New Philosophical works

For a bunch of philosophers who think they are smarter then everyone else should not get bested by a 3 semester no degree from an unacredited Fundamentalist Baptist Bible KJV only school

Come on, there is no need to insult philosophers you've never met. Disagree with their ideas yes; personal attacks no. Now personally, I lose interest in Western philosophy at Descartes ... but find post-modern materials intriguing especially Edmund Jabes, the Egyptian-French Jewish author. Actually, Western philosophy after Descartes interests me when it turns to logic and semiotics both of which I'd love to see in Logos.

Pat Flanakin

You may want to create more paragraphs in your writing style here in the forum. I found it very hard to follow your thoughts as it all seemed to run together.

I am interested in your post, just could not follow due to your writing style. I as well am interested in philosophy; and would like your clear definition of what defines the emergent church. From what I understand, if you can define the emergent church, then you do not belong to it.

Hope we can keep the discussion going.

Brandon Vaughn

Mainly seeing some now emergent works coming into Logos and yes realize it has been coming for quite some time as what is sold is not exactly something you get a recomendation from Brian McLarten or Doug Padgitt.

Really? I would love to see some Brian McLaren on Logos personally. The church always goes through stages which are all a part of God's sovereign plan.

Blessings,
Brandon

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101324#Comment_101324

Come on, there is no need to insult philosophers you've never met.

Actually, I stand by my comments. Here is the thing-Fundamentalism and Christian conservatism was not built on modernism, rationalism, or foundationalism. I mean, really-Charles Spurgeon a rationalist? When saying this, did not even think of this point. Unitarians were very much involved with Liberalism in Christianityin that era who ended up being Spurgeons greatest foes that caused him to leave the Baptist Union for leaving out Trinity doctrine as a basis for fellowship.

Here is the point-Fundamentalism/Conservatism was built on faith-built on faith-believing what the bible teaches. You will here all kinds of things such as certainty in fundamentalist beliefs as related to foundationalism or where is the mystery in not understanding in an awe inspiring way.

When faith is seen as certainy-to me this is saying-we really believe what we believe-we believe it as if we have factual knowledge when really all we have is the bible and faith.

This really needs to be seen as deceptive as those who claim and understand our fundamentalist heritage absolutely realises we built on faith and not philosophy. They never give one shred of evidance to show this-they just say it a lot.

Of course, some how we have to believe only postmodernism is the only philosophy when I see existentialism, Process theology and philosophy, and Hegels Dialectic. They also claim communism and most times then not do not see the first three chapters of Genesis as factual.

Just seems to me with a bunch of postmoderns finding their beliefs in modernism and thensaying we must abandon fundamentalism as liberalism was abandoned.

I am telling you if you want to understand emergent theology-go study Liberalism, fationalism, and modernism in Christian thought in the mid 1800's to probably in between WW1 and WW2. The reason why liberalism in Christianity was abandoned was not so we can become post modernist believers but when it is taught that every person has a spark of divinity as God andFunndamentalists and Calvinists teaching man is in bondage to sin-man is evil-when they started opening up Auschwitz and other camps-it became abundantly clear liberalism is incapable in teaching and preaching the truth as what was seen these events fairly went with Calvinists and fundamentalists conceptions that man is utterly sinful and evil. Of course in the 1970's Falwell's Moral Majority helped Reagan get elected and for the most part-America has been a right of center country as morally and religously.

Fundamentalism and conservatism is far from dying.

So if you want people to adopt liberalism-change the name aand say this is the new way of doing thing

Incarnational is God unfolding himself in mankind so as to adress culture and make faith as part of culture. This is termed this way-God is in us and we are in God. Really? So God was in the 9-11 hijackers? To say God is in us-there as that spark nof divinity. Bell has a DVD that is titled, "Everything is Spiritual" Between these two oif you do not see Hegels Dialectic which teaches the immanence of God instead of the transcendent which all boils dow to-God is in everything, so everything is divine. So when Brian McLaren teaches that Christ's death was ot for sins but salvation is in creation or saving creation from evil Capitalism-is this really why Christ died.

To deny fundamentalism as truth is to deny the fundamentals of the faith-the bible is the woord of God without error, the Virgin birth of Christ and miracles, Jesuis Christ is God, the blood atonement and salvation by faith is how salvation is appropiated, and the visible return of Jesus Christ to set up his kingdom.

The problem comes in when the bible is not the word of God and never intended to teach truth but was an expression of faith in that era-since that was a different time and era-it is not for us today. When they teach that Christ did not die to save man from sins, and basically teach that man is to bring in the kingdom of God through dominion theology which is Amillinealism except they just drop those words.

The time I have taken to research, read, study, and learn-yes, I absolutely stand by my commandments when based on what I remember show that McLaren denies three essiantial truths of fundamentalism. Bell questions the virgin birth and the end-they are heretics as well as hypocritical.

