Study history or shut-up

[quantumfaith]

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

Well I am very sorry you feel that it is nonsense, but unfortunately we protestants (by an large) spring from the catholic church. With that said, I do not want to get started along the "Trail of Blood" discussion. If that works for you, then so be it. I am not "poo pooing" the TOB, just happen to not take that position.

 

[12strings]

Much much more so than the hippy generation. That generation made aids an epidemic, drugs a plague, lost prayer in schools, had the highest divorce rate in American history, stood by as abortion was legalized, spit on troops returning home from giving their lives for the country, hosted massive sex orgies on the whitehouse lawn, created the entitlement crisis that now cripples this nation, and I could go on.

People who reached maturity in the sixties and seventies make up the worst generation in the history of this nation.

Christianity on their watch has become a pusillanimous, impotent wussified bunch of nothing.

Now, as I said before, many wonderful people better than their generation rose out if that mess.

But this syrupy sweet, weak "Christianity" that they left us will hopefully die out and disappear from the face of the earth as the hippy generations dies off.

I pray it will be replaced by a bold, passionate Christianity like we see in the Bible, during the reformation and the great awakening.

Anybody who tells you that Christians should never be fierce, controversial, and abrasive is probably one of these sissy types from the hippy generation.

May God deliver us from them and the near worthless Christianity they left us.

Should I consider this your logical response to my post #29, or should I wait for another?

 

[saturneptune]

Well I am very sorry you feel that it is nonsense, but unfortunately we protestants (by an large) spring from the catholic church. With that said, I do not want to get started along the "Trail of Blood" discussion. If that works for you, then so be it. I am not "poo pooing" the TOB, just happen to not take that position.

I agree, the TOB is another thread. I have never quite made up my mind about it. What we do know is that local New Testement churches did exist along side the RCC before the Reformation. We also know that there is no evidence of the Baptist church coming out of the Reformation, such as Knox and the Presbyterian Church. There is no clear evidence linking the pre Reformation churches to the modern day Baptist church.

The only reason I put a division between Baptists and Protestants is the church model. Protestants believe in an invisible, universal church, while Baptists believe in a visible, local church. The RCC believes in a visible, universal church.

I also agree the the RCC is part of overall church history. However, so are the churches that existed along side the RCC that preserved the NT church. There is no way the RCC was the preserved NT church from 500-1500 AD.

 

[Luke2427]

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

You just COMPLETLY ignored the facts I cited. There is no comparison in lieu of the FACTS . The hippy generation is without a doubt the worst in American history. The Christianity that came out of it is a pusillanimous, worthless mess.

 

[quantumfaith]

I agree, the TOB is another thread. I have never quite made up my mind about it. What we do know is that local New Testement churches did exist along side the RCC before the Reformation. We also know that there is no evidence of the Baptist church coming out of the Reformation, such as Knox and the Presbyterian Church. There is no clear evidence linking the pre Reformation churches to the modern day Baptist church.

The only reason I put a division between Baptists and Protestants is the church model. Protestants believe in an invisible, universal church, while Baptists believe in a visible, local church. The RCC believes in a visible, universal church.

I also agree the the RCC is part of overall church history. However, so are the churches that existed along side the RCC that preserved the NT church. There is no way the RCC was the preserved NT church from 500-1500 AD.

Well said, I am not intelligent enough on the issue to offer any rebuttal, perhaps the "early church" to which you spoke was "the way" along with major churches etc. prior to RC?

 

[saturneptune]

Well said, I am not intelligent enough on the issue to offer any rebuttal, perhaps the "early church" to which you spoke was "the way" along with major churches etc. prior to RC?

Oh you are quite intelligent, light years beyond me. (pun intended LOL). The direct evidence of the history outside the RCC during that period is very vague and scattered. One can only deduce that from the doctrine of the RCC, it is impossible to be the instrument of the preserved NT Church that Jesus Christ established.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

We ARE to be like Jesus. He is our example. You don't get to cherry pick the things that Jesus did that you WANT to emulate.

Jesus was a human. What he did as a human we are to emulate. The things he did as God are not possible to emulate. But we are obligated to emulate what he did as a human.

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.

This is a hermeneutical error. You don't get to lift passages out of their context and act as though the surface meaning is LAW.

Each one of these passages speak of the way we are to behave in certain contexts. They do not NEGATE the myriad other passages that commend harshness.

It is a hermeneutical flaw to take passages that are to be used in certain contexts and try to force them to be applied universally.

