considering starting my own website

[Reformed1689]

@DTaylor...the reason I say without personal interpretation we don't get Calvin, Tyndale, or Luther...was because the church was teaching complete heresy as authoritative Word of God...people who were seemingly well educated and had solid biblical knowledge, but they were completely corrupt...it was only through Luther's personal studies that he conveyed his 95 Theses--his own personal interpretation of the Bible...no group study..no scholarly study other than what the completely corrupt church taught him (this was right after the reign of the Borgias mind you), and without his own, personal interpretation, there would be no Protestantism at all. Now not everyone agreed completely with his 95 Theses, such was the case of John Calvin, whom disagreed in terms of free will vs. predestination--there is not much documented of the two's interactions, but of what we do have we know they greatly differed on the theology of predestination, but Calvin was also considered a heretic by the Catholic church. Without personal interpretation, Calvin would not introduce predestination.
Can we interpret wrongly? Absolutely...but this is why we need help of the brothers and sisters in Christ, to come to a mutually agreed upon understanding, but even then we may be led astray. We must all be careful.

You said from non-teachers. They were not non-teachers. For example, Luther was a professor. Calvin was a priest...

To say no scholarly study for Luther is absurd. That is precisely HOW he came to know the truth. And what about free-will do you think Luther and Calvin disagreed on? Just curious. But you seem to need to study up a bit on a few things.

 

[drivenfuture]

You said from non-teachers. They were not non-teachers. For example, Luther was a professor. Calvin was a priest...

To say no scholarly study for Luther is absurd. That is precisely HOW he came to know the truth. And what about free-will do you think Luther and Calvin disagreed on? Just curious. But you seem to need to study up a bit on a few things.

As I mentioned...other than from the corrupt church....this was his scholarly source.

sigh......but he had no access to a true Bible until he became a monk and had his own. So whatever he was teaching before this was not Scripture.
As for Calvin, priests were instructed to carry out the Words of the Pope as authoritative and were restricted access to Bibles.

 

[Reformed1689]

As I mentioned...other than from the corrupt church....this was his scholarly source.

sigh......but he had no access to a true Bible until he became a monk and had his own. So whatever he was teaching before this was not Scripture.
As for Calvin, priests were instructed to carry out the Words of the Pope as authoritative and were restricted access to Bibles.

You really don't know your history do you?

 

[drivenfuture]

You really don't know your history do you?

Try me. Let's go back to Augustine, Borgias, Alexander, How about how the Phoenicians were the people introducing the alphabet around 1000 BC-500 BC and heavily influenced the Greek alphabet, which would become the beginnings of the current English alphabet. How about how early Christian gravestones utilized phoenixes instead of crosses as a sign of rebirth. How about languages? Did you know the Japanese word for king looks similar to the English letter I, upside down, with a line through it...literally translated when it is written the proper way, it means "The mediator between Heaven and Earth."
Do you really, really want to go there with me? I actually have a PHD in the history of languages sir.
Besides, we should not argue about church history. We should be exacting the truth of Scripture...which was, from the beginning, my intent. I like, Tyndale, know 8 languages.
How about the historical fact that Luther would fart to drive out demons?
This is why my authority is Scripture, not Calvin or Luther.

 

[drivenfuture]

And as for John Calvin, my hometown's namesake is named after one of Calvin's teachers, Seneca...this would be the teacher that led him to oppose Catholicism...His studies were largely Catholic-influenced...Seneca was a heavily devout Catholic man, virtually all collegiate teaching to this point would have been of the Catholic influence.

 

[drivenfuture]

Your attitude is completely disrespectful and not exemplary of a believer.
I very clearly stated our goal should be exacting truth of Scripture but you are too focused on arguing and prove yourself right that you would rather maintain you cannot possibly be wrong rather than engage in actual discussion. That is, by definition, the sin of Satan...thinking he was equal with God and had all knowledge.

 

[Reformed1689]

Your attitude is completely disrespectful and not exemplary of a believer.

No, you have totally ignored what I have been saying, then try to puff yourself up. You ask for advice and when advice is given all you want to do is argue and dismiss it. That is what is disrespectful.

 

[drivenfuture]

And yet, when refuting me, you have provided no counterpoint, no source material, no information as to correction, but only engaged in insults.

 

[Reformed1689]

And yet, when refuting me, you have provided no counterpoint, no source material, no information as to correction, but only engaged in insults.

