Study history or shut-up

[quantumfaith]

MB, I am NOT "arguing" with you. You seem to have an agenda to "poo poo" the catholics...I get it, you don't agree with them on much (or anything) welcome to the club. I too have serious disagreement with them.

Also keep in mind....other evangelical faiths (denominations ) are not without fault either. Liars....aren't we all at some time or another, perhaps you have never lied.

 

[MB]

MB, I am NOT "arguing" with you. You seem to have an agenda to "poo poo" the catholics...I get it, you don't agree with them on much (or anything) welcome to the club. I too have serious disagreement with them.

Also keep in mind....other evangelical faiths (denominations ) are not without fault either. Liars....aren't we all at some time or another, perhaps you have never lied.

Yes I have lied but I think you misunderstand the point of my feelings. It is one thing to tell a lie and quite another when that's all there is but lies. I've never met anyone who hasn't lied and if they claim they haven't they are most like lying right then.

You can say maybe they don't know any better but that does not convince me they have any of the righteousness they claim they have. They have the same opportunity to read the truth in scripture but Catholics don't go by scripture they go by there priest who again lie and tell there congregation they speak for God.
The RCC has always been corrupt and they always will be. A rotten tree is always rotten it can't heal it's self.
MB

 

[Thomas Helwys]

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.



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:







Again, pure opinion and no facts.



Don't patronize those you have just deeply insulted.



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



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



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 the angry, self-righteous and mean spirited.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Thank you for the history lesson, the true and accurate history.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That is exactly what you are doing.



What is the greatest commandment? And the 2nd?





That is what you do.



You dwell only on harshness.

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




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



Again, cherrypicking is exactly what you are doing.






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.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Luke2427]

Certainly we are not to walk around declaring who's sins are forgiven, or telling people NOT to tell who Jesus is...are we?

The things he did as God are not possible to emulate. But we are obligated to emulate what he did as a human. Only God can forgive sins.

So, NO, we do not go around forgiving sins.

We do go around confronting arrogance with a fierceness like Christ did because he did that as a MAN.

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.

I don't see how this is applicable. He spoke harshley to invincibly arrogant men AS A MAN.

So should we.

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.

Yes, but Paul also speaks of rebuking people before all and nhe speaks of rebuking them sharply, etc... (Titus 1:13)

I think you are cherry picking passages that suit a more "hippy" type of Christianity.

The Bible does not contradict itself. But we have to reconcile passages that speak of our speech being seasoned with grace with passages that speak of cutting people to the bone. We don't get to pick the verses we like and act like the other side does not exist.

That is what I think you are doing.

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

This is a good hermeneutic. But as I have shown we see commands to speak with cutting language ALONGSIDE innumerable passages the teach that this is par for the course in Christianity as far as God is concerned.

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...

You are wrong. The New Testament even speaks of the fact that such people's "mouths must be STOPPED... therefore rebuke them SHARPLY..."

Jesus called many of his opponenets MORONS.

This is BIBLICAL Christianity.

It is not HIPPY Christianity.

Christians can say things like "And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

And they should be saying such things WAY more than they do.

And Christians who have embraced this wussified Christianity that I think insults Jesus Christ ought to wise up and buck up very fast.

...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!"

No it doesn't. It simply does not yield itself to that interpretation. It says, "If you don't study church history and if you don't embrace logic concerning your theology then you ought to shut your arrogant and vile mouth because you are an enemy of the faith and most of your posts do harm to the Kingdom of God."

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.

The mistake you make here is assuming that persuading the opponent should always be the goal. No, it should not. Many times the goal is to fiercely condemn arrogant men and sharply rebuke them before all that others might give a second thought before following them.

Once again, I think we have biblical Christianity here pitted against pop Christianity.

 

[Aaron]

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. [/FONT][/SIZE]

CBT is attempting to say that AIDS is no more prominent in the population because of wholesale immorality. He is a liar. Leftists exalt godlessness, and part of that exaltation is a marginalization of the judgments on immorality and the effectiveness of biblical morality in staying certain epidemics.

That AIDS explodes among the defining activities of homosexuality is a fact of science suppressed by a Leftist political agenda.

"In the early 1980s, the AIDS epidemic was still confined to three cities with large homosexual communities. Aggressive public health methods might have prevented the epidemic’s outward spread. But every effort to take normal precautionary measures was thwarted in turn by the political juggernaut which the gay liberation movement had managed to create. Under intense pressure from gay activists, for example, the director of public health of the City of San Francisco refused to close bathhouses, maintaining that they were valuable centers of “education” about AIDS, even though their only purpose was to facilitate anonymous, promiscuous sex."

