Results 321 - 340 of 5155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Calvin's Letter to Men Facing Martyrdom | Rev 17:6 | EdB | 243232 | ||
Calvin was well equipped to write about men facing martyrdom since he made Michael Servetus one. He also violated Sola Scriptura by condemning Servetus to the stake. On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal beliefs!(1) Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine of "once saved always saved" (known in certain circles as "perseverance of the saints") violated the cry of the Reformation -- "Sola Scriptura" -- by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification.michael servetus This event was something John Calvin had considered long before Michael Servetus was even captured, for John Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Michael Servetus' arrest) and went on record as saying: "If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight."(2) Evidently, in that day John Calvin's authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate "weight." This is why some referred to Geneva as the "Rome of Protestantism"(3) and to John Calvin as the "Protestant 'Pope' of Geneva."(4) During Servetus' trial, John Calvin wrote: "I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."(5) All this reveals a side of John Calvin that is not well-known or very appealing, to say the least! Obviously, he had a prolonged, murderous hate in his heart and was willing to violate Scripture to put another to death and in a most cruel way. Although John Calvin consented to Michael Servetus' request to be beheaded, he acquiesced to the mode of execution employed. But why did John Calvin have a death wish for Michael Servetus? "To rescue Servetus from his heresies, Calvin replied with the latest edition of his 'Institutes of the Christian Religion,' which Servetus promptly returned with insulting marginal comments. Despite Servetus's [sic] pleas, Calvin, who developed an intense dislike of Servetus during their correspondence, refused to return any of the incriminating material."(6) "Convicted of heresy by the Roman Catholic authorities, Servetus escaped the death penalty by a prison break. Heading for Italy, Servetus unaccountably stopped at Geneva, where he had been denounced by Calvin and the Reformers. He was seized the day after his arrival, condemned as a heretic when he refused to recant, and burned in 1553 with the apparent tacit approval of Calvin."(7) In the course of his flight from Vienne, Servetus stopped in Geneva and made the mistake of attending a sermon by Calvin. He was recognized and arrested after the service.(8) "Calvin had him [Servetus] arrested as a heretic. Convicted and burned to death."(9) From the time that John Calvin had him arrested on August 14th until his condemnation, Michael Servetus spent his remaining days: michael servetus " ... in an atrocious dungeon with no light or heat, little food, and no sanitary facilities."(10) Let it be noted that the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of Michael Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch Michael Servetus suffer and slowly die! Just before this happened, the record shows: "Farel walked beside the condemned man, and kept up a constant barrage of words, in complete insensitivity to what Servetus might be feeling. All he had in mind was to extort from the prisoner an acknowledgement [sic] of his theological error -- a shocking example of the soulless cure of souls. After some minutes of this, Servetus ceased making any reply and prayed quietly to himself. When they arrived at the place of execution, Farel announced to the watching crowd: 'Here you see what power Satan possesses when he has a man in his power. This man is a scholar of distinction, and he perhaps believed he was acting rightly. But now Satan possesses him completely, as he might possess you, should you fall into his traps.' michael servetus http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm#4 |
||||||
322 | Giving All to Christ our Only King | Ps 25:3 | EdB | 243222 | ||
Interesting story. Showing the divison in the Body of Christ. Young Protestant girl murdered by other Protestants because of differences in scripture interpretation. Two Protestant denominations in direct opposition over their interpretation of scripture to justify one to murder another. Interesting! |
||||||
323 | Questions to ask while Reading the Word | Neh 8:18 | EdB | 243217 | ||
Sonofmom I quite agree! I onced preached a message on a subject I felt was unrelated to salvation. After the service a man came to me and told me I preached at him that day and that he was so convicted that he had given his heart to the Lord. This man faithfully followed Christ from that day forward and everyone saw the change in him. In fact the change was so dynamic his wife gave her heart to Lord a few weeks later as did the rest of his family. I have gone back over the tapes of that service and for the life of me I find nothing that should have brought the man under conviction as he claimed it did. All I can say is praise God! God's word is alive both spoken and in scripture and it will not return void. However God gave no such promise to man's words. |
||||||
324 | Questions to ask while Reading the Word | Neh 8:18 | EdB | 243214 | ||
This statement in your quote may be misleading. "What is meant in the context of all Scripture. Scripture is rational, it never means one thing one day and another thing another day." Actual I often find the same scripture speaking to different aspects of my life at different times. Scripture is commonly referred to as the living word, as such it must be viewed as dynamic in it's addressing different aspects of the readers life. Just a thought! |
||||||
325 | Hysterical, Sensational, Sentimental | Mic 3:11 | EdB | 243213 | ||
