt. That is why it cannot be the never ending guilt of the reprobate which necessitates never ending punishment. I see no reason why your view could not still fit right into the remedial system of Origen and Clement.

Drake Shelton said...

You guys are going to have to come to grips with an issue that I see keeps coming up. My Eastern Orthodox friends appreciate how much IU quote the Puritans and the old symbols of Reformed theology because that way they know I'm not just making up off the cuff BS when I am discussing issues with them. I do not hold to the sense of sola scriptura the way you guys understand it. I do not believe that the word of God terminates upon the wording of the Scripture. All of the inferences agreeable to scripture are also the Word of God. I quoted Rutherford to this effect a couple times if I remember correctly.

Sean Patrick said...

Drake.

You said, "You leave out that whenever I quote the confession I also quote its scripture references don’t I? Why did you leave that out Sean?"

That still begs the question. We don't agree with the WCOF's interpretation and application of scripture. Do you think we should just fall over and accept the WCOF because it quotes scripture?

You said, "Yes I did. Nick wants Baptism to remit sin and I showed how the sacraments are signs and seals of that which redeems. That is through which redemption comes. Baptism is not the act that remdeems, it can be an act through which Christ redeeems."

No, you did not show that sacraments are only signs and seals of that which redeems. You merely parroted that view. We're all keenly aware of that view and have rejected it for being unbiblical and not of the apostolic faith.

You said, "I have dealt with Bryan’s view in detail and I notice that after misrepresenting my use of the Puritans’ summaries of scripture AND THE SCRIPTURE REFERENCES I CLEARLY ACCOMPANIED THEIR QUOTES WITH, you turn around and give a Bryan cross (Is he even ordained?) quote with no scripture reference whatsoever."

I've seen you at work and you often quote some Scottish churchman and act as if its the final word. That sometimes you also quote them quoting scripture does not mean you aren't begging the question.

You said, "It is not a penal sub view; it is the typical bribery and intrigue placation of your Roman Hierarchy...Your view is not a satisfaction of justice but a satisfaction of debt."

Then for all of your reading and interacting with the Catholic position you still don't get it.

You said, "My Eastern Orthodox friends appreciate how much I quote the Puritans and the old symbols of Reformed theology because that way they know I'm not just making up off the cuff BS when I am discussing issues with them. I do not hold to the sense of sola scriptura the way you guys understand it."

I don't think you are making it up off the cuff. The Scottish Churchman/Reformers did that.

You said, "I do not believe that the word of God terminates upon the wording of the Scripture. All of the inferences agreeable to scripture are also the Word of God."

How do you identify which 'inferences' are agreeable to scripture and which are not? Why the Scottish Presbyterians and not the Anabaptists? Might the answer be that you find the Scottish Presbyterians words 'agreeable' to scripture is because Drake Shelton finds their words agreeable?

Nick said...

Those in hell are indeed suffering from the necessity of divine justice (as well even the actually preferring to be separate from God - "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" as the saying goes).

That doesn't mean divine justice is the full or entire picture though. For mercy precedes justice, and thus God can forgive.

In Catholicism, mercy is about God saying "you don't deserve to be forgiven, but I'll still show kindness to you and forgive".

What you are describing isn't really mercy, but divine bartering, where God wont forgive, but He will accept an alternate form of payment.

Sean Patrick said...

Drake.

One more thing. When I pointed out that your posting of the WCOF as if it settles the matter was begging the question you said:

"I do not believe that the word of God terminates upon the wording of the Scripture. All of the inferences agreeable to scripture are also the Word of God."

I took this to mean that you believe that the WCOF, at least in the portions you select, is 'agreeable' to scripture and thus you believe it to be 'the Word of God.' Is that correct?

If so, I could not help but notice on your blog that you write in an open letter to the "Free Church of Scotland":

"What I am saying is that the Westminster Confession of Faith’s doctrines of Simplicity, the Filioque, and its view of Epistemology and Metaphysics are not Christian and that I cannot come into communion or sustain a communion with those who hold to these doctrines unless I am convinced otherwise."