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=276
​

See also:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz061201.asp

 

[12strings]

Yes, but Paul also speaks of rebuking people before all and nhe speaks of rebuking them sharply, etc... (Titus 1:13)

I think you are cherry picking passages that suit a more "hippy" type of Christianity.

The Bible does not contradict itself. But we have to reconcile passages that speak of our speech being seasoned with grace with passages that speak of cutting people to the bone. We don't get to pick the verses we like and act like the other side does not exist.

That is what I think you are doing.

So, since we must take into account the whole of scripture...how do you reconcile the two (harshness & Gentleness)? How do you biblically decide when one approach is called for, or, how do you go about seasoning your speech with grace?

Christians can say things like "And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

And you would say this is the ancient equivalent, in content, tone, & perceived seriousness at "shut up" ?

No it doesn't. It simply does not yield itself to that interpretation. It says, "If you don't study church history and if you don't embrace logic concerning your theology then you ought to shut your arrogant and vile mouth because you are an enemy of the faith and most of your posts do harm to the Kingdom of God."

The mistake you make here is assuming that persuading the opponent should always be the goal. No, it should not. Many times the goal is to fiercely condemn arrogant men and sharply rebuke them before all that others might give a second thought before following them.

So, If my entire response to this post of yours consisted of: "Hey moron, study 1 Timothy or Shut up!" You, and those others reading, (since according to you, I'm not really responding for your sake, but to prevent others from saying the same things, lest they get told to shut up too) would perceive this as a serious and solomn rebuke to reconsider the things about which you speak?

 

[Luke2427]

So, since we must take into account the whole of scripture...how do you reconcile the two (harshness & Gentleness)? How do you biblically decide when one approach is called for, or, how do you go about seasoning your speech with grace?

Wesley had a rule: grace to the humble, law to the proud.

That is what we observe in the ministry of Christ and his apostles.

Those who humbly acknowledge that they are in over their depth due to their lack of education (whether formal or personal study) get grace.

Those who arrogantly declare that God SPEAKS TO THEM and that they do not NEED the body of Christ or those who God has gifted to edify the Body by teaching- those people should receive the sharpest end of the sword; and with great velocity.

That is the Master's example.

And you would say this is the ancient equivalent, in content, tone, & perceived seriousness at "shut up" ?

Absolutely.

"Shut up" has carried with it the same idea in every age of man. There are people who need to shut their mouths. That's the idea. Paul said, "Rebuke them SHARPLY so that they will shut their mouths.."

So, If my entire response to this post of yours consisted of: "Hey moron, study 1 Timothy or Shut up!" You, and those others reading, (since according to you, I'm not really responding for your sake, but to prevent others from saying the same things, lest they get told to shut up too) would perceive this as a serious and solomn rebuke to reconsider the things about which you speak?

If you had clear Scriptural merit and you had sufficient reason to believe that I was an impenitently proud hindrance to the Kingdom- absolutely. Absolutely.

 

[saturneptune]

Wesley had a rule: grace to the humble, law to the proud.

That is what we observe in the ministry of Christ and his apostles.

Those who humbly acknowledge that they are in over their depth due to their lack of education (whether formal or personal study) get grace.

Those who arrogantly declare that God SPEAKS TO THEM and that they do not NEED the body of Christ or those who God has gifted to edify the Body by teaching- those people should receive the sharpest end of the sword; and with great velocity.

That is the Master's example.

That is an excellent summary of the need for history and study of Scripture in general. All I can do with the Greek and Hebrew is look up the meanings and let the Lord give me what He is trying to say. I have spent lots of time in personal study, Bible studies, and making notes in my Bible during sermons and Sunday School. Having never been to a seminary or formal class, I realize there is probably a great disadvantage over my background.

However, some of the posts I see from pastors and those with advanced degrees sometimes makes me wonder. This has been mentioned before, but if some of the posts that appear here were repeated to these individual's congregation, I doubt some of them would be in office very long.

 

[Luke2427]

That is an excellent summary of the need for history and study of Scripture in general. All I can do with the Greek and Hebrew is look up the meanings and let the Lord give me what He is trying to say. I have spent lots of time in personal study, Bible studies, and making notes in my Bible during sermons and Sunday School. Having never been to a seminary or formal class, I realize there is probably a great disadvantage over my background.

However, some of the posts I see from pastors and those with advanced degrees sometimes makes me wonder. This has been mentioned before, but if some of the posts that appear here were repeated to these individual's congregation, I doubt some of them would be in office very long.

I thank you for the first paragraph.

Please note, if you have not already done so, that I am not advocating that education is ONLY seminary.