Probably the same since there is nothing new under the sun. The ills that existed then exist today. Perhaps more frequently and perhaps more blatantly, but they are the same ills today as they were then. | ||||||
326 | What Makes a Doctrine Biblical? | Prov 13:13 | EdB | 243210 | ||
In fact what makes doctrine Biblical is convincing enough people that scripture supports the doctrine and then forming into a movement, denomination, school of theology that supports that doctrine. Yes all doctrine should conform to scripture, but we all know each denomination holds to a doctrine that we may or may not agree with. How does that happen? Because the door was opened for each man to decide for himself was scripture was actually saying. Today I read scripture that says Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet there are those that would go to stake because they believe scripture supports other ways. Likewise with many many many other doctrines, creeds, teaching, theological positions. Look at the various doctrines on abortion, divorce, alcohol usage, tattoos, living together, homosexuality. In many cases positions held are in direct contradiction yet each believe they used proper handling of scripture to reach their position. There is no tie breaker, no authority on earth that declares this doctrine correct and that one wrong. Each man is left to his own interpretation of scripture to decide. And FRANKLY many faithful, honest, dedicated Christians are not capable of making that decision. Proof! The many followers of doctrine we consider wrong. :-) |
||||||
327 | Twisting scripture with quotes | Matt 28:19 | EdB | 243209 | ||
I totally agree! My concern is the practice of presenting a doctrine from one school of theology through the use of quotes in such a way that readers are led to the false conclusion that it represents the only valid position. Lockman has cautioned all posters not to post denominational/theological bias. Fact! There are many schools of theology that are contained in the definition of "Orthodox" Christianity. Reformed - Evangelical Dispensationalism - Non Dispensationist Cessationist - Pentecostal Millennialist - Amillennianalist Calvinists - Arminiamists Trinitarians - Oneness Tribulationlist - Non tribulationlist Pre, Post, and Mid Trib Perterist, Historicist, Spiritualists, Futureists Baptism be immersion baptism by sprinkling Infant Baptism - Adult only Baptism in the name of the Trinity - Jesus only Jesus spiritually died on the cross - Jesus only physically died The list goes on and on. Fact! We have Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Nazarene, Catholic, Pentecostal, Wesleyan, Church of Christ and many others, on this forum. To present a doctrine from one particular school of theology through the use of a quote as the only acceptable point of view or the only accepted theological stance is disingenuous. Likewise to deny the fact that almost every school of theology came into being because of differences of interpretation of scripture is ignoring the facts. I totally agree scripture clearly shows the way to salvation and developing doctrine external to scripture is wrong. That said. Almost every denomination/ school of orthodox Christianity holds to doctrine they insist is supported by scripture but differ significantly from other denominations and schools of theology. And that quite frankly divides the church. Not to mention the differences on divorce, abortion, homosexuality, drug and alcohol use, women in pulpit, divorced pastors, homosexual pastors, and again the lists goes on. There has always been dissention within the church but the church was united enough to come together in a council and set down accepted doctrine in a creed, confession of faith, or formal doctrinal statement. However that unity was lost when all human restraint was thrown off and it was decided that each man could decide for himself what scripture was saying. Thus we have what we have today numerous ( you pick a number) denominations each claiming to be Bible based, Bilble lead, scripture confirming entities each saying they have the right understanding of scripture that the others have missed. What the "World" sees is lack of certainties confusion, disunity. |
||||||
328 | Twisting scripture with quotes | Matt 28:19 | EdB | 243206 | ||
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue. Allegedly, straw-man tactics were once known in some parts of the United Kingdom as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top. Many discussions on the forum of late are generated by quotes of noted Biblical scholars. However the truth is many Biblical scholar's theology is in opposition to each other. Some post a quote as if the quote Is the final answer to a theological question. When in fact the quote is nothing more than quoted author's opinion. Different schools of theology have existed since the beginning of the church. These differences come because not all scripture is interpreted the same by every reader. The one that does not agree is usually accused of twisting scripture. However that is a two way street as each points at the other. Another way to attempt to defeat differences in opinion is to charge the opposition of straw man arguments again usually a two way street. Problem different interpretations of scripture do exist! Question did Jesus expect this to happen? I think he did that is why he charged he disciples to remain in unity and to teach others what Jesus had taught them. We see in Acts when differences arose the disciples came together to resolve them. Paul was fairly clear saying if anyone teaches something different than did the were false teachers. The question is how what did Paul teach? Many take this part of Paul,s teaching and ignore others. Again a charge that can be brought against both sides of such discussions. |
||||||
