|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 23:31:58 GMT
if you disagree with creation and the Flood that automatically makes you liberal. A liberal scholar is anyone who deviates from sound doctrine, or orthodoxy (i.e., ancient Christianity). A liberal scholar cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage much past the 19th century. Though in some cases, where liberals can trace their ecclesiastical knowledge back to the 2nd century, their roots lead to Gnosticism (i.e., the occult). A conservative scholar can trace his ecclesiastical lineage back down to the 1st century, back to the Apostles in the New Testament without any gaps in their ecclesiastical timeline. What if you disagree with the nature of Creation or the Flood? Or does some have to assent to your interpretation of Creation and the Flood? Who decides what is sound doctrine or orthodoxy? What is your list? If you are defaulting to scholars from the 1400s-1600s, aren't you actually accepting an early modern theological lens that was demonstrably not used by the earliest Christians? Consider, for example, some of the debates between John Piper and N.T. Wright, in which Wright accuses Piper of defaulting to 1500s theological frameworks, whereas Wright himself aims for 1st-century theological frameworks (particularly in terms of their ideas on "justification"). Who would you side with there? Most would say Piper is "more conservative" than Wright, but Wright goes "further back"—yes, avoiding 2nd-century Gnostics and going right back to the earliest texts and interpretations, and taking into account the cultural contexts in which the literary texts were written (because how can you interpret correctly while ignoring the cultural contexts?). So which is truly "conservative" and which is more "liberal"? Shoot, though, but Wright is a "modern scholar," so even though he isn't coloured by the immediate cultural influences that informed Luther's work, Luther is "more conservative" than Wright? You would go with Piper (who might lean on Luther and Calvin) over Wright (who would lean mostly on Paul and the Gospel writers, as well as other New Testament authors and early Church Fathers)? Its not "my" interpretation. I did not write the Bible nor was I alive when the Bible was written. The Prophets all agreed the Flood is true history. Jesus said the Flood is true history and His Apostles said the Flood is true history. Then you have the successors of the Apostles (the early church) who all agreed the Flood is true history. Since you cannot trace your ecclesiastical lineage back to all these these sources I just mentioned it means that your view is wrong. Luther and Tyndale are the only names I'll give for the reformation. The others just wanted to be undisciplined and disobedient. The Puritans rejected Luther and Tyndale because they saw them as too Catholic for them. Yet, the first 1000 years of Christianity was one church with one theology. Martin and Luther were reforming the church the way it was before it because obsessed with corruption. That is not liberal. That's conservative theology. God does not change and His word does not change nor does the meaning of His word change. Liberal represents a change. A change can be good or bad depending on the nature of the subject we are talking about. In theology, liberal tends to be a bad thing unless it has an absolute orthodox basis to justify the reformed theology. Today, you never see any justifiable liberal theology as it always deviates from what Scripture says. As for interpreting Scripture. I am 50 years old and attended a Lutheran school as early as 8 years old. I have spent my entire life reading and studying Scripture. But its the last 18 years I consider to be my deepest dive into Biblical theology. I do not waste my time on silly matters because life is too short to spend it on studying piddle crap that doesn't help anyone. I do not need to know or memorize every sentence ever spoken by 16th century reformers. Life is very short and research requires healthy stamina which makes life even shorter for the scholar. Simply stated, if you don't have the holy spirit working through you then you will read and read but never learn anything. A believe is always open to what the spirit says. The interpretation of scripture is not so hard that one needs a modern College Professor to understand it. In fact, most professors today simply do not know anything and should not be in positions of teaching anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 23:39:12 GMT
JWs are very liberal since (a) their beliefs are not Biblical, and (b) they cannot trace their ecclesiastical lineage back to the 1st century. In fact, their ecclesiastical lineage is only traced back to the 19th century which makes them extremely radically liberal! You're free to use your own definition of "liberal", but you won't get much understanding out of it. Classical orthodox vs. Mainline Protestant has a very different set of differences than Classical orthodox vs. Jehovah's Witnesses. Calling both sets of differences "conservative vs. liberal" doesn't tell us anything useful about the differences. Moreover, it implies that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mainline Protestant have deeply-shared theologies and practices, which they do not.