They bemoan consumerism but write more books on this then anyone which takes trees to make and eventually sold through Zondervan and other Christian book publishers which forces these on Christian bookstores-but consumerism is wrong?

They bemoan the fact that Christianity is full of old white European/American men in a patriarchal society-and who do you findleading the emergent church movement? Old white men from America and Europe.

Of course, when he speaks of American forray into Colonialism-this done under Democrat Presidents cheered on by liberal Christians. Literally as a negotiation with Spain-we bought the Philippines. So the liberal Christians saw a perfect oppurtunity to bring heaven on earth as Mickinley said he felt he is in a mission from God to civilize the Philippinos as they rebelled when a new country came in and we put down the insurrection. Oh yes, let me not forget-traveled there a few times because I have a finace there and as my unit's heritage is all about how we helped put down the insurrection as 14th Cav Regiment had their baptism of fire and as on our unit crest there is a rattlesnake and this knife bigger then most knives but not quite a sword-that is from fighting in the jungles of the Phillipines as quite a bit was not just fighting Philippinos but also rattlesnakes in the jungles. So when McLaren speaks of being or feeling guilty for American Colonialism-I would say excuse me if I think he just hates America, freedom, and Capitalism when no matter how bad we are-when he states he believes in peaceful Marxism if there was ever such a thing-when Chairman Mao allowed 70 million of his country starve to dath because he thought there was too many people to feed-sure-that was peacful Marxism until China started Colonizing the countries around them and lets not forget India and China's forray into war against Vietnam after we left.

So when I read emergent authors, please excuse me when I accuse of lying, less then honest and downright decietful. Is this all emergents? No. At somepoint in time, someone has to speak up and tell Jim I do not do kool aid.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101343#Comment_101343

I would like to see McLaren on here as well-makes for easier copying and pasting as opoised to have to type out from his book

Really? I would love to see some Brian McLaren on Logos personally. The church always goes through stages which are all a part of God's sovereign plan.

Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church

This book and one on the kingdom of God are on prepub. I should mention-as I am against emergent postmodernism-I would also like to see more emergent works here. It is just sometimes easier to read on a computer.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101343#Comment_101343

The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk....

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101424#Comment_101424

The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk....

Too bad, the Logos versions can't do that. Good thing some of us find more value in them than just as desk props.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101428#Comment_101428

Lol...I am interested in seeing how many factual conclusions are reached in this thread. Although watching the mental gymnastics necessary to "prove" fideism is always fascinating imo.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101393#Comment_101393

This book and one on the kingdom of God are on prepub. I should mention-as I am against emergent postmodernism-I would also like to see more emergent works here. It is just sometimes easier to read on a computer.

Well, if everybody felt the need to post their support or opposition to each pre-pub title in 32 point fonts we'd bury the forums in run-on sentences. [6] I'd like to paraphrase MJ's response to your post by saying there is no need to attack a bunch of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists you have never met. Although I agree with the generalizations about Kool-Aid and dogmatic fervor, I must say I've seen a lot of people saved by a little Gospel tract from the hand of an an IFB but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher.

Now that I've got that out of the way..... I find many titles on "emergent" ideas of help in understanding the culture and direction of Modern Christianity. It helps me locate the dazed & confused when I stretch out my hand with that simple Gospel tract. The works of Harry Iromside http://www.logos.com/products/details/4556 will be a great antidote to the PostModern poison in the paper cups. And if that leaves your college dropout brain hungry, feast on the Works of Francis Schaeffer http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/cwfs

(David, brother, I love you in the Lord and have so much in common with you. IFB church member, Bible College dropout, reader of dangerous books.. [:|] )

EDIT: David, I think you have a very good handle on the problem and I completely understand your definitions. And it is funny how God uses the simple to knock down the lofty ideas.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101424#Comment_101424

The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk...

You must have a very narrow view of philosophy - at least no wider that the broken leg.[:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101438#Comment_101438

but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher.

I hope not ... salvation is in Jesus Christ. However, there certainly are those who have come to Christianity via philosophy.[:)]

PS. for the definition of post modern from the Stanford Philosophy database: "That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be
described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices
employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the
simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as
presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the
univocity of meaning."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101456#Comment_101456

The best part of a philosophy book is it can be used to prop up a desk...

You must have a very narrow view of philosophy - at least no wider that the broken leg.

I have been analyzing this thread using a dialetic approach....all I got was a paper synthesis.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101460#Comment_101460

but I have never heard someone credit their salvation to a deep reading of some philosopher.

I hope not ... salvation is in Jesus Christ. However, there certainly are those who have come to Christianity via philosophy.

