- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/27/20 at 5:46 pm to OchoDedos
Lutherans aren't the only denomination who has ordained homosexuals.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 5:48 pm to blueboy
quote:
Ironically, Luther originally set out to befriend jews and live among them. Guess he changed his mind.
That’s essentially what happened. He desired to be kind to them at first to convert them but when that didn’t work he got pissed and treated them awful.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 6:22 pm to Big Chipper
quote:was coming to post this,
Jews aren't black
Posted on 6/27/20 at 6:47 pm to evil cockroach
Does that include the Rev. King?
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:29 pm to Quidam65
quote:Not quite. Calvin had Servetus condemned as a heretic by the religious government of Geneva. Luther was a few years ahead of Calvin but both lived in a time where the Church and the State were married and the government of Geneva had laws against heresy. Servetus was condemned by the government and Calvin petitioned that Servetus be beheaded instead of burned at the stake. The petition was denied.
I would be very willing to purge Calvin. He had his enemies murdered.
Also, Servetus was already condemned by the Roman Catholics and they wanted him extradited so that they could execute him.
It isn’t like Calvin met the man in a back alley and stuck a dagger in his belly.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:29 pm to Quidam65
quote:
I would be very willing to purge Calvin. He had his enemies murdered.
He certainly did. And dissenters whom he didn't have murdered, were flogged and excommunicated. And yet, Calvinists swear by his doctrine of determinism, which NONE of the early church fathers held to, up until Augustine very suddenly switched from being an advocate of free will, back to determinism which he taught as a Manachaean (Gnostic, Pagan religion) before his conversion to Christianity.
Calvin wrote extensively that Augustine was his influence, but many Calvinists have no idea where Calvin got his ideas from, and just assume that he was bringing scripture back to it's purest interpretation. They don't realize that it was Augustine who introduced this doctrine into the church and that he got this idea from a Pagan teaching. The church did not take particularly well to what Augustine did, but his previous reputation as a heresy fighter afforded him somewhat of a buffer from public criticism. Determinism died down significantly, thereafter, until the reformation, when Calvin and Luther (Calvin far more so) revived it.
I know you didn't ask for an essay on church history, but I just wanted to mention those things in this forum while we're talking about church figures. There is an inherent problem with taking the words of a couple of flawed men who were changing the meaning of terms, hundreds of years after the Gospel was written, while no one else in the history of the church believed in or taught any form of determinism.
This post was edited on 6/27/20 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:33 pm to Metaloctopus
Determinism? You mean God’s sovereign choice in election (predestination)? That didn’t originate with Calvin or Augustine. It’s all throughout scripture.
We calvinists don’t quote Calvin when debating the subject. We quote scripture.
We calvinists don’t quote Calvin when debating the subject. We quote scripture.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 7:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not quite. Calvin had Servetus condemned as a heretic by the religious government of Geneva. Luther was a few years ahead of Calvin but both lived in a time where the Church and the State were married and the government of Geneva had laws against heresy. Servetus was condemned by the government and Calvin petitioned that Servetus be beheaded instead of burned at the stake. The petition was denied.
Also, Servetus was already condemned by the Roman Catholics and they wanted him extradited so that they could execute him.
It isn’t like Calvin met the man in a back alley and stuck a dagger in his belly
Servetus is the one example that people always bring up, but he wasn't close to being the only one. Calvin was in one way or another responsible for, I believe, 58 executions of what He deemed heretics. He also excommunicated people just for disagreeing with him. I'm sure you know that many of us Christians have minor disagreements, here and there, all the time, but we don't call each other heretics (except for Calvinists, who frequently call other Christians heretics).
Also, the excuse that "it was just part of the church culture in that day" to kill heretics, is a mistake, in my opinion. This was a Roman Catholic tradition. The reformers were supposed to be fleeing this kind of tyranny, where the church decided what was the "right" interpretation (which can often be very subjective, though there are cases of blatant heresy) and make law from it. The killing of heretics was part of the old Covenant. When Jesus died for our sins, as you know, this began the NEW Covenant. Under the new Covenant, there is no longer license to kill people for their heresy. Again, the Catholics held onto this. It's why they were after Servetus. Calvin was no better than the Catholic Church. He was a tyrant.
There is also reason to believe that his asking for Servetus to be beheaded, rather than burned, had less to do with "mercy" and more to do with who would get the blame for killing Servetus. The penalty for breaking civil laws was beheading. The penalty under the church for heresy was to be burned at the stake. Calvin was not an overly popular figure in Geneva, as he had already been asked to leave years earlier, only to return when some of his friends made their way into the city council and invited him back. So Calvin knew killing Servetus was going to be highly controversial, thus he likely wanted to shift the blame to the state.
