<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for sacramentum defensum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>pro nobis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:03:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Revelation 20 by Mike</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/revelation-20/#comment-491</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-491</guid>
		<description>Hi Travis,

Leithart believes that the harvest/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13 took place at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Revelation 20 follows the same pattern and that of Matthew 24-25.  

Gentry fails to submit to the books recapitulation structure once we get into Revelation 20, which only proves a creedal bias to me and not a desire to follow sound hermeneutical principals.  

In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),
Mike Sullivan
www.treeoflifeministries.info</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Travis,</p>
<p>Leithart believes that the harvest/judgment/resurrection of Matthew 13 took place at the end of the OC age in AD 70.  Revelation 20 follows the same pattern and that of Matthew 24-25.  </p>
<p>Gentry fails to submit to the books recapitulation structure once we get into Revelation 20, which only proves a creedal bias to me and not a desire to follow sound hermeneutical principals.  </p>
<p>In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),<br />
Mike Sullivan<br />
<a href="http://www.treeoflifeministries.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.treeoflifeministries.info</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Revelation 20 by Mike</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/revelation-20/#comment-490</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=67#comment-490</guid>
		<description>Hi Travis,

Some good stuff here!  I too was encouraged when I read Leithart&#039;s book.  I especially enjoyed him admitting that the end of &quot;this age&quot; in Matthew 13:40 took place in AD 70.  The harvest/resurrection/judgment in the gospels takes place in AD 70 and the book of Revelation follows this pattern as it does the Olivet Discourse.  

You mention Gentry.  He refuses to admit that Revelation 20 does not break from the recapitulation of the rest of the prophecy.  Why?  His creedal bias on what the resurrection is supposed to look like - no doubt.

In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),
Mike Sullivan
www.treeoflifeministries.info</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Travis,</p>
<p>Some good stuff here!  I too was encouraged when I read Leithart&#8217;s book.  I especially enjoyed him admitting that the end of &#8220;this age&#8221; in Matthew 13:40 took place in AD 70.  The harvest/resurrection/judgment in the gospels takes place in AD 70 and the book of Revelation follows this pattern as it does the Olivet Discourse.  </p>
<p>You mention Gentry.  He refuses to admit that Revelation 20 does not break from the recapitulation of the rest of the prophecy.  Why?  His creedal bias on what the resurrection is supposed to look like &#8211; no doubt.</p>
<p>In Christ (2 Cor. 1:20),<br />
Mike Sullivan<br />
<a href="http://www.treeoflifeministries.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.treeoflifeministries.info</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Revelation 1: Preliminary Work by Gary Lisle</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/revelation-1-preliminary-work/#comment-489</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Lisle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=90#comment-489</guid>
		<description>at the moment...need some time to process</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>at the moment&#8230;need some time to process</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Revelation 1: Preliminary Work by Black&#38;TanInTheAM</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/revelation-1-preliminary-work/#comment-488</link>
		<dc:creator>Black&#38;TanInTheAM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=90#comment-488</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s it??!!  That&#039;s all you&#039;re going to write??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s it??!!  That&#8217;s all you&#8217;re going to write??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Revelation 1: Preliminary Work by Gary Lisle</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/revelation-1-preliminary-work/#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Lisle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=90#comment-487</guid>
		<description>I believe John also wrote the letters we call 1 John, 2 John and 3 John...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe John also wrote the letters we call 1 John, 2 John and 3 John&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Stevie Wonder said it best&#8230;. by Travis</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/stevie-wonder-said-it-best/#comment-323</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=62#comment-323</guid>
		<description>Hello, Brother.  Good to hear from you here.

The sacraments are fundamentally God&#039;s word of promise to us.  They are not initially our words of fidelity to him.  That is where we must begin.  The Bible is God&#039;s word to use audible (yes, visible, too) and the sacraments are his word to us visible and tangible.  Same thing different medium.  