I must correct myself here. I remembered the conversion of Mortimer J. Adler in the twilight years of his long life. Adler was the second editor for Britannica's Great Books of the Western World. He authored The Paideia Proposal and was a champion of Classical education. After rejecting Christianity for decades, he finally embraced it as the only logical explanation. Some may criticize the lack of a mystical element to his conversion but Adler did place his faith in Jesus Christ. And I never read of him denouncing Philosophy. So, it could possibly be argued that Adler and God had a sit-down, reasoning session. Isaiah 1:18

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101438#Comment_101438

Well, if everybody felt the need to post their support or opposition to each pre-pub title in 32 point fonts we'd bury the forums in run-on sentences.

Part of this is from a really mental defect I have usually when you tend to get blown up in a real bomb-you get affected as in the left deals with language where fortunately-talking or writing to much is what usually is affected i.e. wreite probably one book a day. On the other hand, when in the last year to 18 monthsseeing how much I have learned and discerned-some of tis you can see in Apprising Ministries but asically tracking down what philosophies they are using without naming them is not always so easy so sometimes when I see a percieved misunderstanding or error.

On the IFB stuff-this is most related that they do not teach philosophy or critical thinking and see this as somewhat dangerous as either pators do not know how to have a ready answer or be led astray themselves. On the other hand, realizing as long as I have been an IFB also have been a believer in Lordship Salvation and Calvinism for as long as my Baptist roots and so many times see so many talk about Calvin writing TULIP whenit was King James who initiated the Synod of Dort-Just do not think teaching a history of Systematic Theology to get them to a point where I just want them to understand-not everyone is a heretic if we have a different understanding.

Isaiah 55-What God swends out as his word will accomplish what he intends it to accomplish. Gospel tracks are never a bad thing as faith does come from hearing-or reading the word of God. Much of this was seeing a person taking to task of being a bit judgmental to emergent philosophers-I apologise because that is how to get a 300 page disertation from me in something have been studying a while now as hope to get my first blog tommorow and hopefully able to get published on these issues.

One last note-I say this as an explanation as I am not intentionally trying to get sympethy points though also will not knock some one for appreciating-Was in an actual explosion in the Iraq war and would not reccomend it as yes_TBI is not fun-but I thank the Lord for his joy and opleasure to bring me through this. I just sometimes think others will look at this as a ploy in debate as a kind of red herring or to be used with those I disagree with(I am a disabled vet so you better tell me I am always right) as I try not to be this way but as a matter of course-such as all I write-seeing from where it comes from helps people understand a it better. Thanks Godbless-Dave Emme

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101931#Comment_101931

usually when you tend to get blown up in a real bomb-you get affected

I appreciate you sharing that. It helps me read you better in context. Closest I got to that was an explosive device wired to my car ignition. They didn't build the bomb correctly so I suffered no bodily harm. Seems they didn't approve of my Star of David decal.

On the IFB stuff-this is most related that they do not teach philosophy or critical thinking and see this as somewhat dangerous as either pators do not know how to have a ready answer or be led astray themselves

I've attended an IFB church for 13 years now. Three of my children have been students at their Bible College (2 have their BAs). My observations match yours. There is not a high priority put on Philosophy, critical thinking or most any education deemed "secular." These just don't appear necessary to reach the common man. My problem with ignoring these tools is the resultant inability to open a dialogue with the uncommon prospect. I think the apologetics resources in Logos can sufficiently fill that need.for most Christians. See them here: http://www.logos.com/products/groups/allitems/theology-doctrine-apologetics I do wish they would add the works of Ravi Zacharias to the list.

I know the Holy Spirit can (and always does) effect the change in a person's heart. God is not dependent upon using a Gospel tract, fiery sermon or philosophical debate to help. But many times He chooses to. Our role is to make ourselves available to be used of God. If that includes deeper study of Philosophy, have at it. The Apostle Paul didn't shy away from it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102155#Comment_102155

I appreciate you sharing that. It helps me read you better in context. Closest I got to that was an explosive device wired to my car ignition. They didn't build the bomb correctly so I suffered no bodily harm. Seems they didn't approve of my Star of David decal.

That is interesting and when you feel you can, let us know what happened but in saying this-if you feel I am intruding-tell me to bug off.

On a certain note if there are perhaps any Fundamentalists or Baptists or evem Independent Fundamental Baptists-stick to the word of God and fervently pray to the Lord to teach you.

We are not trying to Bash others but sometimes when a shared experiance happens(having similar experiances for similar reasons tough not together)-I just want people to understand we are not trying to discourage or crucify anyone.

Saying this-I do see some in the IFB movement trying to change things around i.e. Northland, Bob Jones, Schapp at First Baptist and Hyles Anderson. There is a video on youtube of Schapp having a more balanced view of the KJV as he stated, "If the King James translators knew as much as us who hold only the KJKV-we would never have a KJV"

He spoke of teaching Greek, Hebrew, and latin which in quite a few Christian circles Latin is ignored despite as many as twice the number of Greek manuscripts-besides erasmus work was really for a Biglot(hope I got the word correct) to correct the Latin Vulgate.

For me, I just began seeing Armineism as a bit more dangerous then the bible issues. Some things I hold the same understanding but really see no need to thump others for not holding to the KJV or ever really needing to bring it up.