But, he made sure afterwards to keep control by stating that if anyone disagreed with the execution of heretics, they were implicating their own guilt.
This post was edited on 6/27/20 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 6/27/20 at 8:01 pm to Big Chipper
quote:
Jews aren't black
I beg to differ, baby!
Posted on 6/27/20 at 8:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Determinism? You mean God’s sovereign choice in election (predestination)? That didn’t originate with Calvin or Augustine. It’s all throughout scripture
This particular interpretation of scripture originated with the Manachaeans, Gnostics and Stoics. It was Augustine, a former Manachaean, who brought this interpretation into Christianity, in his desperation to counter Pelagius' purported teaching that people could will themselves to salvation through works. It's not even been made clear that Pelagius was actually guilty of what Augustine accused him of. The Bible does not teach what you call "predestination", in the deterministic way in which Augustine, and later Calvin did. The term "predestination" (or predestined) is used in the Bible to describe God's FOREKNOWLEDGE. Augustine went against the ENTIRE church history, up to that point (around 400 A.D.) in defining this term as meaning that God had predetermined all things. There is a major difference between knowing something is going to happen, and CAUSING it to happen.
Only in finite, human understanding are we required to set something in motion in order to know it's going to happen. Why do you limit God so much?
Also, you, and Calvinists in general, have hijacked the term "sovereign" and redefined it to mean something entirely different from what anyone in the history of the world has ever known it to mean. Sovereign does not mean you have to be in complete control of all things, lest you be... less than sovereign. To be sovereign quite simply and literally means that you are self-governed, that you are above all. God can just as easily make the SOVEREIGN choice to give man the free will to choose or reject His Grace. Why do Calvinists assume that God can ONLY be sovereign if He chooses the Calvinist view of Him? God could literally do anything at all, and remain completely sovereign. Because He is above all, and exists outside of any limits that we know. God is not in danger of being overtaken by man's limited free will to simply positively or negatively respond to His calling.
quote:
We calvinists don’t quote Calvin when debating the subject. We quote scripture.
You quote Calvin's interpretations. You cherry pick scriptures in order to make the Bible fit your view, rather than read the Bible in its entire context. If God preordained all things, as Calvinists claim, then that means He ordained sin. Many Calvinists freely admit this. so if God ordained sin, why are we held accountable for things we have no ability to resist? Considering, supposedly, He predetermined what we would do. Wouldn't that make God a monster? If Calvinism were true, then the Gospel is meaningless. There is no reason to go out and teach the world the word of God, if their fate is already determined, not by freely choosing or rejecting God's grace, but by divine decree. You have made God arbitrary. And you have made Jesus' sacrifice a charade.
I could go on, but I'll leave it here. Just know that I consider you a brother in Christ. But I hope you'll consider what I've said.
This post was edited on 6/27/20 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 6/27/20 at 8:16 pm to Quidam65
Why bother theyve already destroyed the churches other than hardcore fundamentalists like Mormons
Posted on 6/27/20 at 8:18 pm to Parmen
quote:
Well every Protestant faith will need to close up shop then. Catholicism won in the end.
Nah.
Our churches aren't known to be safe havens for child molesters.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 8:23 pm to Quidam65
quote:
Martin Luther
based af.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 9:09 pm to wmr
Based as F
Posted on 6/27/20 at 9:38 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:Like I said, the Church and the State were intertwined back then. This held true for both Roman Catholic states as well as Protestant ones. This meant that the religious views were included in the civil law, which included heretical points of view and the punishment for religious crimes. This was a part of cultural religion as well as politics. You can disagree with it all you want but there isn't a mandate in scripture to separate faith from politics.
Servetus is the one example that people always bring up, but he wasn't close to being the only one. Calvin was in one way or another responsible for, I believe, 58 executions of what He deemed heretics. He also excommunicated people just for disagreeing with him. I'm sure you know that many of us Christians have minor disagreements, here and there, all the time, but we don't call each other heretics (except for Calvinists, who frequently call other Christians heretics).