I think you need to go back and read through the thread, starting with my FIRST response to you which is straight from Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

Furthermore @drivenfuture if you have already made the definite decision to start the site (you posted a sampling) if you have already done it, why are you asking if we think it is a good idea? It just seems disingenuous.

 

[drivenfuture]

Well you took one verse that you did not cite: Here's the full passage:

Bible Gateway passage: James 3 - English Standard Version

Is it not said that we should be open to reason?

 

[drivenfuture]

Furthermore @drivenfuture if you have already made the definite decision to start the site (you posted a sampling) if you have already done it, why are you asking if we think it is a good idea? It just seems disingenuous.

In terms of the theological part...I had started it prior to being a part of a Reformed church a few years ago..I think maybe last posted a year or more ago...basically in essence I would have been re-starting it, and continued posts after having asked the question and receiving a few comments.

 

[Reformed1689]

Is it not said that we should be open to reason?

What do you think that means?

 

[drivenfuture]

Well, look at the surrounding words, and also look at the Greek:
who is considered wise? Those of good conduct; do not be false to the truth, in terms of your heart--as the Bible says our hearts are deceitful above all things; the Holy spirit searches our hearts to convict us; Wisdom is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits/works (as a byproduct, not requirement of salvation), and this is key here: And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
Do we disagree? It appears that way. Should we really let that get in the way of our call to love one another? No...Unless i have a seriously false version of the Gospel or am committing sexual immorality or am going around hating other believers.
I do not believe a blog of devotionals is the same thing as leading a church...I believe they are separate things.
As for the Greek, it is the word eupeithes, which means open to persuasion or willing to yield.

 

[Reformed1689]

Well, look at the surrounding words, and also look at the Greek:
who is considered wise? Those of good conduct; do not be false to the truth, in terms of your heart--as the Bible says our hearts are deceitful above all things; the Holy spirit searches our hearts to convict us; Wisdom is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits/works (as a byproduct, not requirement of salvation), and this is key here: And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
Do we disagree? It appears that way. Should we really let that get in the way of our call to love one another? No...Unless i have a seriously false version of the Gospel or am committing sexual immorality or am going around hating other believers.
I do not believe a blog of devotionals is the same thing as leading a church...I believe they are separate things.

You didn't actually answer the question about open to reason. That being said, I never claimed a blog of devotionals is the same as leading a church. But it is TEACHING. If the material is out there for the sake of leading people in a devotional manner, that IS teaching. Why not just keep a personal journal?

I do not publish everything I write on my website. Why? Some of it is for my own personal reflection and I have stacks of journals filled with this material. I am very selective about what I publish because I hold that material to a higher standard then what goes into my personal journals.

 

[drivenfuture]

I did answer it--open to persuasion or willing to yield.
Also....wouldn't just having a personal journal actually be more dangerous then? Because if my information is public, I can be corrected...if my journal/blog is personal...then nobody will see it, and I run the risk of deceiving myself forever, as nobody will correct me if my reflection was misguided.

 

[Reformed1689]

I did answer it--open to persuasion or willing to yield.
Also....wouldn't just having a personal journal actually be more dangerous then? Because if my information is public, I can be corrected...if my journal/blog is personal...then nobody will see it, and I run the risk of deceiving myself forever, as nobody will correct me if my reflection was misguided.

Sorry, for some reason not all of your posts are displaying. I see the answer now.

But no, I disagree that a personal journal is more dangerous. That gives you things that you can DISCUSS privately with others but not put it out as if it is something all can and should learn from.

 

[drivenfuture]

So you support Reformed theology then, I'm guessing Calvinist? Do you support Allie Stuckey, prominent female Calvinist theologian? By your definition, she would be a teacher, and the Bible says God does not permit a woman to teach.

 

[Reformed1689]

So you support Reformed theology then, I'm guessing Calvinist? Do you support Allie Stuckey, prominent female Calvinist theologian? By your definition, she would be a teacher, and the Bible says God does not permit a woman to teach.

I had to Google her to even find out who she was. She is NOT a prominent theologian.

As far as women teaching. It depends. Paul is speaking in the context of the church and exercising authority over men. So, she should not be teaching men, and she should not be teaching in a church setting.

But no, she is not a prominent Reformed Theologian, that's just nonsense.

 

[37818]

Presuppositons--well, this is actually a dangerous question.

Everyone has presuppositions. Beginnng with one's language and what one has been taught to be true. One's own presuppositions are inescapable.