329 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243203 | ||
Already did :-) | ||||||
330 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243199 | ||
What opinion. The fact that denominations came into existence because of differing interpretations of scripture? Not sure there is a scripture that supports separate denominations in Christianity.. | ||||||
331 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243196 | ||
The beef in this discussion is Reformed theology, Evangelical theology, Dispensationalism, covenant theology, once saved always saved, Pentecostalism, cessationalism, Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Church of God, Assemblies of God, independent, Jesus only Trinitarians, infant baptism, sprinkling, immersion, charismatics, pre/ post amilennialism, historistic, futuristic, perterist, spiritualist. There are thousands of interpretations of the meaning of the same scripture as seen by each Protestant denomination, not to mention Catholics, Protestants, Greek othodox, Eastern Orthodox, Russian orthodox and on and on the list goes. I'm actual taken back when you say "where is the beef, this is all opinion" in light of all the evidence that clearly shows there are differences in the iterpretation of scripture.. |
||||||
332 | Tired of quotes that devalues others. | 2 Tim 4:3 | EdB | 243192 | ||
Sonofmom I agree! That said does it make sense to post quotes in which the original author was mocking, belittling, disagreeing with another's theology? Lockman guidelines are very explicit on respecting differing theology that fall within orthodox Christianity. But some posters bypass this by using quotes that criticize another's theology. There are Reformed and Evangelical, dispensationalists and anti on this forum, there are cessationalist and Pentecostals on this forum, there are sprinkle baptist and immersion, there is Jesus only and trinitiarians, there variations on communion closed open, wine or grape juice, fruit of vine only or bread, KJV only and Protestant and Catholics, amillenialist, pre, post, there are those that hold to the historistic school of escathlogy, others are preterist, and spiritualist and futurerist all here to study The Bible. Not here to be told their school of theology is wrong OR to promote that school over others. |
||||||
333 | Tired of quotes that devalues others. | 2 Tim 4:3 | EdB | 243189 | ||
i have not desire to defend Catholicism. So let us discuss the 3000 to 30000 Protestant denominations that all claim the authority of scripture but come away with 3000-30000 different interpretations. Without getting into the specific doctrines these differences are seen in their doctrine of baptism, methods of baptism, purpose of baptism and moves forward through communion, trinity, salvation, and on and on. Each claim their right and cite Bible verses to support their position. Each claim those that differ with them aren't using proper hermenuetic, aren't using correct context, aren't considering the proper historical factors, and etc. Differences in theology have raged since the Reformation, each side certain they were right and the others wrong. My point, offering quotes from a favored author that belittles or denigrates another's doctrine serves no purpose to the unity of body of Christ. They prove nothing since each is rebuked by an equally qualified Biblical scholar. And since agreement has not been reached in nearly 500 years I don't think it is unreasonable to say it won't be settled here. |
||||||
334 | Tired of quotes that devalues others. | 2 Tim 4:3 | EdB | 243186 | ||
Exactly and if you look around you will see 3000-30000 different interpretations represented by that number of denominations each claim their superior hermeneutics has lead them to the truth that all others have missed. | ||||||
335 | Tired of quotes that devalues others. | 2 Tim 4:3 | EdB | 243182 | ||
I mentioned the Catholic Church for contrast. The Catholic catechism cites scripture for each major point as does the Westminster Confessions. Two major works both claim correctness, both support theology that is in conflict with the other. Again my argument is not with Sola Scriptura but rather with the application of it. It is used more as a weapon rather than an arbitrator to reach a consensus of faith among Protestant denominations. Obviously Sola Scriptura does not resolve theological differences that are brought about by the doctrine that each man can decide for himself what scripture is saying. |
||||||
336 | Tired of quotes that devalues others. | 2 Tim 4:3 | EdB | 243179 | ||
Terms like Hermeneutics, Exegesis, Context, SolaScriptura get thrown around Yet men like John MacArthur, Jack Hayford, John Piper, Stanley Horton, and many others all claim to use these principals/philosophies/teaching/doctrines/disciplines to reach their theological position yet each one is different than the others. Some are very different others are only slightly different, but still different. If we move on to denominations each again claiming to use the above principals have different doctrines/statements of faith. Compare a Catholic Catechism and a Protestant confession/ creed each backs their position with scripture, each says the other is wrong. It seems to me instead of Exegesis,Context,Sola Scriptura, Hermenutics being used to reach a truth or consensus of truth they are terms most often used to defend for or against or to bring objection to another's position. End result, disunity in the body of Christ! Who then wins? The adversary. Why is it we try so hard to prove another's Christian walk is wrong or following something we don't agree with. We fight among ourselves or slander others over doctrine such as the Trinity, once Saved Always Saved, Jesus only, methods of baptism, meanings of communion, who wrote our creed, or how it was formulated. It seems some love to post quotes that ridicule, belittle or otherwise call into question another's beliefs. And when called to task theyrespond with terms like Exegesis, Hermenutics, context, Sola Scriptura and few favorite verses that seem to support their position. As if to say all others are too stupid,mistaken, sloppy, lazy to have done similar study. Because if they had they would have come to a conclusion that agrees with them. |
