Comments for Through A Glass Darkly http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com Peering into the mystery of truth Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:41:48 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on The Rite by Greg Smith http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/the-rite/#comment-100 Greg Smith Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:41:48 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=138#comment-100 How awesome!! And ironic that Rome is the leader in preparing people for the ministry of exorcism. I so quickly dismiss the supernatural and am glad you found this book... what a great reminder that we fight not against flesh and blood! How awesome!! And ironic that Rome is the leader in preparing people for the ministry of exorcism. I so quickly dismiss the supernatural and am glad you found this book… what a great reminder that we fight not against flesh and blood!

]]> Comment on Creative Love by Mariam http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/creative-love/#comment-99 Mariam Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:58:45 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=134#comment-99 First blog I read after wakeup from sleep today! ---------------------------- <a href="http://www.morzsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">FREE Image Converter.!</a>Convert just using right click. First blog I read after wakeup from sleep today!

—————————-
FREE Image Converter.!Convert just using right click.

]]> Comment on My Calvinistic Mistake by chrisbollegar http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/my-calvinistic-mistake/#comment-98 chrisbollegar Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:21:45 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=109#comment-98 True, but you can also pull something. True, but you can also pull something.

]]> Comment on My Calvinistic Mistake by St. Ampher http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/my-calvinistic-mistake/#comment-97 St. Ampher Thu, 04 Dec 2008 03:07:12 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=109#comment-97 Stretchin keeps ya limber. Stretchin keeps ya limber.

]]> Comment on My Calvinistic Mistake by chrisbollegar http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/my-calvinistic-mistake/#comment-96 chrisbollegar Sat, 29 Nov 2008 20:28:39 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=109#comment-96 Sorry it has been so long in answering. It seems that you are simply arguing from specifics (i.e. certain statements about very specific events in which God acts sovereignly) to a universal. In some instances this may be a valid as a way of stating a hypothesis to be tested by later data observed, but I am not convinced that it is the right move here. Again, I come back to the simple fact that we are not told that God predestined all things before time began. To reason from God's actions in history to very historical circumstances back to a pre-creation decree that encompasses all things seems a stretch. Sorry it has been so long in answering. It seems that you are simply arguing from specifics (i.e. certain statements about very specific events in which God acts sovereignly) to a universal. In some instances this may be a valid as a way of stating a hypothesis to be tested by later data observed, but I am not convinced that it is the right move here. Again, I come back to the simple fact that we are not told that God predestined all things before time began. To reason from God’s actions in history to very historical circumstances back to a pre-creation decree that encompasses all things seems a stretch.

]]> Comment on The Orthodoxy of the Bereans by St. Ampher http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-95 St. Ampher Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:11:10 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-95 [PS, Just want to preclude an objection here. Would you say that Cyprian's "no MAN" idea is actually reinforced by Jesus being born of a woman? The need for Church as mother is demonstrated by the fact that "even Jesus, to be a man, had to have the Church/Mary as mother"? You would be helped here only if you first said Jesus did NOT have God as His father until He was conceived. Assuming you admit that Jesus is shown to have Father pre Mary, I would point out that this Fatherhood was pointed out by the man Jesus DESPITE having also Mary as His mother. "Don't you know, mom, that I have God as my Father?" "But son, you wouldn't have Him as your father unless you had me as your mother!! So says Cyprian anyway!" "Who?" [PS, Just want to preclude an objection here. Would you say that Cyprian's "no MAN" idea is actually reinforced by Jesus being born of a woman? The need for Church as mother is demonstrated by the fact that "even Jesus, to be a man, had to have the Church/Mary as mother"? You would be helped here only if you first said Jesus did NOT have God as His father until He was conceived. Assuming you admit that Jesus is shown to have Father pre Mary, I would point out that this Fatherhood was pointed out by the man Jesus DESPITE having also Mary as His mother. "Don't you know, mom, that I have God as my Father?" "But son, you wouldn't have Him as your father unless you had me as your mother!! So says Cyprian anyway!" "Who?"