Also, the excuse that "it was just part of the church culture in that day" to kill heretics, is a mistake, in my opinion. This was a Roman Catholic tradition. The reformers were supposed to be fleeing this kind of tyranny, where the church decided what was the "right" interpretation (which can often be very subjective, though there are cases of blatant heresy) and make law from it. The killing of heretics was part of the old Covenant. When Jesus died for our sins, as you know, this began the NEW Covenant. Under the new Covenant, there is no longer license to kill people for their heresy. Again, the Catholics held onto this. It's why they were after Servetus. Calvin was no better than the Catholic Church. He was a tyrant.
There is also reason to believe that his asking for Servetus to be beheaded, rather than burned, had less to do with "mercy" and more to do with who would get the blame for killing Servetus. The penalty for breaking civil laws was beheading. The penalty under the church for heresy was to be burned at the stake. Calvin was not an overly popular figure in Geneva, as he had already been asked to leave years earlier, only to return when some of his friends made their way into the city council and invited him back. So Calvin knew killing Servetus was going to be highly controversial, thus he likely wanted to shift the blame to the state.
But, he made sure afterwards to keep control by stating that if anyone disagreed with the execution of heretics, they were implicating their own guilt.
The new covenant had nothing to do with actions by the government (the civil law of Israel). The new covenant is in contrast to the covenant of works as best exemplified by the ceremonial laws of sacrifices of bulls and goats for atonement of sin. The old covenant was worked out by regular sacrifices for sin. The new covenant was worked out in the once-for-call sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Obedience to the civil law was not abrogated by Christ's death; we aren't under the civil law of Israel because Christ's reign as Lord is now over all nations with their own leaders and laws that derive their authority ultimately from Him and will be accountable to Him. All nations can choose what laws they want to make and what punishments seem right for violation of those laws. The states and nations during Luther's and Calvin's times had their own laws and punishments. It wasn't "murder" for the government to put to death someone for what what they deemed heresy. Whatever you think of Calvin's politics is irrelevant to whether or not His doctrine was correct.
The Reformers weren't trying to get away from "tyranny" but error. They thought Rome had lost its way and they wanted to reform the Church by examining the scriptures for themselves. That was one of the biggest rallying cries of the Reformation: sola scriptura. Rome did not allow the layperson to have access to the Bible and even the mass was performed in Latin, which most people didn't understand, so the people were ignorant of what the scriptures taught. The Reformation brought the very word of God back to the people.
This post was edited on 6/27/20 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 6/27/20 at 10:37 pm to Metaloctopus
quote:Uh, no. It originated with God because that is what He taught through the scriptures.
This particular interpretation of scripture originated with the Manachaeans, Gnostics and Stoics.
quote:Again, the scripture plainly teaches these doctrines. It wasn't Augustine who originated the interpretations because it's plain to see in scripture what it teaches about God's sovereignty in election. Augustine spoke most clearly about this in response to those who taught against it. As with most things in the early church, being vocal about a particular issue or doctrine didn't mean that was the first time those thoughts came to mind. It just meant that it needed to be vocalized in response to those who were teaching differently.
It was Augustine, a former Manachaean, who brought this interpretation into Christianity, in his desperation to counter Pelagius' purported teaching that people could will themselves to salvation through works. It's not even been made clear that Pelagius was actually guilty of what Augustine accused him of.
quote:False. You don't even understand what the scriptures say on the topic. "Knowledge" as the Bible used it didn't mean simply a mental understanding or awareness. It meant a relationship, as when Adam "knew" Eve or when David didn't "know" Abishag the Shunammite (1 Kings 1). In those instances, it was a sexual relationship that was being referenced. In Romans 8, Paul clearly states that the object of God's foreknowledge were those whom He subsequently predestined, not their actions or choices as you seem to think. God determined whom He would create to have a relationship and chose to save them in eternity past, before they had done anything to merit such a saving relationship.
The Bible does not teach what you call "predestination", in the deterministic way in which Augustine, and later Calvin did. The term "predestination" (or predestined) is used in the Bible to describe God's FOREKNOWLEDGE. Augustine went against the ENTIRE church history, up to that point (around 400 A.D.) in defining this term as meaning that God had predetermined all things. There is a major difference between knowing something is going to happen, and CAUSING it to happen.