||||||
337 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243177 | ||
First I don't suggest that only elite groups can understand scripture! What I find as interesting is the fact some are criticized for their doctrine and others are exempt when in fact both were derived by the same means. I don't abjure any Sola Scriptura doctrine as such. What I find almost comical is how it is used to defend some doctrines and to attack others when in fact all claim they were developed using the methodology of Sola Scriptura but reached differing conclusions. Most major denominations in the US hold to doctrine that they derived from scripture that differ from other denominations that also claim to derive their doctrine from scripture. Obviously there is scripture that is confusing even to the experts (the "elite"). Rather than sitting down and resolving those differences each goes happily on their way claiming they are right and the rest of Christdom is wrong. And their justification for doing this is "their" use of Sola Scriptura. To me that is totally messed up thinking. Not the doctrine but how it is used to say we are right and all of you are wrong. Each that steps up to the soap box claims Sola Scriptura yet each profess a doctrine the others disagree with. |
||||||
338 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243173 | ||
First let me say I felt no attack and I hope i didn't become defensive. My interest was in Pink saying Dispensationalism was wrong which seemed to me to preclude any consideration for each man deciding for himself what scripture was saying. You then added that since it was not confessionalized in some form that, that lack made it open to error. Again where was each man,s decision in that? Obviously my problem is not with Dispensationalism or anti Dispensationalism but rather the teaching that each man can decide for himself what scripture was saying. I believe that has lead to the confusion we now call Protestantism 3000-30000 different denominations all working to their end instead of God's. Let me say the Internet is wrong to connect Dispensationalism with Pentecostalism. Neither depends on the other for any support or doctrine. The Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination in the US and as such makes no mention of Dispensationalism in any doctrine, creed or confession of faith. If anything the AG is often critical of dispensational teaching and concepts. |
||||||
339 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243171 | ||
Again having taught in both AG ministerial and other denominational seminaries and Bilble collages I'm not aware of dispensational teaching as such. I know of professors that teach against and some that teach a form of Dispensationalism in passing. Frankly I'm unaware of Dispensationalism holding any importance to AG theology. It certainly is not listed in AG 16 doctrines of faith. I asked one friend about it and he thought there was an AG position paper on the subject. Neither of us have been able to find it. From what he thinks he remembers was the AG took a position in opposition to what Dake presents as Dispensationalism. Again I don't hold to any Dispensationalism that suggests or alludes in any way to God's plan failing or having to make changes. But since I have never set out to study dispnsationalism I can not defend or critique it. It just isn't important to me. Sorry I can't be more help. Why the interest about Dispensationalism? It was a popular subject maybe 30 years ago but I haven't heard anyone mention the subject lately. Perhaps Hagee and his blood moons or ads for " full color" charts but nothing serious. |
||||||
340 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | EdB | 243169 | ||
First I'm not a "dispensationalist" so I'm certainly not prepared to evaluate any definition of it. I do clearly see differences of God's interactions with man. I don't see these as God tried this and it failed so God moved on and tried that. I see situations, different social/geopolitical situations that God used to interact with man. To me the biggest mention of dispensation theology mostly comes in connection with AG position on "End Times" . We believe in a Rapture, in a Tribulation, in a Second common and in a Millennium. I see Isreal's involvement in the End Times, Howver I'm finding myself less certain that Daniel 9:27 should be applied to the Book of Revelation to establish a time line for the Book of Revelations. What struck me odd and initially brought me into this discussion is your demand for a "confessional/creed" to establish the validity of the doctrine of dsipensationalism. It was if you were saying for a doctrine to be valid it must be included in some sort of decree by man. Again to me that appeared in opposition to the Reformed position that man was able to decide for himself what the scripture was saying. That man did not need the "church" to tell him what was true or false. To summarize my confusion, it involves the Reformers rejection of the Catholic Catechism as manufactured by man but then totally accept the Westchester confession which again is manufactured by man. Where does man's own understanding of scripture come into Reformation theology? I hope I clearly stated my confusion not as a challenge or against but rather a loss to see one of the primary tenets of the reformation in actual use. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [258] >> |