tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post4980719374437858108..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Modern day Donatists: “wheat and tares” parable is not referring to the visible ChurchDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-62871584936181776542009-11-20T19:48:35.931-08:002009-11-20T19:48:35.931-08:00I'm seriously reading that thread over at Begg...I'm seriously reading that thread over at Beggars all, and 'Loling'. I assume the owner of the blog is embarrassed by Rhology's 'dullness' (to put it mildly). But he won't say anything because he probably doesn't want to throw him under the bus. (plus traffic doesn't hurt).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68142767922636225952009-11-17T09:59:26.000-08:002009-11-17T09:59:26.000-08:00Hi Tap,
I have been deeply interested in Islam si...Hi Tap,<br /><br />I have been deeply interested in Islam since the early 90s. To assist my studies, I have collected a bit over 600 books on Islam; but I am at the point in my studies that I need to go beyond English translations, so I am learning Arabic (trying to devote at least 1 hour a day to this endeavor).<br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-58026118974019900722009-11-16T18:40:19.664-08:002009-11-16T18:40:19.664-08:00Dude what the heck? you are learning the language ...Dude what the heck? you are learning the language or you already know the language and are just reading Arabic books? Either way that's some crazy deep dedication bro! Perhaps you might one day discover/translate the lost Canon's of Nicea somewhere in Ctesiphon.<br />May God bless you in your endeavors!Taphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04375511506567572806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-20593011496768182912009-11-16T15:50:50.294-08:002009-11-16T15:50:50.294-08:00Hi Tap,
An interesting peek into the minds of fol...Hi Tap,<br /><br />An interesting peek into the minds of folk who embrace <i>nuda scriptura</i>; I have tried to simplify the issue for our brothers in Christ in my latest thread:<br /><br /><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/parable-of-wheat-and-tares-part-2-im.html" rel="nofollow">http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/parable-of-wheat-and-tares-part-2-im.html</a>.<br /><br />I sincerely hope my little summation ‘sinks in’.<br /><br />Getting a bit ‘burned-out’ with this matter for now, off to spend some time in my Arabic studies…<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-69572524084689375142009-11-16T13:52:23.566-08:002009-11-16T13:52:23.566-08:00I'm seriously reading that thread over at Begg...I'm seriously reading that thread over at <i>Beggars all</i>, and 'Loling'. I assume the owner of the blog is embarrassed by Rhology's 'dullness' (to put it mildly). But he won't say anything because he probably doesn't want to throw him under the bus. (plus traffic doesn't hurt).Taphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04375511506567572806noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-26520279028894195602009-11-16T05:20:38.629-08:002009-11-16T05:20:38.629-08:00Yet Rhology and his side-clown Turretin Fan
No no...<i>Yet Rhology and his side-clown Turretin Fan</i><br /><br />No no no, you've got it all mixed up. I'm HIS side-clown.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-67638247977082035592009-11-15T20:41:12.246-08:002009-11-15T20:41:12.246-08:00I really can't believe these guys! Now Rhology...I really can't believe these guys! Now Rhology has put a poll up on the Beggars All website. These guys are so dishonest, and I really can't take it anymore. Did anyone ever say the passage did not refer to the world? I think the point we have all been making is that it doesn't ONLY refer to the world. I have written that from the beginning, and emphasized it over and over. Yet Rhology and his side-clown Turretin Fan are trying to change the argument on us as if we all have said that it does not reer to the world at all. Oh well, this is par for the course for these guys. Did we expect them to admit they were wrong?James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43783757459864574232009-11-15T16:44:12.035-08:002009-11-15T16:44:12.035-08:00Hello Rhology,
So Augustine, Calvin and Edwards h...Hello Rhology,<br /><br />So Augustine, Calvin and Edwards have displayed “willful blindness”? Hmmmm…<br /><br />You can add the great Evangelical, R.C. Ryle to your list:<br /><br />“The parable of the wheat and tares, which occupies the chief part of these verses, is one of peculiar importance in the present day. It is eminently calculated to correct the extravagant expectations in which many Christians indulge, as to the effect of missions abroad, and of preaching the Gospel at home. May we give it the attention which it deserves!<br /><br />In the first place, this parable teaches us, <i>that good and evil will always be found together in the professing Church, until the end of the world</i>.<br /><br />The visible Church is set before us as a mixed body. <br /><br />It is a vast “field” in which, “wheat and tares” grow side by side.” (R.C. Ryle, <i>Expository Thoughts On The Gospels – St. Matthew</i>, 1860, pp. 146, 147.)