No, I do not think it that &quot;blah.&quot;  The sign is not &quot;just pointing&quot; forward to a mere hope.  It is an actual declaration of fulfillment of a looking back to a previous promise.  To you and Amy, Jeff, God has promised (when you were wed) that He would (when you have them, Lord willing) be Father to your children.  He is not saying, &quot;I will be your children&#039;s God when they make a profession of faith.&quot;  He is saying, &quot;As I am your God now, so I will be to your children when I bless you with them.&quot;

[I have other articles that deal with your present (as you read this) visceral reaction.  It has to do with pitting ST vs BT.  And unless I&#039;m wrong {&quot;(and I never am), they&#039;ll be headed into the Fire Swamp&quot;} this is the crux of your query.]

It is an analogy but I think it valid.  When you have children will you raise them as Americans (read Republican) or will you allow them to decide for themselves when they are &quot;of age.&quot; Do not dismiss the illustration out-of-hand.  This is exactly what covenants were in the Ancient Near East (ANE).  Remember &quot;300&quot;?  Had Leonidas submitted to Xerxes, he would have consigned his WHOLE nation to Xerxes.  Now, imagine that 20 years later the children of the first generation saying to Xerxes, &quot;Mmmmm, look here.  My parents may have wanted to be under you, but I like the old ways.  Don&#039;t take this personally but...&quot;  

What do you think would happen?  Right.  Same with Jesus.  Were my children to defect and say, &quot;Nothing personal, Jesus, but I like what Tom Cruise has got and I&#039;m going there.&quot;

What do you think would happen? Right.  &lt;i&gt;Pah-tooey&lt;/i&gt;!  Spit right out  into the outer darkness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, Brother.  Good to hear from you here.</p>
<p>The sacraments are fundamentally God&#8217;s word of promise to us.  They are not initially our words of fidelity to him.  That is where we must begin.  The Bible is God&#8217;s word to use audible (yes, visible, too) and the sacraments are his word to us visible and tangible.  Same thing different medium.  </p>
<p>No, I do not think it that &#8220;blah.&#8221;  The sign is not &#8220;just pointing&#8221; forward to a mere hope.  It is an actual declaration of fulfillment of a looking back to a previous promise.  To you and Amy, Jeff, God has promised (when you were wed) that He would (when you have them, Lord willing) be Father to your children.  He is not saying, &#8220;I will be your children&#8217;s God when they make a profession of faith.&#8221;  He is saying, &#8220;As I am your God now, so I will be to your children when I bless you with them.&#8221;</p>
<p>[I have other articles that deal with your present (as you read this) visceral reaction.  It has to do with pitting ST vs BT.  And unless I'm wrong {"(and I never am), they'll be headed into the Fire Swamp"} this is the crux of your query.]</p>
<p>It is an analogy but I think it valid.  When you have children will you raise them as Americans (read Republican) or will you allow them to decide for themselves when they are &#8220;of age.&#8221; Do not dismiss the illustration out-of-hand.  This is exactly what covenants were in the Ancient Near East (ANE).  Remember &#8220;300&#8243;?  Had Leonidas submitted to Xerxes, he would have consigned his WHOLE nation to Xerxes.  Now, imagine that 20 years later the children of the first generation saying to Xerxes, &#8220;Mmmmm, look here.  My parents may have wanted to be under you, but I like the old ways.  Don&#8217;t take this personally but&#8230;&#8221;  </p>
<p>What do you think would happen?  Right.  Same with Jesus.  Were my children to defect and say, &#8220;Nothing personal, Jesus, but I like what Tom Cruise has got and I&#8217;m going there.&#8221;</p>
<p>What do you think would happen? Right.  <i>Pah-tooey</i>!  Spit right out  into the outer darkness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Stevie Wonder said it best&#8230;. by Jeff Price</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/stevie-wonder-said-it-best/#comment-322</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Price</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/?p=62#comment-322</guid>
		<description>A question, regarding something you said in your commentary to your friend, &quot;Huh?!  When does one word mean another?  When does “sealed” (very definite) mean “promise” (very blah!) ?&quot;  