So, there you say that the WCOF's words at least in part are 'not Christian.'

On the one hand you argue that this part of the WCOF is 'the Word of God' but the parts you disagree with are 'not Christian?' Is that it?

As an aside, to which church do you belong now? Clearly it cannot be one which subscribes to the full WCOF right?

Drake Shelton said...

Sean,

Asserting that your church disagrees with the Puritan explanations of scripture is not a satisfactory argument as to why they are wrong.

Second, asserting I don’t get what your arbitrary Bryan Cross quote or maybe the Catholic position in general states is not a satisfactory proof that I’m mistaken.

Third, I did not intend to imply that I was making up general theology off the cuff. I was intending to mean that I was not making up off the cuff WHAT THE REFORMERS TAUGHT.

"How do you identify which 'inferences' are agreeable to scripture and which are not? Why the Scottish Presbyterians and not the Anabaptists? Might the answer be that you find the Scottish Presbyterians words 'agreeable' to scripture is because Drake Shelton finds their words agreeable?"

>>>Ahh, the infinite regress of Neoplatonism. Moved up the chain of being through the secret knowledge of an intermediary lately Sean? Controversies of faith are determined for the Church by Church councils. If I was on a Church council I would use the same innate rationality and knowledge of the laws of logic that everyone else has to summarize all the teaching of scripture not just some; just like you did and every other Catholic did when you made the private judgment to convert to the religion of Antichrist.

"Why the Scottish Presbyterians and not the Anabaptists?"

>>>>because the Presbyterian view is agreeable to ALL of scripture not just some of scripture.

"Might the answer be that you find the Scottish Presbyterians words 'agreeable' to scripture is because Drake Shelton finds their words agreeable?"

>>>Notice the tautological nature of your attempted dilemma. Sean thinks it’s wrong for Drake to be convinced of something because Drake is convinced of something.

"So, there you say that the WCOF's words at least in part are 'not Christian.'"

>>>True. Though there is some debate on whether the Confession's use of the word "parts" refers to anthropomorphite theology or divine simplicity. I need to read a ton more before I make a definite claim, though Shaw (The most popular commentator in contemporary Puritan churches) says it is referring to anthropomorphite theology (The assertion that God has body parts).

"On the one hand you argue that this part of the WCOF is 'the Word of God' but the parts you disagree with are 'not Christian?' Is that it? "

>>>Yes, but it is not a full out private judgment. I don't think the WCOF's Theology Proper is agreeable to the Nicene Creed 325. Just like most Christian Theology Proper is not agreeable to the Nicene Creed 325 after Constantinople 381's affirmation of numeric unity in rejection of Nicea’s generic unity.

"As an aside, to which church do you belong now?"

>>The Universal Visible Church of Jesus Christ.

Drake Shelton said...

Sean,

What is God?

costrowski said...

Hi Drake,
I noticed a theme in your responses to Sean which is that an assertion isn’t an argument, but when I look at your responses, I see a lack of arguments which is the very thing that you condemned. For example, there’s this exchange. First is your quote from Sean and then your own response.

“"How do you identify which 'inferences' are agreeable to scripture and which are not? Why the Scottish Presbyterians and not the Anabaptists? Might the answer be that you find the Scottish Presbyterians words 'agreeable' to scripture is because Drake Shelton finds their words agreeable?"

>>>Ahh, the infinite regress of Neoplatonism. Moved up the chain of being through the secret knowledge of an intermediary lately Sean? Controversies of faith are determined for the Church by Church councils. If I was on a Church council I would use the same innate rationality and knowledge of the laws of logic that everyone else has to summarize all the teaching of scripture not just some; just like you did and every other Catholic did when you made the private judgment to convert to the religion of Antichrist.