<br /><br /><br />Now, the parables in Matthew 13 are called “kingdom” parables for a good reason: they concern the visible Church (God’s kingdom on Earth) in history. Take note that the “field” is “His [Christ’s] field” (v.24); and a bit later we read: “So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?” (v.27) Who are the “servants”? What is the “field”? (Please keep in mind that the Greek term κόμος is used in many different senses.) Now, ask your self this simple question: if the “world” (v.38) is not a geographical symbol for the expansion of the Church but merely means our fallen world, why would our Lord’s servants attempt to pluck the tares?<br /><br />IMO, there is much more going on in the parable of the “wheat and tares” than your simple reductionist interpretation; as such, I am going to side with Augustine, Calvin, Edwards and Ryle on this issue.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-57221619719503107892009-11-15T14:59:37.985-08:002009-11-15T14:59:37.985-08:00Well, since the entirety of my response to your or...Well, since the entirety of my response to your original assertion was to quote Jesus in Matthew 13 and then pretty much to let our RC opponents tie their own nooses, I'd say it's sort of relevant. I mean, you write this whole post to say that the field could be the church, and Jesus says "The field is the world". It's one of the most amazing displays of willful blindness I've seen...this week at least.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-12130217177844734312009-11-15T14:11:52.239-08:002009-11-15T14:11:52.239-08:00Hello Rhology,
You posted:
>> Why didn'...Hello Rhology,<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br />>> Why didn't you include the text of Matthew 13 whence I derived my entire point? That wasn't entirely up front.>><br /><br />Two reasons: first, the passage is so well known I did not think it necessary; and second, for the few that may not be familiar with the passage, I provided the link to the original thread and combox.<br /><br />I can assure you, nothing sinister was afoot…<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-85347350892867860942009-11-15T14:05:50.681-08:002009-11-15T14:05:50.681-08:00Hi Richard,
I appreciate the kudos…thanks much fo...Hi Richard,<br /><br />I appreciate the kudos…thanks much for the support.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-76668625777519241402009-11-15T14:03:03.342-08:002009-11-15T14:03:03.342-08:00Hi Alex,
Thanks for the link to Jeff’s sermon—dif...Hi Alex,<br /><br />Thanks for the link to Jeff’s sermon—difficult for this NW beachbum to get past the Southern drawl…<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br />>> Jeff Downs of Alpha and Omega says that there are two different interpretations of the parable, but he is more in line with the modern interpretation.>><br /><br />Me: IMHO, the “modern interpretation” seems to be somewhat the by-product of a pessimistic eschatology (e.g. dispensationalism, Adventism, etc.). However, with that said, the “modern interpretation” can be found in a few early CFs.<br /><br />>>Here is yet again another example of the faulty logic often used against Catholics. You are correct, just because Augustine affirms one interpretation, this in itself does not indicate that he would deny the other. An acceptable interpretation in this case is not a necessary either/or.>><br /><br />Me: Indeed, I too have noticed that doctrinal balance is rarely achieved via an either/or principle, but rather via a both/and…<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1134418446866390082009-11-15T06:39:04.014-08:002009-11-15T06:39:04.014-08:00David,
Why didn't you include the text of Mat...David,<br /><br />Why didn't you include the text of Matthew 13 whence I derived my entire point? That wasn't entirely up front.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-65777463537596853722009-11-15T06:04:48.990-08:002009-11-15T06:04:48.990-08:00David,
This was a good read.David,<br /><br />This was a good read.Richard Froggatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931363750222373223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-8616622445794216512009-11-14T19:26:44.446-08:002009-11-14T19:26:44.446-08:00Jeff Downs of Alpha and Omega says that there are ...Jeff Downs of Alpha and Omega says that there are two different interpretations of the parable, but he is more in line with the modern interpretation. <br /><br />http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3495<br /><br />"Now, do any of the above quotes contain the statement that the field/world is NOT the visible Church? Clearly, they do not."<br /><br />Here is yet again another example of the faulty logic often used against Catholics. You are correct, just because Augustine affirms one interpretation, this in itself does not indicate that he would deny the other. An acceptable interpretation in this case is not a necessary either/or.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.com