As for their colleges-the acredited ones end up being the best and Northland I see as Patterning after Nasters college and seminary-I do see quite a lot of similar patterns especially seeing they will have a cross culture missions program dealing with translating the bible as this is what I hope to do in the Philippines for some of the languages without a bible or in the case of Cebuano-my understanding is whatever they have now is like having The Message or maybe even the emergent "The Voice".

Part of the problem is Translators Baptist Bible Institute in Texas will not accept people who believe in Calvinism. I wander what would be the reaction when they realize King James(all be it probably for more political to shore up that area against Spain) -yet this does not fail to see King James is the one who called for the Synod of Dort as he could choose between Calvinists and Armeniasm and King James picked Calvinism as what would be the doctrine for the reformation.

In other words-lack of knowledge and consistancy. I would at least say for a school which holds to the KJV and teaches translation principles-even with no written language and will not accept Calvinists is a big time contradiction to me.

Am taking some Greek and Hebrew classes but really do not see a need to get a degree except for maybe if I see the value of a degree program. For instance-not sure if it Liberty or Tennesee Temple who has a masters program in philosophy on Apologetics.

Not trying to be prideful as we all are-but most IFB schools-the one thing I would start thinking-why am I not teaching this course because whoever is, is not teaching me something new.

Saying this for me-besides the translation stuff-would like to write quite a bit but really a very good discipleship and bible institute courses-really try to make it highquality stuff though I would eventuallygive it away freely. Just one of my goals I guess.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102336#Comment_102336

I must say that the resources that I have seen and used in Logos have more than enough intellectual weight to deal with the varied concerns in this thread imo. However, I still am fascinated with cutting edge theological debate/discussion/concerns from 500 years ago as if all religious philosophical reflection ended in the Middle Ages. I dare say if this is the state of contemporary theological debate my choice to focus on practical divinity is indeed a good one...Lord only know how many brains will explode if Process, Liberation, or Open theism theology would be discussed.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102428#Comment_102428

Lord only know how many brains will explode if Process, Liberation, or Open theism theology would be discussed

Certainly you have your right to your opinions. I do know this-do not believe in Communism i.e. liberation theology, believe God does not change, and that my God certainly knows what will happen as he determines it-or why would he allow prophesy if he did not know what is going which fairly relegates scripture as erroneous and not truthful though Christ did proclaim God's word is truth-or maybe he was just mistaken which would fairly place Christ outside the bounds of diety.

I actually got into quite a bit of this when I went to a bible study with my dad and made some fairly innocent mistakes thinking we would actually study the bible and ended up studying John Eldredge's Wild at Heart which caused me to buy The Weakness of God by Caputo as I saw quite a bit in Eldredge-it is no longer we are weak and he is strong but God is weak and I am strong recognizing that basically much of what he teaches is a result of the sin nature and basically heard all these grown men bagging on daddy for not having a six figure income, a six figure house, a six figure car, and a new six figure wife that caused me to nearly puke as less then a month ago recieved prosthetic skull on the left side wandering why these men thought they had it so bad. As it was my time to bag on daddy-I sure did when asked what did your dad do to wound you and how will you confront your father so you can heal. Of course, the only one with a bible, I read out of Genesis three talking how my dad screwed the pooch and caused us all to be seperated from God and the second Adam-Christ died for my sins and was really shocked seeing the pastor trying to get me to finish up and as a good Baptist would do-just preached salvation and the cross of Christ for about 15 minutes.

Of course it never dawned on me after I went back to Walter Reed that my parents told thyey are no longer welcome at the church had anything to do with me.

Almost anytime someone inserts philosophy into Christianity-Heresy is the by product of this from day one as before the bibloe is even finished Gnosticism was already causing havoc and to me the most dangerous-German Rationalism producing higher criticism.

I am not saying philosoiphy is bad-it is just bad when we use it as theology. I am rather glad when Edison was told he was a failure and he disagreed by saying no-he just now knew 1,000 ways to not make light..

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102453#Comment_102453

I think this has reached the point of needing a gentle reminder that the forums are based on a shared software and not as a theological forum. How do I know? Because it was soooo ... tempting to add a provocative response. Don't you know that Christians aren't to be a temptation to other Christians?[:#]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102458#Comment_102458

I think this has reached the point of needing a gentle reminder that the forums are based on a shared software and not as a theological forum.

Yep. It is the strongest weakness of mine. I tried to legitimize my post with the link to Logos apologetics resources. http://www.logos.com/products/groups/allitems/theology-doctrine-apologetics I really DO think they suffice for most Christians daily needs. Those who need more should drop suggestions and watch the Pre-Pub page. (I certainly will.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102458#Comment_102458

I think this has reached the point of needing a gentle reminder that the forums are based on a shared software and not as a theological forum. How do I know? Because it was soooo ... tempting to add a provocative response. Don't you know that Christians aren't to be a temptation to other Christians?