You've collapsed all the Christian and nearly-Christian sects you don't like into "liberal". That just isn't clear thinking.
If you believe that then you speak from ignorance. JWs have no root in true Protestantism or orthodox theology. And when I say Protestantism I mean Luther and Tyndale. All reformers after them were liberal heretics that took matters too far away from the Catholic Church. Luther never intended to destroy the Church. He sought only to reform it, to fix what was broken and return the Church back to its original mission. JWs are complete heretics and while not all liberals in world history are heretics, all heretics are liberals. A heretic seeks to change the teachings with mind poison just as the Nazis did. Today, ALL true Christian Churches are conservative. Liberal churches and their false theology are guilty of heresy and subject to God's wrath and Judgment. And if you can't understand what I'm saying here then you need to go back to the I SEE SAM books and start all over again. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 23:43:58 GMT
What if you disagree with the nature of Creation or the Flood? Or does some have to assent to your interpretation of Creation and the Flood? Who decides what is sound doctrine or orthodoxy? What is your list? If you are defaulting to scholars from the 1400s-1600s, aren't you actually accepting an early modern theological lens that was demonstrably not used by the earliest Christians? Consider, for example, some of the debates between John Piper and N.T. Wright, in which Wright accuses Piper of defaulting to 1500s theological frameworks, whereas Wright himself aims for 1st-century theological frameworks (particularly in terms of their ideas on "justification"). Who would you side with there? Most would say Piper is "more conservative" than Wright, but Wright goes "further back"—yes, avoiding 2nd-century Gnostics and going right back to the earliest texts and interpretations, and taking into account the cultural contexts in which the literary texts were written (because how can you interpret correctly while ignoring the cultural contexts?). So which is truly "conservative" and which is more "liberal"? Shoot, though, but Wright is a "modern scholar," so even though he isn't coloured by the immediate cultural influences that informed Luther's work, Luther is "more conservative" than Wright? You would go with Piper (who might lean on Luther and Calvin) over Wright (who would lean mostly on Paul and the Gospel writers, as well as other New Testament authors and early Church Fathers)? Its not "my" interpretation. I did not write the Bible nor was I alive when the Bible was written. We're not talking about "what was written." We're talking about interpretation. Everybody has interpretation. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. Note that referring to the event is not affirming the story as true history. Also, what do you mean by "true history"? Are you suggesting that historically recorded events are objectively true (as in, there is no bias or perspective in the reporting)? I care less about early interpreters than the biblical text itself, but again, please provide direct quotes that they claim it to be "true history" (other than simple references to the event). That is a criterion for correctness? but you're wrong. I do trace my ecclesiastical lineage all the way back. Why would you assume I don't? Really? Zwingli just wanted to be undisciplined and disobedience? Menno Simons? John Knox? How about Melanchthon? John Calvin? Undisciplined and disobedient? Your historical perspective seems bizarrely slanted. It's like "the truth is defined by Luther and Tyndale." Why just those two? Sooo...the Lutherans have a monopoly on biblical interpretation? How would you know that? Considering Craig A. Evans has actually translated many ancient texts from the original languages (including many texts you have undoubtedly never read), how can you conclude that he should not be in a teaching position (which he is)? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 30, 2021 23:49:21 GMT
Its not "my" interpretation. I did not write the Bible nor was I alive when the Bible was written. We're not talking about "what was written." We're talking about interpretation. Everybody has interpretation. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. Note that referring to the event is not affirming the story as true history. Also, what do you mean by "true history"? Are you suggesting that historically recorded events are objectively true (as in, there is no bias or perspective in the reporting)? I care less about early interpreters than the biblical text itself, but again, please provide direct quotes that they claim it to be "true history" (other than simple references to the event). That is a criterion for correctness? but you're wrong. I do trace my ecclesiastical lineage all the way back. Why would you assume I don't? Really? Zwingli just wanted to be undisciplined and disobedience? Menno Simons? John Knox? How about Melanchthon? John Calvin? Undisciplined and disobedient? Your historical perspective seems bizarrely slanted. It's like "the truth is defined by Luther and Tyndale." Why just those two? Sooo...the Lutherans have a monopoly on biblical interpretation? How would you know that? Considering Craig A. Evans has actually translated many ancient texts from the original languages (including many texts you have undoubtedly never read), how can you conclude that he should not be in a teaching position (which he is)? And I already answered you. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 30, 2021 23:57:51 GMT