Jesus was not gentle with the Pharisees.
Paul was not gentle with Peter.
Peter was not gentle with Simon the magician.
John was not gentle with Diotrophes.

You are cherry picking passages to suit you rather than seeking to uncover what those passages mean as they fit perfectly with THE WHOLE of Scripture.

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.

Who is to say I am not going to be effective here.

If I infuriate the unspeakably arrogant people who spit on Church history while preaching on here all kinds of terrible things that they would know better about had they STUDIED church history- EXCELLENT!

It has been effective.

Polemical apoloetics and debate has been historically shown to be ONE OF if not THE most effective of ways to persuade people.

It is simply out of place with this hippy generation because they would steal from Christianity her boldness, bluntness and really everything that made her EFFECTIVE in those times of GREATEST effectiveness.

Perhaps you have bought in- I have not.

 

[Aaron]

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

Neither goading nor chiding. I'm warning you.

The excerpt you posted is saying essentially this: that truth is whatever motivates men to be divine. If Augustinianism works for a while, then fine. If Pelagianism works for a while fine. He can praise them equally because he denies them both in favor of a new paradigm—one that serves to motivate.

The Darwinian undertones are crying out in defiance of the Gospel and how It presents to us the state of mankind and the nature of the Atonement.

 

[quantumfaith]

Neither goading nor chiding. I'm warning you.

The excerpt you posted is saying essentially this: that truth is whatever motivates men to be divine. If Augustinianism works for a while, then fine. If Pelagianism works for a while fine. He can praise them equally because he denies them both in favor of a new paradigm—one that serves to motivate.

The Darwinian undertones are crying out in defiance of the Gospel and how It presents to us the state of mankind and the nature of the Atonement.

With all due respect, I acknowledge but do not accept your warning. The excerpt I posted was the closing paragraphs of "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson. Now I realize that you may not find him correct or relevant on many or perhaps any issues, that is fine. I too have my disagreements with his historical and otherwise analysis, but I found his closing interesting and challenging to consider.

I don't think, if memory serves me correctly he addressed the atonement in his closing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0684815036/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I agree, the TOB is another thread. I have never quite made up my mind about it. What we do know is that local New Testement churches did exist along side the RCC before the Reformation. We also know that there is no evidence of the Baptist church coming out of the Reformation, such as Knox and the Presbyterian Church. There is no clear evidence linking the pre Reformation churches to the modern day Baptist church.

The only reason I put a division between Baptists and Protestants is the church model. Protestants believe in an invisible, universal church, while Baptists believe in a visible, local church. The RCC believes in a visible, universal church.

I also agree the the RCC is part of overall church history. However, so are the churches that existed along side the RCC that preserved the NT church. There is no way the RCC was the preserved NT church from 500-1500 AD.

Agreed!.........

 

[psalms109:31]

Nahum 1

2 The Lord is a jealous and avenging God;
the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
The Lord takes vengeance on his foes
and vents his wrath against his enemies.
3 The Lord is slow to anger but great in power;
the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished.
His way is in the whirlwind and the storm,
and clouds are the dust of his feet.

Hebrews 10:
30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[Deut. 32:35] and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”[Deut. 32:36; Psalm 135:14] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Romans 12 :
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[Deut. 32:35] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[Prov. 25:21,22]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Matthew 5 :
Love for Enemies


43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[Lev. 19:18] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

1 Corinthians 13:2
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

2 Corinthians 9:
6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.

What any do for the Lord, out of fear, out anything but love is worthless. You can get many to do a lot of things out of fear, but it doesn't come from the heart. Vengeance is for Jesus, we are to love our enemy

 

[12strings]

We ARE to be like Jesus. He is our example. You don't get to cherry pick the things that Jesus did that you WANT to emulate.

Jesus was a human. What he did as a human we are to emulate. The things he did as God are not possible to emulate. But we are obligated to emulate what he did as a human.

Certainly we are not to walk around declaring who's sins are forgiven, or telling people NOT to tell who Jesus is...are we? I'm saying Jesus, because he was God, had the final authority in certain situations to make decisions that we may not possess the final authority to make.

This is a hermeneutical error. You don't get to lift passages out of their context and act as though the surface meaning is LAW.

Each one of these passages speak of the way we are to behave in certain contexts. They do not NEGATE the myriad other passages that commend harshness.

It is a hermeneutical flaw to take passages that are to be used in certain contexts and try to force them to be applied universally.

Jesus was not gentle with the Pharisees.
Paul was not gentle with Peter.
Peter was not gentle with Simon the magician.
John was not gentle with Diotrophes.