Have no problem following this understanding there will be a diverse group here and we will not always agree which is fine, but when seeing a passive agressive thrown stuff out there not adressed to anyone but knowing my first post being against a certain thought so these Passive Agressive people throwing it out there-I just have never been the type to lay down for someone and when seeing as this type of sniping about others based on philosophical ideas-I just happen to believe going straight to the source.

Saying this, I have stated 1. Am Against emerent postmodernism 2. Seeing some works on this come out. 3. would like to see other philosophical works of both modernism/postmodernism -or basiucally in what I did not say-generally any philosophiucal works from the enlightenment 4. More works from the more popular emergent postmoderns as Jones, Padgitt, McLaren be made available as most I have seen is the more obscure theologian type works such as Frei and others I never heard of. 4. Going through a change in faith movements while not trying to drop bombs on those who come here and feel I am just shalacking one faith movement 5. And even saw someone tell me I was a it unfair in some of my comments which believe it or not-even when I disagree, I can appreciate someone taking me to task on here

My personality, in fact is obviously not conducive to emerent postmodernism as I see it-yes I am the type of person to verbally punch in the throat as I try not to be this way too much here. One comment dealing with fideism okay-I let that pass=when I start seeing other comments-just as you did here-it is time to putn your foot down.

Me I just wander if I have the same experiances here I have had in other online communities.
or instance in my Onliest stages, was on a community forum where most disagreed with me. Knowing sometimes some KJV onliests tend to be insulting I basically decided I would not act like them. Because in the past some ruckmanites went in there and had the most insulting tones-I was treated a certain way when I kept asking if we just allow anyone to insult anyone based on what you believe. Got tired of being insulted and me as a very black and white personality-if we are going to be right, lets do the right thing or if we are going to be sin, lets really be in sin and not hide anything because we are Christians-lets really be sinful by which all the tiime in the military you learn all kinds of things and this I used as insulting many speaking of their mother and wives in less complimentary ways. So, basically all of a sudden all these people started telling me I am wrong. Of course, I embraced what I did-admitted, "Yah, your right, I am wrong-now are you going to be consistant in your judgements of sin or only when it is a KJV Only person in sin is when you decide to put your foot down."

The whole point of this is this-is it the same here. When a person acts as a passive agressive-will this be handled or only when the more obtuse and obvious are ever seen as being wrong.

The whole point is will we be equitable? Will we treat all the same with the same standard? When someone makes insulting remarks not to anyone person but overall to anyone in a discussion, will this be curtailed?

Am not saying I am far from being perfect but consistancy I think is fairly important to me as I am sure to others.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102854#Comment_102854

I take the star under my name seriously and try to be even-handed about when I step in. I cannot speak for others.

Me I just wander if I have the same experiances here I have had in other online communities.

I hope your experiences here will be more pleasant. They should be if you stick to Logos topics rather than discussing your (or any posters') theological views.

The whole point is will we be equitable?

I don't know. But if each of us follow the guidelines in our own posts, the question should never come up.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102854#Comment_102854

Have no problem following this understanding there will be a diverse group here and we will not always agree which is fine, but when seeing a passive agressive thrown stuff out there not adressed to anyone but knowing my first post being against a certain thought so these Passive Agressive people throwing it out there-I just have never been the type to lay down for someone and when seeing as this type of sniping about others based on philosophical ideas-I just happen to believe going straight to the source.

David,

The Logos forums isn't the place to take theological stands. Although it does help people understand where we are coming from (or how we arrived at our current perspective) it isn't necessary or productive to spar with each other. There are probably an overabundance of Passive-Agressives posting. That is preferable to the all-out Agressives we have heard from The totally Passive don't post much.

Your original post has been read and understood. Naturally Your resources, MJ's resources and My resources will differ somewhat depending on our interests and needs. George Somsel uses his Concise Coptic dictionary, Bob Pritchett said he personally has no need for a Coptic Dictionary but has the Crum's on Pre-Pub http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/5970 for those who may want/need it. I am happy Logos does not limit their publishing to one theology. A lot of titles would not get published if they had to meet someone's litmus test.

BTW: Theological Studies Collection http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/4534 is back on the Pre-Pub list with a few adjustments. Given enough time I predict Logos will also address the Philosophical arena with similar collections. At least I hope they will. [:)]

fwiw: MSN had a chat group called "A God's Fight" where people of every imaginable persuasion could debate, attack, insult or proselytize. It was very lively but not for the faint-hearted or tender ears. I finally quit frequenting the place because it was a fruitless venture. Logos forums should never emulate that forum.