Where’s the argument? So if I can paraphrase your own words: asserting a diversionary claim about Neo-Platonism is not a satisfactory argument as to how you identify which 'inferences' are agreeable to scripture and which are not.

The very next exchange in your response is:

"Why the Scottish Presbyterians and not the Anabaptists?"

>>>>because the Presbyterian view is agreeable to ALL of scripture not just some of scripture.

But again, where’s the argument?

Let’s look at the very next exchange you cite between Sean and yourself.

"Might the answer be that you find the Scottish Presbyterians words 'agreeable' to scripture is because Drake Shelton finds their words agreeable?"

>>>Notice the tautological nature of your attempted dilemma. Sean thinks it’s wrong for Drake to be convinced of something because Drake is convinced of something.

Still no argument! So at least up to this point the fight is Drake Shelton vs. Drake Shelton. Thankfully at least in the portion that follows you actually explained your views.

Drake Shelton said...

costrowski (horse's ass)

"asserting a diversionary claim about Neo-Platonism is not a satisfactory argument as to how you identify which 'inferences' are agreeable to scripture and which are not."

>>>But it is an accurate assessment of Sean's view of authority from which his question sprang. It was not diversionary.

"because the Presbyterian view is agreeable to ALL of scripture"

>>>There is the argument.

"Still no argument!"

>>>You are an idiot. You are the typical empty headed wanna-be intellectual that drove me to decide to not enter the ministry. Theological Blogs are full of you people and so are churches. I believe that Christ is the Messiah but I don't have the inclination nor the character to deal with stupid ass mules like you for the rest of my life. I just said, "Notice the tautological nature". The argument is that his argument assumed upon a tautology. I can't believe I have to spell that out for you and don't expect me to reply to another of your comments.


Don't expect me to reply again on this thread or this blog.

I leave you to your Monad and your Gnostic intermediaries.

costrowski said...

Hi Drake,
I'm happy to expose your abrasive nature here. I'm even happier to expose your lack of arguments which hide behind diversions and ispe dixit type statements. The reason I did so was precisely because you acted so beligerantly towards others even though it was completely uncalled for. Maybe your meltdown will serve as a means which allows you rethink your Christian virtues as well as your choice of theology which undergirds and allows such meltdowns.

Sean Patrick said...

Drake,

You are all over the place.

On the one hand you say, "Controversies of faith are determined for the Church by Church councils" but you cavalierly reject Church councils and/or portions of Church councils that you don't deem 'agreeable to scripture.' The truth is that controversies of the faith are determined by Church councils only insofar as Drake Shelton agrees with Church councils. Putting aside the fact that the WCOF is not a church council, how else could you call one bit of the WCOF 'the word of God' and other bits 'not Christian?'

”You are the typical empty headed wanna-be intellectual that drove me to decide to not enter the ministry. Theological Blogs are full of you people and so are churches. I believe that Christ is the Messiah but I don't have the inclination nor the character to deal with stupid ass mules like you for the rest of my life.”

I think we are all breathing a sigh of relief that you did not enter the ministry.

Nick said...

Drake,

You are free to answer whomever you want, but did my last response at least settle the 'divine injustice' dilemma? If so, which I believe it did, then I would say I've addressed your key concerns while you've largely left mine unaddressed.

The main issue I'm thinking of is that you admitted the term popularly understood to mean "impute" does not in fact mean impute at all, and thus the Bible isn't teaching imputation in texts like Romans 4.

MaryC said...

Hi Nick.
I realize that is an old topic, but I am new to your blog.
Regarding Drake Shelton: I don't know if you're aware, but Drake has renounced Christianity altogether and is now a fervent Judaizer.
However, despite this, he has the chutzpah to claim that Catholicism and Jesuit scholarship led to the "Enlightenment" and all the anti-God revolutions in history, and leads ultimately, to atheism. Strange; I always thought Judeo-Masonry was behind the aforementioned evils.