What are your thoughts on who is making this promise and the weight that is behind His promise, which is most assuredly &quot;very definite&quot; and not &quot;very blah&quot;?  Furthermore, don&#039;t you think that even a sign and seal of a thing signified, is still just pointing towards something even greater, much like a promise being an &quot;earnest vow to provide the thing&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A question, regarding something you said in your commentary to your friend, &#8220;Huh?!  When does one word mean another?  When does “sealed” (very definite) mean “promise” (very blah!) ?&#8221;  </p>
<p>What are your thoughts on who is making this promise and the weight that is behind His promise, which is most assuredly &#8220;very definite&#8221; and not &#8220;very blah&#8221;?  Furthermore, don&#8217;t you think that even a sign and seal of a thing signified, is still just pointing towards something even greater, much like a promise being an &#8220;earnest vow to provide the thing&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Final Justification and John Robbins by Travis</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-284</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:36:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-284</guid>
		<description>I looked back over the posts.  I did not sense when I was attacking his person.  Would you mind pointing it out?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I looked back over the posts.  I did not sense when I was attacking his person.  Would you mind pointing it out?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Final Justification and John Robbins by Travis</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-283</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-283</guid>
		<description>My comments above were not meant to be ad hominem.  The format for your presentation came across to me like those I have encountered before where there was little coherence to it and that led to its being very confusing.  I termed this &quot;fundamentalist&quot; b/c it&#039;s very much like that as they argue say, against alchohol.  Usually there is this heavy listing of supposed texts with no support and strong assertion.  This approach gives an aire of arrogance in my opinion.  That is how I felt your approach was.  I am sorry I attacked you as a person.  It was not my intent.  

If you are still around, mebbe you could he&#039;p me in this area.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My comments above were not meant to be ad hominem.  The format for your presentation came across to me like those I have encountered before where there was little coherence to it and that led to its being very confusing.  I termed this &#8220;fundamentalist&#8221; b/c it&#8217;s very much like that as they argue say, against alchohol.  Usually there is this heavy listing of supposed texts with no support and strong assertion.  This approach gives an aire of arrogance in my opinion.  That is how I felt your approach was.  I am sorry I attacked you as a person.  It was not my intent.  </p>
<p>If you are still around, mebbe you could he&#8217;p me in this area.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Final Justification and John Robbins by Curios Visitor</title>
		<link>http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-281</link>
		<dc:creator>Curios Visitor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://postdeliberatuslux.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/final-justification-and-john-robbins/#comment-281</guid>
		<description>My original post was about how arguments and dialogue unfortunately degenerated into ad hominem attacks.  I did enjoy the debate you presented to Ron Henzel, who I believe is wrong in his understanding. It was your responses that drew my attention and I think you were compelling, that is, until the debte started attacking his person.

Your points stood on their own merit, and your argument valid, however your frustration and your desire to strike out verbally at those with whom you dialogue undermines your credibility.

At your request, I commented on your debate, against my better judgement.  Yet instead of dealing with what was written you are making this personal against me by accusing me of arrogance (another ad hominem attack perhaps)?

How can you accuse my post of being &#039;fundamentalist&#039; if you don&#039;t understand it by your own admission?  How can you accuse it of being arrogant when it was only offered because you requested?

Perhaps you should worry less about those with whom you dialogue, and more about what they say, or what you do.

Peace to you, in Christ.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My original post was about how arguments and dialogue unfortunately degenerated into ad hominem attacks.  I did enjoy the debate you presented to Ron Henzel, who I believe is wrong in his understanding. It was your responses that drew my attention and I think you were compelling, that is, until the debte started attacking his person.</p>
<p>Your points stood on their own merit, and your argument valid, however your frustration and your desire to strike out verbally at those with whom you dialogue undermines your credibility.</p>
<p>At your request, I commented on your debate, against my better judgement.  Yet instead of dealing with what was written you are making this personal against me by accusing me of arrogance (another ad hominem attack perhaps)?</p>
<p>How can you accuse my post of being &#8216;fundamentalist&#8217; if you don&#8217;t understand it by your own admission?  How can you accuse it of being arrogant when it was only offered because you requested?</p>
<p>Perhaps you should worry less about those with whom you dialogue, and more about what they say, or what you do.</p>
<p>Peace to you, in Christ.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