Pat Flanakin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103073#Comment_103073

To wrap up----

Did Christ come as a man: yes

Did Christ communicate: yes

Is Christ God: yes

Can God communicate anything that isn't truth: no

Has God communicated in His Word, the Bible: yes

Therefore, should not we simply stick with the Bible for philosophical Truth: yes

P.S. for you logicians, I left some precepts and argumentative steps out, please forgive me

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103078#Comment_103078

Ecclesiastes meets all my Philosophical needs. The rest is just curiosity. And you know what they say about that.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101217#Comment_101217

I would like to offer apologies to anyone offended by my tone and thoughts in this group as my goal is not to make life miserable or so dramatic in a good community. I love Logos and do not want to make a Logos experiance negative for anyone. I am very opinionated and absloutely hyper agressive at times which I almost never see these as bad qualities-well probably because they are mine.

To Matt, I apologise for my last comments as from my view-whatever is my gut instinct is usually what I follow because I usualy have a high percentage of being right then more wrong. Part of this still might be something I am quite used to as have said before in 20 yrs of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism-I tend to see things with a colored view as quite often many times you just get so used to how a person operates where it does start slanting your view of everyone i.e. inconsistancies always discovered. when looking at this again tonite, I realized I was about a bit over the line what I wrote to matt as maybe even seen as questioning his integrity. This is not my intentions but it is what happened regaurdless of intentions. As for me, them are fighting words and thank Matt for patiance with me and putting up with me. It is obvious he is a better man then me and deeply regret calling your integrity into question. Literally, if the roles were reversed-I would be looking for blood and do not blame Matt if he was.

In the end, I really do not sweat much with all my experiances in life. Sometimes I think this is one reason why I come off as I do-swinging another way from sensitivity to apathy as quite often-still trying to wrap your head around being all blown up in Iraq when you were the most protected soldier and at times this causes me to lose focus on what is imporant as because of this-I survived by the Lords grace who has used this to teach me what I needed to know to progress to a higher view of God and a lower view of self. As everyday is a gift from God, sometimes I do tend to rub people the wrong way as in the mindset of I am still alive-some of this does not matter compared to the big picture which tends to cause me to be a bit freer-a bit hyper agressive at times(yes that is my personality-very lack and very white and a big unpassable border between the two.)

I realise some might think this is much ado about nothing and in reality-this is not that hard-until you start talking with other people. Life is almost never hard util you wake up.

On one last issue-peo[ple who know me know my love for country and those who fight and bleed for American freedom and even did a bit blood letting myself. I always get concerned because my greatest and highest experiances as will as lowest and least experiances-yes I tend to fall back on my training as nine times out of ten for me doing this has always giving me success. Saying this, this gives me no right to lift myself as more important or better because of military service. My concern is people seeing me to use it as a verbal club to beat over the head. Had a good friend point this out as I was being a bit unfair(this a few years ago) that no one can say anything to me as they cannot disparage my service to get shots in. I do not think this really came out though what I have learned because of service has. My point being-I hope noone saw this as to be used to attack others or against anyone as this is not to honorable. Sometimes I do not know what someones perception is and really the only way to bring this out is for me to talk about it recognizing when I am wrong to use that part of my life as my shield when the Lord should be our shield.

I am not big on guilt and hopefully many will see the inverse of this-not hard to admit when I am wrong.

God bless

David emme

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103261#Comment_103261

I usualy have a high percentage of being right then more wrong

Just a different perspective, not an attempt to start a debate. My perspective is that I have no reason to think I understand God's self-revelation any better than devout Jews in the first century. Therefore, while I'm confident that I have the big picture right, I have no such assurance on the small stuff - I need to constantly be questioning, doubting and learning.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/101931#Comment_101931

On the other hand, realizing as long as I have been an IFB also have been a believer in Lordship Salvation and Calvinism for as long as my Baptist roots and so many times see so many talk about Calvin writing TULIP whenit was King James who initiated the Synod of Dort-Just do not think teaching a history of Systematic Theology to get them to a point where I just want them to understand-not everyone is a heretic if we have a different understanding.

David,

I really do have trouble following your thought at times. I'm not always quite sure what the connection is between your various statements, but one thing which intrigued me which you stated a couple of times was that King Jimmy was responsible for convening the Synod of Dordt. I had never heard that before and frankly find that rather dubious since the Synod was held in the Netherlands in response to a doctrinal controversy originating in the Netherlands though there were delegates from other countries as well (including England). What is your source for that statement?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103261#Comment_103261

Literally, if the roles were reversed-I would be looking for blood and do not blame Matt if he was.

David,

No offense taken. I am not walking around with a battery on my shoulder daring people to knock it off. (For you young'uns, that was a TV commercial with Robert Conrad... Googlei it.)

As far as wanting to draw blood, Your sacrifice in Iraq is more than I deserve. Thanks & Peace to you Brother.

For the rest of your points; correct or not as you may be, your intensity rivals that of any IFB I've ever debated. [B][Y][H] Relax.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103123#Comment_103123

Ecclesiastes meets all my Philosophical needs.