]]> Comment on The Orthodoxy of the Bereans by St. Ampher http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-94 St. Ampher Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:55:10 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-94 As I understood it, Caiaphas (like Saul) was in a position of authority. So I guess that your position is that in order to be authoritative, one must AGREE with the gospel. It seems you are saying that "carrying the gospel in one's person" must mean having sentient and positve affirmation and agreement with said gospel. Is that accurate? (Of course, Saul did not, so I'm not sure if you were trying to say his position of authority encompassed carrying the gospel in his person. Probably not.) And then, I'd probably side track you if I asked how the NT writers agreed with the OT, since they had to reinterpret it. Assuming that one must be saved to "carry the gospel in one's person," what other criteria are you affirming as necessary to apply interpretive authority? We started with the Bereans and Paul. Both saved and both carrying the gospel in their persons (if that's what you mean by saved). Sounds like you are saying that the Bereans recognized and affirmed that Paul "carried the gospel in his person." (But of course, they did not on the basis of looking into an OT that Paul reinterpreted? getting murky for me here) But it's getting murky here for me because you've already ascribed interpretive authority vis-a-vis God's words to the Church. "Who's interpretation of God's words ... is authoritative? ... the answer is, the Church." Really?!!? Who says? Now the Roman Catholics can logically hold this, given their premise that THE CHURCH SAYS! They need only the Church to have pronounced it, and besides, the Church in Mother produced Jesus to begin with. (Cyprian missed that Jesus had God as His Father long before He adopted the Church as His mother and brothers, by the way.) But again, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Is it important for your position that the notion of Church's interpretive authority be grounded in, let alone found in, Scripture? If so, perhaps you should share where you find it! But you've already demonstrated a belief in "inspired eisegsis," as Brett pointed out earlier -- at least for NT writers in their reinterpretation of the OT. So I don't see what should stop you from having yourself, even, practice some of that. I imagine that you don't much need Scriptural proof texting to help you along in showing authority derived from this "carrying the gospel in your person" hermeneutic. It seems that you are saying that the Church people who have authority (by virtue of God so imbueing them with a position of pastoral leadership) should be so recognized by the rest of us. And that authority includes the power to define and pronounce God's words. As you saw it, the Bereans were responding not exclusively to what was written, but to their perception of the presence of the gospel which Paul carried in his person. Is that close? As I understood it, Caiaphas (like Saul) was in a position of authority. So I guess that your position is that in order to be authoritative, one must AGREE with the gospel. It seems you are saying that “carrying the gospel in one’s person” must mean having sentient and positve affirmation and agreement with said gospel. Is that accurate? (Of course, Saul did not, so I’m not sure if you were trying to say his position of authority encompassed carrying the gospel in his person. Probably not.)

And then, I’d probably side track you if I asked how the NT writers agreed with the OT, since they had to reinterpret it.

Assuming that one must be saved to “carry the gospel in one’s person,” what other criteria are you affirming as necessary to apply interpretive authority? We started with the Bereans and Paul. Both saved and both carrying the gospel in their persons (if that’s what you mean by saved). Sounds like you are saying that the Bereans recognized and affirmed that Paul “carried the gospel in his person.” (But of course, they did not on the basis of looking into an OT that Paul reinterpreted? getting murky for me here)

But it’s getting murky here for me because you’ve already ascribed interpretive authority vis-a-vis God’s words to the Church. “Who’s interpretation of God’s words … is authoritative? … the answer is, the Church.” Really?!!? Who says?

Now the Roman Catholics can logically hold this, given their premise that THE CHURCH SAYS! They need only the Church to have pronounced it, and besides, the Church in Mother produced Jesus to begin with. (Cyprian missed that Jesus had God as His Father long before He adopted the Church as His mother and brothers, by the way.)

But again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Is it important for your position that the notion of Church’s interpretive authority be grounded in, let alone found in, Scripture? If so, perhaps you should share where you find it!

But you’ve already demonstrated a belief in “inspired eisegsis,” as Brett pointed out earlier — at least for NT writers in their reinterpretation of the OT. So I don’t see what should stop you from having yourself, even, practice some of that. I imagine that you don’t much need Scriptural proof texting to help you along in showing authority derived from this “carrying the gospel in your person” hermeneutic.

It seems that you are saying that the Church people who have authority (by virtue of God so imbueing them with a position of pastoral leadership) should be so recognized by the rest of us. And that authority includes the power to define and pronounce God’s words. As you saw it, the Bereans were responding not exclusively to what was written, but to their perception of the presence of the gospel which Paul carried in his person. Is that close?

]]> Comment on My Calvinistic Mistake by St. Ampher http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/my-calvinistic-mistake/#comment-93 St. Ampher Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:57:44 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/?p=109#comment-93 So again, I'm going with both. I see this here Book as the story told by the Sovereign we both agree is doing what He wants when He wants. But seems to me He also portrays Himself as not only knowing in advance how the story is going to unfold, but also as constructing the individual characters and national movements and even natural phenomena along the way to get to the happy ending He has in mind. "I will raise up so-and-so" and I will harden that dude's heart" etc. He predicts/foretells/predestines/makes happen tons of stuff, to the extent that I take it that He is running the whole show and making sure it all goes down as planned. But what He DOESN'T reveal in this story is YOUR (or my) place in it -- on the good side or bad? The book is constructed for the whole purpose of making the reader/listener ask this question. If you have ears to hear, you'll go: "Wo -- Oh ... My ... God ... This thing's real. Oh Jesus, I'm in a world a hurt. Please make it be that You have chosen me. I'm sincerely begging You." And asking this is, of course, a pretty good indication itself that you are hidden in the story with the guys in white hats. But this is the hear of your, preacher. Follow the Word. Don't show God as "sovereign" but without the all encompassing plan AND activity to get us there; but to ask your hearers if they are on the right side of His plan and actions. "Has He given you faith? You have been given this moment to desparately beg Him for it. And if indeed you do, you will by that very participation with Him have evidence and know that you are His. If you will or can not, I pray God helps you soon. Because there will be no greater tragedy/hell/misery than what is about to unfold for you. So again, I’m going with both. I see this here Book as the story told by the Sovereign we both agree is doing what He wants when He wants. But seems to me He also portrays Himself as not only knowing in advance how the story is going to unfold, but also as constructing the individual characters and national movements and even natural phenomena along the way to get to the happy ending He has in mind. “I will raise up so-and-so” and I will harden that dude’s heart” etc.