You are cherry picking passages to suit you rather than seeking to uncover what those passages mean as they fit perfectly with THE WHOLE of Scripture.

Context for 2 Tim. 3-4-- Paul is warning Timothy about a time when people will no listen to sound doctrine, but rather turn aside to myths (would you describe the people you are trying to convince in this way?) ...His instruction to Timothy in this precise situation: Preach the word, rebuke...with complete patience.

Also, I suppose I am giving MORE weight to the commands of the NT than the EXAMPLES.

Polemical apoloetics and debate has been historically shown to be ONE OF if not THE most effective of ways to persuade people.

It is simply out of place with this hippy generation because they would steal from Christianity her boldness, bluntness and really everything that made her EFFECTIVE in those times of GREATEST effectiveness.

Perhaps you have bought in- I have not.

This is just my opinion, but you seem to be confusing firmness, even occasional justified harshness, with what I would call flippant rudeness.

Telling your debate opponent to "shut up" does not, in my opinion, carry the weight and gravity of rebuking an important matter that a preacher carries when preaching strongly and firmly against some sin because he believes deep in his soul that the people with whom he is speaking must turn away from their sin or suffer great harm...

...rather, it seems to inject into the debate a flippancy, dismissiveness, and juvinile-ness that conveys, whether intentional or not: "I don't really care whether you actually read church history, or understand logic so you can better understand your Bible, whatever, just shut up!"

In effect, such snide insertions actually lessen the percieved seriousness of any rebuke, because the person reading your comments simply thinks you're a rude person, not someone who genuinely wants to pursuade them of something that is for their good, even though that may be your goal.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Much much more so than the hippy generation. That generation made aids an epidemic, drugs a plague, lost prayer in schools, had the highest divorce rate in American history, stood by as abortion was legalized, spit on troops returning home from giving their lives for the country, hosted massive sex orgies on the whitehouse lawn, created the entitlement crisis that now cripples this nation, and I could go on.

Long on opinion, very short on facts and very ignorant of history.


The tissues of Ardouin Antonio, who died in June 1959 tested positive for AIDS years later. His death was somewhat of a mystery until then. He was 40 years old and that means he was born in 1919 ... hardly a hippie. It is impossible to know how many people died of AIDS before 1959 as no one had any clue about it other than there was a strange disease in part of Africa. That information was know to a few people in medicine and in medical research. But it was not common knowledge.

In the 1930's the simian immunodeficiency virus, SIV, jumped from primates to humans. It is believed that SIV mutated into AIDS. The first known death from AIDS was in the Congo in 1959 ... the same year we now know that Ardouin Antonio died of AIDS in the US.

Also in the early years AIDS was associated almost exclusively with homosexual men. There were preachers who proclaimed it was God's judgement against homosexuality.

People who reached maturity in the sixties and seventies make up the worst generation in the history of this nation.

Great generalization and pure opinion. What about those who brought smallpox to the New World which destroyed the majority of Native Americans who they came in contact with?

And what about the generations who brought the following disease to the new world: measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, typhus, influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, chickenpox and sexually transmitted diseases.

And what about the generation who took syphilis from the New World back to Europe? That surely spread quickly.

What about the generations of slave holders?

Every generation, especially when that generation is young, likes to believe they are the best generation ever, understand more, are correct almost all the time and that previous generations were bad, bad and bad ... and someone has to be the worst.

Well that reminded me of the following:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

Aristophanes, c. 423 B.C.

Christianity on their watch has become a pusillanimous, impotent wussified bunch of nothing.

Again, pure opinion and no facts.

Now, as I said before, many wonderful people better than their generation rose out if that mess.

Don't patronize those you have just deeply insulted.

But this syrupy sweet, weak "Christianity" that they left us will hopefully die out and disappear from the face of the earth as the hippy generations dies off.

Do you want to replace it with Calvin's Geneva?

I pray it will be replaced by a bold, passionate Christianity like we see in the Bible, during the reformation and the great awakening.

How would you see this played out. Do you approve of the occurrence in Munster?

Anybody who tells you that Christians should never be fierce, controversial, and abrasive is probably one of these sissy types from the hippy generation.

Perhaps they are following the example of Jesus in the way he dealt with sinners, i.e. the woman at the well; the rich young ruler; the woman taken in adultery; Zacchaeus .. just to name a few.

You are right, he came down hard on the Pharisees and others who misused religion. He came down hard on the self-righteous, the fundamentalists of his day ... not the average person. He was very gentle with the average person.

May God deliver us from them and the near worthless Christianity they left us.

