Featured Study history or shut-up

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

(signed---a Reformed leaning conservative who thinks Crabtownboy is wrong in most of his political posts, and who loves reading church history)

 

Icon....I don't Winman despises historical references, rather it is his judgement that although history is informative and edifying...those that write it are every bit as fallible as we are. Now please do not read this that I am putting myself up as some source of great wisdom (or anyone else) rather WM is portraying the position that each one of us (as believers) has some degree of ability to read, interpret and understand scripture,history and natural revelation. NONE of us has complete and utter wisdom and understanding even with respect to what we as mankind CAN understand.

 

We must bear this in mind when we consider the future of Christianity, in the light of its past. During the past half century there has been a rapid and uninterrupted secularization of the West, which has all but demolished the Augustinian idea of Christianity as a powerful, physical and institutional presence in the world. Of St. Augustine's City of God on earth, little now remains except crumbling walls and fallen towers, effete establishments and patriarchies of antiquarian rather than intrinsic interest. But of course Christianity does not depend on a single matrix, hence its durability. The Augustinian idea of public, all embracing Christianity, once so compelling has served its purpose and retreats, perhaps, one day, to re-emerge in different forms. Instead, the temporal focus shifts to the Erasmian concept of the private Christian intelligence and to the Pelagian stress on the power of the Christian individual to effect virtuous change.

Certainly, mankind without Christianity conjures up a dismal prospect. The record of mankind with Christianity is daunting enough, as we have sen. The dynamism it has unleashed has brought massacre and torture, intolerance and destructive pried on a huge scale. For there is a cruel and pitiless nature in man which sometime impervious to Christian restraints and encouragements. But without these restraints, bereft of these encouragements, how much more horrific the history of the last 2000 years might have been. Christianity has not made man secure or happy or even dignified. But it supplies a hope. It is a civilizing agent. It helps to cage the beast. It offers glimpses of real freedom, intimations of a calm and reasonable existence. Even as we see it distorted by the ravages of humanity, it is not without beauty. We are leaning that mans capacity for evil is almost limitless. Man is imperfect with God, without God what is he? "They that deny God destroy man's nobility, for certainty man is of kin to the beasts by his body and if he be not kin to God by his spirit, he is a bas and ignoble creature."(F Bacon) We are less base and ignoble by virtue of divine example and by the desire for the form of the apotheosis which Christianity offers. In the dual personality of Christ we are offered a perfected image of ourselves and eternal pace-setter for our striving. By such means our history over the last two millennia has reflected the effort to rise above our human frailties. And to that extent, the chronicle of Christianity is an edifying one. (Paul Johnson)

 

The above is essentially saying that the church and the manner in which it interacts with basically good, yet marred, humanity is evolving. It is trying to synthesize Augustinianism with Pelgianism through Darwinism. Both were right, he says, in their time.

It's a bunch of B.S.

qf needs to come to terms with Genesis.

 

All trusted guides are to be read cautiously.WM always dismisses them, then usually calls me a parrot
[when I post a link that he cannot begin to respond to]......then proceeds to mangle every verse he tries to speak about.For these reasons he comes to mind as the poster-child for those who remain in error that has been historically addressed.

QF- this goes without saying, does'nt it? So did the puritans.Before being hyper critical of them.....we should examine them as time permits.

No one advocates reading them more than scripture. I have two books by Benjamin Keach that are thicker than phone books.Lets say he has 60 percent truth and 40 percent weak or questionable ideas.
That 60% is gained by the reader much faster than the reader trying to re-invent the wheel . It is put right before your face...take it or leave it!

The op wording is a bit rough or crude,and yet it gets to it:thumbs:read and learn, or ignore it and most times post in ignorance.

Even in the 40% IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE....in finding where a writer went off is also instructive as we are forced to seek the biblical remedy.:thumbs:

 

History is WIDELY popular amongst baptists.

Just go look at the 800,000 threads in the Baptist History section here on BB.

:tonofbricks: :laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

That is one name I have never called you. I have only used the word "parroted" in relation to repeating creeds on Sunday morning. From being in classes a large part of my life, I believe history of anything to be a very valuable tool to learn lessons about life. History of the church is no different. In fact, if one pays attention to the history of the church and the world in general, and one is a Christian, it is not hard to see God's hand in guiding events.

We all realize that we are flawed beings, so any history is going to contain error, but that does not mean that we totally dismiss obvious lessons to learn. All of the past theologeans mentioned in this thread have something to offer, and at the same time no doubt they wrote things we do not agree with. Dismissing history and past writings is a very dangerous way to look at things. History does not have to meet the standard of Inspired to be valuable.

 

Telling People to "shut up" in a public discussion cannot be equated to Jesus rebuking his opponents for several reasons:

1. (most obviously) We are not Jesus. The simple fact is we are not called to do every single thing Jesus did in the exact same way he did it. Jesus is God, we are not.

2. Several Scripture passages warn against unnecessary harshness, and encourage gentleness, even with opponents:
-1 Timothy 5:1 - Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers. (Do you know the age of each person you are rebuking here?)
-2 Tim. 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.
-2 Timothy 2:25 - correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth.

3. Someone once said in another thread:

(This was YOU, btw) It seems that your FOUR threads started with essentially the same topic of harshly hammering those who do not use logic as well as you have not been effective in converting them to your position.

 

Boy, Luke was right, I'm just an old guitar playin' hippie.



Here's an old song I'm dedicating to you Luke. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF6JMotbHYM

 

Do you mean Church History or Catholic History. You see I would have a problem thinking of the church as Catholic. Catholics are not part of the Church. There fore not part of Church history. I say this because after all you are a Calvinist and this is where your doctrine came from.

Catholics murdered true Christians for disagreeing with there so called church. I just can't find it in me to call murders, Christian.
MB

 

Luke's main man Calvin was pretty good at killing people too. :thumbsup:

What a role model for all Christians to follow.

 

I don't understand why you say Calvinist doctrine came from Catholicism. That makes no sense. Catholics clearly follow a works based salvation while Calvinists believe salvation is given by grace and NOT of works.

 

And how would you characterize the coming generation? Thoughtful young men?

 

You have a nice day too Aaron. You will not goad or chide me..

 

Like it or not Church History is part of Catholic History.

 

Amy I know you are new at Calvinism. Calvinism is the exact same doctrine the Catholic Church was founded on However modern Calvinist did drop 2 of the original seven pedals of the tulip. Including infant baptism I might be wrong but, I believe Presbyterians and Lutherans still practice it. And yes it was originally called Augustinian ism. Augustine was the author of this doctrine. Calvin was it's promoter. He promoted all seven pedals. The seventh I believe was the inheritance of election, Or maybe it was inheritance of Salvation I for get which.
You must not have known what you were getting in to if you didn't know this. Reformers are reforming the Catholic church. Just like reformed Mormons reformed the Mormon faith. This was John Calvin's priority
MB

 

I disagree with that nonsense. Baptist are not from the catholic faith only the Calvinist Baptist are . By the way Calvinism wasn't always in the Baptist faith. They infiltrated our church and made a few converts now they try to Claim the Baptist community. Anna Baptist were not Calvinistic and they my friend existed before the reformation.
MB

 

There no different than the generation before it. They just didn't hide there sins and lie about it. The whole world has been a sinful place ever since Adam walked out of the Garden. The whole generation is not responsible for what a few Hippies did. You are simply confused it isn't the people it's Satan himself.
MB