Does Morey Violate 9th Commandment in Van Drunen critique?

[Semper Fidelis]

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

Oh, I better change my name, then. Pick one that fits my personality better!

You're asking for trouble Paul.

 

[turmeric]

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

Or me... I remember someone referring to swine and pearls at one time.

keep 'em coming! oink, oink!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

How about

name: Barney

tag line: I love you, you love me, we're a happy family.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Morey's put together some scholastically sound materials in his day as well, "Death and the Afterlife" comes to mind as does his "Intro. to Apologetics" and "The Islamic Invasion".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bombadil [one of my favorite Tolkien characters]

While we're at it, Rev. Hyde, I might as well note that Bombadil was probably the most annoying of Tolkien's characters.

But Bombadil was annoying! Seems like he could have done more to help Frodo, he saved the them from a WILLOW TREE! How Lame! (Sorry Back to the Program)

Not true. He also saved them from some sort of creatures that had them trapped. I can't remember the details but I think they were frozen or something.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Oh, my goodness, Paul! You could end up with a...well, let's just say, an interesting name AND tagline! Just ask Bill Brown!

Or me... I remember someone referring to swine and pearls at one time.

keep 'em coming! oink, oink!

How about Gadfly

 

[py3ak]

Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Gandalf was of the opinion not that Bombadil had power over the ring; but that the ring had no power over him. But they discussed giving him the ring, and concluded that Bombadil alone could not have stood out against Sauron --perhaps due to his ADD (naturally that wasn't the term in the book). Tom also saved the hobbits from the Barrow Wights. But even in the Silmarillion I recollect no explanation for either Tom or Goldberry.

ADD...

 

[ServantofGod]

Tom Bombadil is a spry fellow, with a quick, playful wit. He has a jolly, carefree attitude, and very little seems to concern him. He certainly does not seem to share the same concerns as everybody else about the One Ring, even though he seems to know at least as much as the hobbits about its connections and possible consequences. Indeed, this aspect of his personality seems quite perplexing: the discussions of those at the council of Elrond at Rivendell, and especially those of Gandalf, seem to indicate that Bombadil would not be immune to the actions of a rejuvenated Sauron; however, he seems to be wholly unconcerned with this fact and immune to the power of the Ring. In fact, the closest thing to an adversary Bombadil has, in the loosest sense of that word, is possibly Old Man Willow, who occupies and holds dominion over the trees in miles of Tom's "country"; although Bombadil does seem to demonstrate at least some control over him.

Tom Bombadil's origins in the cosmology of Middle-earth were left vague by Tolkien. He calls himself the "Oldest" and the "Master". He claims to remember "the first raindrop and the first acorn", and "knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless — before the Dark Lord came from Outside." He does not neatly fit into the categories of beings Tolkien created. Speculative ideas about his true nature range from one of the Ainur, angelic beings (as the only beings on the earth before "the Dark Lord came in from Outside" were the Ainur, who shaped the earth), or God, who is called Eru Ilúvatar and "the One" in Tolkien's legendarium (the latter in The Lord of the Rings). This is reinforced when Frodo asks Goldberry just who Tom Bombadil is, and she responds by simply saying "He is." Tolkien himself did not elaborate much further, but when a reader confronted him with the theory that Bombadil was "the One", Tolkien said that he was not.[2]

At the Council of Elrond, Tom Bombadil is referred to by Galdor as being unable to deal with a siege by Sauron "unless such power is in the earth itself", implying that the character is a manifestation of Middle-earth's inherent properties. This connection explains Bombadil's seeming obliviousness to the transient concerns of mortals, as evidenced in Gandalf's concern that Tom would not understand the importance of the ring, and hence lose it, if it were entrusted to him. The idea that Tom's songs are always "stronger", as he proclaims in his rhyme, as well as his title of Master, further suggest Bombadil is the warden of nearly invincible aspects of the planet itself.