May God deliver us from the angry, self-righteous and mean spirited.

 

[Crabtownboy]

We ARE to be like Jesus. He is our example. You don't get to cherry pick the things that Jesus did that you WANT to emulate.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Jesus was a human. What he did as a human we are to emulate. The things he did as God are not possible to emulate. But we are obligated to emulate what he did as a human.

What is the greatest commandment? And the 2nd?

This is a hermeneutical error. You don't get to lift passages out of their context and act as though the surface meaning is LAW.

That is what you do.

Each one of these passages speak of the way we are to behave in certain contexts. They do not NEGATE the myriad other passages that commend harshness.

You dwell only on harshness.

What about "Do unto others that which you would have them do to you?"

Jesus was not gentle with the Pharisees.
Paul was not gentle with Peter.
Peter was not gentle with Simon the magician.
John was not gentle with Diotrophes.

Buy look at all the others he was very gentle with.

You are cherry picking passages to suit you rather than seeking to uncover what those passages mean as they fit perfectly with THE WHOLE of Scripture.

Again, cherrypicking is exactly what you are doing.

If I infuriate the unspeakably arrogant people who spit on Church history while preaching on here all kinds of terrible things that they would know better about had they STUDIED church history- EXCELLENT!

So far I see your knowledge of history very lacking. You are very good at opinion, but very poor at facts, real facts and in an understanding of history.

Opinion is not fact ... regardless of how much we love our own opinion.

 

[MB]

Well I am very sorry you feel that it is nonsense, but unfortunately we protestants (by an large) spring from the catholic church. With that said, I do not want to get started along the "Trail of Blood" discussion. If that works for you, then so be it. I am not "poo pooing" the TOB, just happen to not take that position.

I had no desire about your conversion to my view. We all will meet on the other side and laugh about it together. I admit that I hate the lies of the Catholic faith. History states they were not the first church nor was Peter the first pope. Peter was not buried under the Vatican They recently found a tomb with his bones in it in Galilee. They also found a few other new testament Christians there and an empty box with the name of Jesus on it. You can read about it at the address below.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
MB

 

[MB]

You just COMPLETLY ignored the facts I cited. There is no comparison in lieu of the FACTS . The hippy generation is without a doubt the worst in American history. The Christianity that came out of it is a pusillanimous, worthless mess.

Nothing compared to the punk generation that still exist. I'm not defending hippies but I grew up in the 60's and have been a Christian through all those years and your insulting statement isn't true as usual. The 60's generation isn't any worse than yours. In fact it just happens to be better back then that it is now.
MB

 

[quantumfaith]

I had no desire about your conversion to my view. We all will meet on the other side and laugh about it together. I admit that I hate the lies of the Catholic faith. History states they were not the first church nor was Peter the first pope. Peter was not buried under the Vatican They recently found a tomb with his bones in it in Galilee. They also found a few other new testament Christians there and an empty box with the name of Jesus on it. You can read about it at the address below.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
MB

MB, I am not attempting to convert you to anything or position, I am simply stating "where I am" presently. To "me" we are without a doubt "connected" in many ways to the Catholic church, our history as a christian is inextricably linked in my opinion for all the good and bad. We are after all, if memory serves me correctly speaking of a history of Christianity. Catholic history is a part of that and by default, we are too.

 

[MB]

MB, I am not attempting to convert you to anything or position, I am simply stating "where I am" presently. To "me" we are without a doubt "connected" in many ways to the Catholic church, our history as a christian is inextricably linked in my opinion for all the good and bad. We are after all, if memory serves me correctly speaking of a history of Christianity. Catholic history is a part of that and by default, we are too.

You have a right to your opinion however myself on the other hand will never be convinced anything about the Catholic faith has ever been true. How can any one be expected to believe liars. I do not believe they are part of the body of Christ though they claim there is no Salvation apart from the Roman Catholic faith. There is no such thing as works for Salvation scripture speaks against it. In my opinion it also speaks against what they believed in the beginning of there organization. It is not enough just to believe Christ exist we must also submit Romans 10:1-4
MB

 

[webdog]

You have a right to your opinion however myself on the other hand will never be convinced anything about the Catholic faith has ever been true. How can any one be expected to believe liars. I do not believe they are part of the body of Christ though they claim there is no Salvation apart from the Roman Catholic faith. There is no such thing as works for Salvation scripture speaks against it. In my opinion it also speaks against what they believed in the beginning of there organization. It is not enough just to believe Christ exist we must also submit Romans 10:1-4
MB

He's not saying its true, he's saying the history parallels. Big difference.