The whole book of Romans was emphasizing this point. Romans 9 even includes a rhetorical question asked by Paul asking if God is unjust for doing this. Why would He be unjust in electing some to salvation and choose to damn others based on seeing what they would choose? The question doesn't even make sense with that interpretation. No, Paul was saying that Esau and Pharaoh were judged based on God's eternal decree, based on what He wanted to do, not based on what either had done or would do. He blessed Jacob and cursed Esau even though Jacob turned out to be quite the scoundrel of the two. God raised up Pharaoh to judge Him and show how powerful God was. The events of God's judgement of Egypt was the primary use case that God used to call Israel back to repentance time and time again.
quote:I'm not limiting God to anything. God can do as He pleases. That's the whole point of election: that God chooses whom He will save according to His own eternal will, not according to what He owes someone based on what they do. The covenant of grace stands in contrast to the covenant of works, namely in that the COW was a mutual covenant whereby man was obligated to obey the law perfectly and God would reward that obedience with eternal life. The COG was a unilateral promise that God would save His people through what Christ has done. If salvation is by merit, then it's not by grace. If it is owed, then it is not a gift. That's what Paul was saying in Romans 4. If anyone is responsible for their own salvation, then they have something to boast about. Faith becomes a work in that sense if it is something that comes from within instead of without, from God, Himself.
Only in finite, human understanding are we required to set something in motion in order to know it's going to happen. Why do you limit God so much?
quote:The definition of God's sovereignty in this case is based on the description of God's sovereignty in the Bible.
Also, you, and Calvinists in general, have hijacked the term "sovereign" and redefined it to mean something entirely different from what anyone in the history of the world has ever known it to mean. Sovereign does not mean you have to be in complete control of all things, lest you be... less than sovereign. To be sovereign quite simply and literally means that you are self-governed, that you are above all.
God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11, which is another verse about God's sovereignty in election/predestination). The birds of the sky won't fall to the ground without God's involvement (Matt. 10:29). All things in this world were created by God and for God and are held together by Him (Col. 1:16-17). God creates calamity and is in control of even the forces of nature (Isa. 45:7-9; Nah. 1:3; Mark 4:39-41). God is in control over the lot that is cast (Prov. 16:33). All good and bad that occurs--even from humans--ultimately comes through God's decree (Lam. 3:37-39). Even those who put to death our Lord, Jesus, did so due to God's decree (Acts 4:27-28). Even our good works were ordained by God (Eph. 2:10, another verse about God's saving grace apart from works).
quote:Perhaps, but that's not what the Bible says He did. We don't have a free will to choose what is good according to how God defines it. We are dead in our trespasses and sins and require God to save us. A dead man can not save Himself. It's what the story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life pictured. He couldn't respond to the call of Christ until he was made alive.
God can just as easily make the SOVEREIGN choice to give man the free will to choose or reject His Grace.
quote:We believe what the Bible says about His sovereignty over all things, including election unto salvation. It's not a matter of a personal preference that we are trying to force God into agreement with, but it's a system of doctrine derived from the scriptures, themselves. It's not just one verse we're clinging to. There are dozens of verses and passages that point to this very concept and they dictate our doctrine.
Why do Calvinists assume that God can ONLY be sovereign if He chooses the Calvinist view of Him?
quote:First of all, it isn't a matter of what God could do, but what He has said that He has done and is doing according to His holy word.
God could literally do anything at all, and remain completely sovereign. Because He is above all, and exists outside of any limits that we know. God is not in danger of being overtaken by man's limited free will to simply positively or negatively respond to His calling.
Secondly, the concept of free will for all humanity is not even in the scriptures. The only mention of "free will" is in regards to offerings to God in the Old Testament sacrificial system. On the contrary, the Bible speaks about the condition of humanity being such that we cannot will ourselves to salvation. This is specifically spoken against in Romans 9:
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (vv. 14-16)
The will is not free. Martin Luther wrote a book about the bondage or enslavement of the will to sin due to Adam's fall. We have the freedom to choose according to our wills but we will never choose Christ without first being "born again".
Posted on 6/27/20 at 10:38 pm to Quidam65
These idiots do not know who Martin Luther was.
You could have stopped there
quote:
White--check
You could have stopped there
Posted on 6/27/20 at 10:39 pm to Parmen
quote:
Well every Protestant faith will need to close up shop then. Catholicism won in the end.
Just as God said it would.
Posted on 6/27/20 at 11:35 pm to Metaloctopus
The "I" in TULIP, Irresistable Grace, teaches that whoever God chose, has no power to say no.
Yet in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, saying he wanted to gather them like a mother hen, but they WOULD NOT.
So did Jesus misspeak in the Garden? Did the Bible authors misquote Him? Or are the Calvinists wrong?
Yet in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus wept over Jerusalem, saying he wanted to gather them like a mother hen, but they WOULD NOT.
So did Jesus misspeak in the Garden? Did the Bible authors misquote Him? Or are the Calvinists wrong?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News