Gandalf calls Tom Bombadil the eldest being in existence; this is also evidenced by his Sindarin name Iarwain Ben-adar (Eldest and Fatherless). Dwarves called him Forn (Scandinavian, meaning "Ancient" or "Belonging to the distant past"), Men Orald (compare to german: uralt, very old). All these names apparently mean "Eldest." Inconsistently, however, Treebeard also calls himself the eldest living being of Middle-earth and says that he was there before anyone else. However, Tolkien remarked: "Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand."[2]

In reference to Bombadil, Tolkien himself said that some things should remain mysterious in any narrative, hidden even to its inventor. Tom Bombadil is not the only being whose nature is unexplained, however. While passing the Caradhras in Book II of The Fellowship of the Ring Gandalf mentions beings more ancient even than Sauron. In Book III of The Two Towers, when describing his fall in the pits of Moria, he also mentions dark creatures who gnaw the world. In addition, Tolkien placed the fate of the Entwives in this enigmatic category, as well as the Cats of Queen Berúthiel.

A clue to the conception of Bombadil may be found in C. S. Lewis's book The Discarded Image, in which he observes that, while in most respects the medieval conception of the universe is rigidly stratified, with angels, planets, humans and animals all occupying their proper ranks, the fairy beings of folklore appeared to flit through irresponsibly and not have any allotted place, and there was no agreed theory on their origin. In the same way, Bombadil does not fit anywhere into the scheme of the universe set out in the Silmarillion.


# ^ a b Carpenter, Humphrey, ed. (1981), The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, #153, ISBN 0-395-31555-7
# ^ Editor-Ronald McCloskey. J.R.R Tolkien - Mythos and Modernity in Middle-earth. John Peterson. Retrieved on 2006-07-03.
# ^ Letters, #144

Yup.

 

[gutter sparrow]

I just read this from Dr. Morey on his blog biblicalthought.com. I think he just hangs himself from what we are reading above. Here is what he said

Dr. Morey

To the Brethren,
When dealing with atheists, cultists, heretics, and anti-Christs, if they cannot refute your argument, they will try to dodge the bullet by using the “red hearing fallacy.”
1. They will claim that a typo in the text refutes your argument. But a typo has no logical relationship to the validity of an argument. If the editor of the publisher accidentally put “thee” instead of “the,” this is logically irrelevant to the argument.
2. They will claim that the religious affiliation of an author you cite refutes your argument. But this has no logical bearing on whether his argument is valid. If a book is:
(1.) published by an atheist publisher,
(2.) his book is promoted by atheists as a good answer to theism, and (3.) nothing is stated in the book about the religious affiliation of the author, one would assume that the author is either an atheist or an agnostic. If it turns out that he claims to be a “Catholic” in some sense, this does not mean he is so. There are Catholics who are pantheists, polytheists, and skeptics. Some “Catholics” have abortions and use birth control. He may be a cultural Catholic by birth (Polish, Italian, etc.). But the logical point is that his affiliation has no bearing on the validity of his arguments.
3. The oldest “red herring” is to claim that someone is “quoted out of context.” This means that they don’t want to deal with a citation per se. Instead, they try to escape from dealing with it by brushing it aside as “out of context.”
As you read blogs from Chad, pray for him as he is irrational as well as heretical. He is a poor lost sinner who is on his way to hell. He does not know the rudiments of logic or debate and is a waste of time except as an example of logical errors.

Mar 31st, 2008
Found at: A Review of Gregory Boyd’s Trinity and Process

 

[Puritan Sailor]

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare?

Having been to both a secular university and graduating from a Jesuit university, I think the pagans have much more influence than any Jesuits.

Trying to paint VanDrunen as a Jesuit is complete nonsense. If I remember right, he was the chairman of the OPC Justification commitee. If he had an opportunity to subvert the Protestant Reformation, certainly there was his chance!

 

[Archlute]

So if I was educated by Morey, and I dedicated my book to him, and got a job at WTS would you say that "The credo baptists finally have someone on the faculty of WTS." ? Seems ridiculous, huh?

Are you equating the man Morey with the servants of the Pope that historically were formed, and to this day continue, to undo the Protestant Reformation via the intellectual takeover at the university level? Have you reduced the entire scope and mission of the Jesuits to an exegetical theological understanding of Christian baptism? How does that compare?

Having been to both a secular university and graduating from a Jesuit university, I think the pagans have much more influence than any Jesuits.

Trying to paint VanDrunen as a Jesuit is complete nonsense. If I remember right, he was the chairman of the OPC Justification commitee. If he had an opportunity to subvert the Protestant Reformation, certainly there was his chance!

You are right, and Stephen has seemingly not taken notice of the most substantial post in this thread yet, that posted by Dr. Clark. It looks as if there are no valid counter-comments to be made by him on those points.