Well, Looky what showed up on the Pre-Pub list ---> http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/6220

Studies on Ecclesiastes.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103438#Comment_103438

I really do have trouble following your thought at times. I'm not always quite sure what the connection is between your various statements, but one thing which intrigued me which you stated a couple of times was that King Jimmy was responsible for convening the Synod of Dordt. I had never heard that before and frankly find that rather dubious since the Synod was held in the Netherlands in response to a doctrinal controversy originating in the Netherlands though there were delegates from other countries as well (including England). What is your source for that statement?

I apologise-sometimes(and has been a problem when a younger lad in highschool doing the same thing) mainly having a certain body of knowlege and making these jumps in statements that is perfectly common sesnse to me but no one sees the jumps in logic.

Besides Logos, whenever I do research-I heavily rely on Google, particularly when doing a search-going up and setting it to look at blogs or youtube videos but most often setting this to search Google books-particularly free books which quite often on the free Google books that are downloadable on PDF format. Most times when finding a piece of information like this-I will download the resource not concerned with the title and manytimes in a miscombogulated way-not concerned where it is put on my hard drive-I have this resource to use later.

For me, it is about organizing all my pdf's downloads in a way to make it easier to find and pull what I need to share such in a forum as this-now I have an excuse to take the time to actually do this.

Yes, I do have a resource that shows theis in a book on either the history of King James or a history of england printed in the 1800's. Cannot easily pull it out of my PDF's and must now organize which I should have done all along. After sending this, I will be looking at some emails for I do remember sending a link of this resource to someone I know.

The logic is this-whether King James initiated or merely sent reps to they Synod of Dort in 1618-19-can all these Independent Fundamental Baptists judge Calvinism as heretical and still uphold the KJV as the only word of God when King James was not there but definetley involved.

The points to me made-it is one thing if I say I disagree-and when I was not a Calvinist-I always looked at Calvinism this way-I disagree, it is a different viewpoint on how we think God works in his sacred and often secret decrees-we disagree but seeing many Calvinist believers and authors as preaching the same gospel-using the same passages teaching repentance from dead works and faith in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross.

Once I began studying the bible alone on Calvinism and asked God to instruct me to the truth as we all desire to believe the exact correct beliefs while as for me(cannot speak for anyone else) if I be wrong-then the Lord through his Spirit and the bible instruct me which while going to a very Armenian Independent Fundamentalist Bible College is where I came to believe Calvinism. When this happened-I had the same view of Non Calvinists-we disagree on the secret decrees of God and how he works his will in salvation-but we preach the same gospel and though we disagree on not easy to understand doctrine-no matter your view-it is the grace of God which should be magnified-being a non Calvinist does not make me more knowledgable or better then those I disagree with and trying to keep the unity of Spirit as for me(not trying to brag or lift my efforts above others but feel important to mention this) probably did more evangelising as a Calvinst compared when I held Armenianism as I think quite often-Calvinists see preaching the gospel and eveangelizing as uplifting and glorifying God and his gospel. I say this because I know someone will look at this and try to take what I say and re-establish their understanding of my beliefs as I see as a bit assumptive(your a calvinist so you no longer preach the gospel or eveangelize!)

Dispite the fact I have not yet read Calvin teaching Limited Atonement(and I say this-I have not read every word Calvin wrote) but while going to some of the passages it seems Calvinists abuse as I see a bit as eisegesis as reading an understanding into John 3:16-since adopting Calvinism and once in posession of Calvin commentaries on Logos-I went to every passage both Calvinists and Armnenians use and have yet to find where Calvin preached Limited Atonement or Christ dying only for the elect.

Often I see quite a bit of abuses of knowledge and no doubt I probably have been wrong of the same accusation-but trying to figure out how one can think John Calvin originated TULIP when this happened a good 60 yrs after his death. Some will state he did not when bringing this up but in spirit he did teach limited atonement when my challange always is-please show me this. I have Logos, I have all Calvins commentaries on Logos-where did you draw this understanding from. Me, I think when people like this say these things more than likely never read one word of Calvin but just say things without knowledge.

Here is really where I run into problems with Fundamentalists non calvinists-besides the ffact TULIP was never a presentation of the gospel but an apologetic against Armenianism-how do I preach a false damming gospel when how I approach the gospel has not chenged from my Armenian days and now my Calvinist days? Besides erroneously teaching if one point of TULIP is wrong the whole thing crumbles when in rality it was never intended to be interweaved but against the five points of Armeniasm despite the fact there are 13-15 other points coming out of Synod-but yes-being an apologetic or defense against Armeniasm and stating if one falls they all fall is basically a straw man argument.