He predicts/foretells/predestines/makes happen tons of stuff, to the extent that I take it that He is running the whole show and making sure it all goes down as planned.

But what He DOESN’T reveal in this story is YOUR (or my) place in it — on the good side or bad? The book is constructed for the whole purpose of making the reader/listener ask this question. If you have ears to hear, you’ll go: “Wo — Oh … My … God … This thing’s real. Oh Jesus, I’m in a world a hurt. Please make it be that You have chosen me. I’m sincerely begging You.” And asking this is, of course, a pretty good indication itself that you are hidden in the story with the guys in white hats.

But this is the hear of your, preacher. Follow the Word. Don’t show God as “sovereign” but without the all encompassing plan AND activity to get us there; but to ask your hearers if they are on the right side of His plan and actions. “Has He given you faith? You have been given this moment to desparately beg Him for it. And if indeed you do, you will by that very participation with Him have evidence and know that you are His. If you will or can not, I pray God helps you soon. Because there will be no greater tragedy/hell/misery than what is about to unfold for you.

]]> Comment on The Orthodoxy of the Bereans by chrisbollegar http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-92 chrisbollegar Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:21:13 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-92 Instead of: "The ultimate question is who’s interpretation of God’s actions and words defining those actions is authoritative?" It should read, "The ultimate question is whose interpretation of God's actions as well as the words defining those actions are authoritative? Instead of: “The ultimate question is who’s interpretation of God’s actions and words defining those actions is authoritative?”

It should read, “The ultimate question is whose interpretation of God’s actions as well as the words defining those actions are authoritative?

]]> Comment on The Orthodoxy of the Bereans by chrisbollegar http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-91 chrisbollegar Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:18:30 +0000 http://chrisbollegar.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/the-orthodoxy-of-the-bereans/#comment-91 Caiaphas wasn't authoritative in any sense because he never "carried in his person the gospel." However, his statements were interpreted by one who was and he [John] was and is therefore authoritative. The donkey didn't carry the gospel in his person either. It was a non-sentient being used by God to communicate his message. Saul, however was in a position of authority and David rightly recognized that and submitted himself to Saul's position under God and waited until God made him [David] king. I have to respectfully disagree regarding the Anglican tradition and authority. We recognize the authority of the bishop because they are in apostolic succession which understood rightly means they bear the gospel in their persons and serve as defenders and teachers of it. The ultimate question is who's interpretation of God's actions and words defining those actions is authoritative? And the answer is, the Church. So then the question arises, which Church? And the Anglican answer is the undivided church of the first 5 centuries along with their doctrinal formulations as set out in the creeds. This is all in the Articles, Homilies and Anglican divines. Remember, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And if one were to reject the church, Jesus says they reject Him. As Cyprian said, "No one can have God as his father, without the Church as his mother." And one is never to "go against a bishop" in the sense of separating from the Church. The only way to "go against a bishop" is to demonstrate by the Church's teaching that he has moved away from the Church...then discipline should take place. As for the Corinthians reference regarding the Church being the silent woman, I don't hold that interpretation at all. We are not silent, and never commanded to be silent. We are actually commanded to bring our offerings of praise to the assembly as well as exercise our gifts for the edification of the body. I know what you are getting at in your reading, I just don't think that text supports it. My thoughts on the matter... Caiaphas wasn’t authoritative in any sense because he never “carried in his person the gospel.” However, his statements were interpreted by one who was and he [John] was and is therefore authoritative. The donkey didn’t carry the gospel in his person either. It was a non-sentient being used by God to communicate his message. Saul, however was in a position of authority and David rightly recognized that and submitted himself to Saul’s position under God and waited until God made him [David] king.
I have to respectfully disagree regarding the Anglican tradition and authority. We recognize the authority of the bishop because they are in apostolic succession which understood rightly means they bear the gospel in their persons and serve as defenders and teachers of it. The ultimate question is who’s interpretation of God’s actions and words defining those actions is authoritative? And the answer is, the Church. So then the question arises, which Church? And the Anglican answer is the undivided church of the first 5 centuries along with their doctrinal formulations as set out in the creeds. This is all in the Articles, Homilies and Anglican divines. Remember, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And if one were to reject the church, Jesus says they reject Him. As Cyprian said, “No one can have God as his father, without the Church as his mother.” And one is never to “go against a bishop” in the sense of separating from the Church. The only way to “go against a bishop” is to demonstrate by the Church’s teaching that he has moved away from the Church…then discipline should take place.
As for the Corinthians reference regarding the Church being the silent woman, I don’t hold that interpretation at all. We are not silent, and never commanded to be silent. We are actually commanded to bring our offerings of praise to the assembly as well as exercise our gifts for the edification of the body. I know what you are getting at in your reading, I just don’t think that text supports it.
My thoughts on the matter…

]]>