Spurgeon did not attend seminary, for example, but his brilliance arose, in large part, from his vociferous reading of books of very learned men.

The second paragraph is a false dilemma. It assumes that because one should not do something in one context that he should not ever do it in any context.

The fact is that certain things that are terribly inappropriate in some contexts are perfectly appropriate and even called for in other contexts.

Pastoral ministry, for example, is very different from apologetic ministry.

Speaking to ones flock is different from debating others.

I am not the pastor of baptistboard.

These posters are not supposed to be unlearned laymen. It is for people who think they have sufficient knowledge to discuss these matters.

You address such people differently than you address spiritually hungry congregants.

Context is king- not just in Scripture but out of it as well.

 

[saturneptune]

I thank you for the first paragraph.

Please note, if you have not already done so, that I am not advocating that education is ONLY seminary.

Spurgeon did not attend seminary, for example, but his brilliance arose, in large part, from his vociferous reading of books of very learned men.

The second paragraph is a false dilemma. It assumes that because one should not do something in one context that he should not ever do it in any context.

The fact is that certain things that are terribly inappropriate in some contexts are perfectly appropriate and even called for in other contexts.

Pastoral ministry, for example, is very different from apologetic ministry.

Speaking to ones flock is different from debating others.

I am not the pastor of baptistboard.

These posters are not supposed to be unlearned laymen. It is for people who think they have sufficient knowledge to discuss these matters.

You address such people differently than you address spiritually hungry congregants.

Context is king- not just in Scripture but out of it as well.

I understand your point. And no, I was not referring to you in this group I was talking about. Yes, Spurgeon was brilliant, and wish we had more of them today. Sometimes I get the feeling that some who let everyone know what degrees they have and where they studied are not letting the Scripture speak to them, but repeating the doctrine taught to them in seminary.

You are correct on the other point, pastors have the right to debate as vigorously as we do. However, debating a point is one thing, but some of the names that come out of these posts from people leading NT churches amazes me. I think the higher ones level of calling, the more responsibility one has to stick to the theological point and omit the names.

 

[Jerome]

Luke, is this what you mean by "vociferous reading of books of very learned men"?

"I learned my theology, from which I have never swerved, from an old woman who was a cook in the house where I was an usher. She could talk about the deep things of God and as I sat and heard what she had to say, as an aged Christian, of what the Lord had done for her, I learned more from her instruction than from anybody I have ever met with since!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Whole Machinery of Salvation", August 18, 1889

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, is this what you mean by "vociferous reading of books of very learned men"?

"I learned my theology, from which I have never swerved, from an old woman who was a cook in the house where I was an usher. She could talk about the deep things of God and as I sat and heard what she had to say, as an aged Christian, of what the Lord had done for her, I learned more from her instruction than from anybody I have ever met with since!" —Charles Spurgeon, "The Whole Machinery of Salvation", August 18, 1889

And I learned the most important things about Christ from an uneducated preacher myself.

What is your point?

Is your point that Spurgeon was NOT a vociferous reader?

Is your point that Spurgeon did NOT believe education was extremely important?

Is your point that Spurgeon thought that you do not need to study church history?

What about this woman? Was she not a reader of books herself? Did she have no interest in Church History? If you cannot answer that, I do not think your post is relevent to this discussion.

 

[Jerome]

LOL I guess that is a yes?



Look what popped up this morning at the Calvinist 'Gospel Coalition' site:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/02/08/factchecker

For those who pay attention to the different opinions and declarations on how the various generations are different than the ones that came before. . .

 

[Luke2427]

LOL I guess that is a yes?



Look what popped up this morning at the Calvinist 'Gospel Coalition' site:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/02/08/factchecker

You did not answer any of my questions?

Why?

 

[psalms109:31]

Deuteronomy 27:18
“Cursed is anyone who leads the blind astray on the road.”Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”

Matthew 15:14
Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

John 3:10
“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.


Jesus had to rebuke many teachers. They are leading sheep. A sheep knows nothing but to follow, we as teachers are to be example's.

If teacher's can't even understand to love our enemies, do you really think they can comprehend anything else the scripture teaches.

Jesus main problem is teachers has it changed? Jesus didn't rebuke the sinner, the young rich ruler a sheep. Jesus didn't say you stupid sinner, you can't obey the law. Jesus showed Him the way sell your things, get rid of what ever is holding you back from following me and follow me. We as teachers are to follow Christ to be an example to those who don't know Him to point to Christ. Most people are sheep following someone, one day they might be a leader of what they are following.

Hebrews 5 :
Warning Against Falling Away

11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand. 12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.