As with me(and yes, by no means am I perfect in this) if we are to be consistant in our judgements-then the very fact right now that we know King James at the very least sent representatives to the Synod of Dort-as for me I see this as a bit inconsistant to preach Calvinism is a false gospel but the KJV is the word of God-me, the consistant thing to do if one sees Calvinism as a false gospel-you better get rid of the KJV that quite a few fFundamental Baptists kling to as for me-I live the KJV just as much as the KJV only believer. Often times I will say it like this-"You better start rip[ping the pages out of your KJV if Calvinism is a false gospel"

On the same exact ideal-we also need to start ripping that name "Fundamentalists" off of our churches for just as much as dispensationalists-Calvinists were very involved with defending the faith against modernists whee besides what is in The Fundamentals of the Faith-many Calvinists including Spurgeon and Meacham did quite a bit to oppose modernism in Christianity as many saw the Calvinist Meachem absolutely the leader against modernism.

As finding BH Carrol who is vey popular in IFB churches because of his booklet, The Trail of Blood was also a Calvinist and as I see it-we better then judge him and Spurgeon as well as a few other names I bring up who wee Calvinists in ourt country and used mightily by God-we better be consistant if we judge Calvinism as heresy.

Now, someone can maker the case that King James was more or less trying to sure up Englands influance in some nations as he foresaw war with Spain and where the Synod also took place had been at war with Spain. mainly seeing this as almost like NATO was-if you attack this country-we will fight with them anb if you fight with us-this other country will fight you to.

If this was King James motivation-me I could care less. Really, if this is what it was all about-so is it now okay to believe heresy as long as it secures our borders against invasion?

I have this resource, I do not have it readily available as I must organize my pdf library quite a bit better and will be lookong in my email as I know I sent this to some brothers in the Lord for their understanding.

To try to uphold the spirit of this forum-you can read some of Calvins commentaries in this resource: http://www.logos.com/products/details/5170 and in this resource http://www.logos.com/products/details/5161

You also can read The Fundamentals of the Faith in this resource http://www.logos.com/products/details/2182

I do have this resource and would say it will take about a week to organize my pdf collection as quite often-I am an evidance type of guy and can appreciate being challanged to produce a resource to prove my claims.

God bless

Dave Emme

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103554#Comment_103554

Besides Logos, whenever I do research-I heavily rely on Google, particularly when doing a search-going up and setting it to look at blogs or youtube videos but most often setting this to search Google books-particularly free books which quite often on the free Google books that are downloadable on PDF format. Most times when finding a piece of information like this-I will download the resource not concerned with the title and manytimes in a miscombogulated way-not concerned where it is put on my hard drive-I have this resource to use later.

For me, it is about organizing all my pdf's downloads in a way to make it easier to find and pull what I need to share such in a forum as this-now I have an excuse to take the time to actually do this.

Yes, I do have a resource that shows theis in a book on either the history of King James or a history of england printed in the 1800's. Cannot easily pull it out of my PDF's and must now organize which I should have done all along. After sending this, I will be looking at some emails for I do remember sending a link of this resource to someone I know.

I can understand not being able to find a resource when it is not in Logos. I am patient. Please let me know when you find it.

Dispite the fact I have not yet read Calvin teaching Limited Atonement(and I say this-I have not read every word Calvin wrote) but while going to some of the passages it seems Calvinists abuse as I see a bit as eisegesis as reading an understanding into John 3:16-since adopting Calvinism and once in posession of Calvin commentaries on Logos-I went to every passage both Calvinists and Armnenians use and have yet to find where Calvin preached Limited Atonement or Christ dying only for the elect.

Neither have I read every word that Calvin wrote (nor am I ever likely to do so) despite the fact that I went to Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary. While Calvin is honored there, he is not the final authority.

On the same exact ideal-we also need to start ripping that name "Fundamentalists" off of our churches for just as much as dispensationalists-Calvinists were very involved with defending the faith against modernists whee besides what is in The Fundamentals of the Faith-many Calvinists including Spurgeon and Meacham did quite a bit to oppose modernism in Christianity as many saw the Calvinist Meachem absolutely the leader against modernism.

Yes, it was primarily the Calvinists who opposed Modernism. A perusal of The Fundamentals will establish this.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103554#Comment_103554

For me, it is about organizing all my pdf's downloads in a way to make it easier to find

I find favorites in Logos to be an effective way of organizing PDF's.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/103580#Comment_103580

A cursory reading of the history of theology by Tillich could lead one to conclude that theology is no more than an applied branch of philosophy. The underlying schema of Van Til (Logos work) and Plantaga (don't know if hes in Logos) with presuppositional theology/philosophy as a foundation of contemporary Calvinism and its various other manifestations cries for more philosophical works in the Logos library. While I am still astounded that a serious contemporary theological conversation is framed in 500 year old terms I have accepted, to a large extent, the almost backward looking nature (imo) of these conversations. As best that I can tell modernism was a problem some 50 years ago and what I see as serious theological discussion in many mainline seminaries (i.e. political theology) is much more of a threat than any modernist. It seems to me that a wider range of foundational philosophical works is necessary in the Logos Library in order to help equip the Body of Christ to deal with these modern Vandals at the walls of the Mother Church.