We're not talking about "what was written." We're talking about interpretation. Everybody has interpretation. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. They said as such? Please provide direct quotes. Note that referring to the event is not affirming the story as true history. Also, what do you mean by "true history"? Are you suggesting that historically recorded events are objectively true (as in, there is no bias or perspective in the reporting)? I care less about early interpreters than the biblical text itself, but again, please provide direct quotes that they claim it to be "true history" (other than simple references to the event). That is a criterion for correctness? but you're wrong. I do trace my ecclesiastical lineage all the way back. Why would you assume I don't? Really? Zwingli just wanted to be undisciplined and disobedience? Menno Simons? John Knox? How about Melanchthon? John Calvin? Undisciplined and disobedient? Your historical perspective seems bizarrely slanted. It's like "the truth is defined by Luther and Tyndale." Why just those two? Sooo...the Lutherans have a monopoly on biblical interpretation? How would you know that? Considering Craig A. Evans has actually translated many ancient texts from the original languages (including many texts you have undoubtedly never read), how can you conclude that he should not be in a teaching position (which he is)? And I already answered you. You have provided zero biblical quotes that assert that the Flood is "true history." There are none. Sure, there are references to the event. But when I say, "You keep using that word—I do not think it means what you think it means," I'm referencing an event that occurs in a movie. It is not "true history," and my reference does not imply my endorsement of it as "true history." And your slights towards the likes of N.T. Wright or Craig A. Evans are rude and libellous. And you don't even know who they are! |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 1:27:36 GMT
And I already answered you. You have provided zero biblical quotes that assert that the Flood is "true history." There are none. Sure, there are references to the event. But when I say, "You keep using that word—I do not think it means what you think it means," I'm referencing an event that occurs in a movie. It is not "true history," and my reference does not imply my endorsement of it as "true history." And your slights towards the likes of N.T. Wright or Craig A. Evans are rude and libellous. And you don't even know who they are! I do not care who any modern theologian is. I'm an ancient Christian and follow the ancient ways. If you do not know a single verse in the NT that references the Flood as true history then you have proven yourself Biblically illiterate and a complete fraud. So here are some passages every Christian knows except you. Here Jesus speaks of the Flood as true history: Matthew 24:37-42www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A37-42&version=NKJV Luke 17:26-27www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17%3A26-27&version=NKJVThe Apostle Peter speaks of the Flood as true history. 1 Peter 3:18-20www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A18-20&version=NKJV2 Peter 3:3-7www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A3-7&version=NKJVJob attribute erosion and geological changes to the Flood. Job 14:18-19www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+14%3A18-19&version=NKJVYou gotta be a complete fool to think that the Flood is allegory. Jesus didn't teach a lie to point to the truth. He referenced the Flood as a way of describing the people of the last days...our present now. The Apostle Peter makes it very clear that those who mock the Flood are deliberately in denial. You have been greatly misled by hollow philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 1:45:40 GMT
You have provided zero biblical quotes that assert that the Flood is "true history." There are none. Sure, there are references to the event. But when I say, "You keep using that word—I do not think it means what you think it means," I'm referencing an event that occurs in a movie. It is not "true history," and my reference does not imply my endorsement of it as "true history." And your slights towards the likes of N.T. Wright or Craig A. Evans are rude and libellous. And you don't even know who they are! I do not care who any modern theologian is. I'm an ancient Christian and follow the ancient ways. If you do not know a single verse in the NT that references the Flood as true history then you have proven yourself Biblically illiterate and a complete fraud. So here are some passages every Christian knows except you. Here Jesus speaks of the Flood as true history: Matthew 24:37-42www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A37-42&version=NKJV Luke 17:26-27www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17%3A26-27&version=NKJVThe Apostle Peter speaks of the Flood as true history. 1 Peter 3:18-20www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+3%3A18-20&version=NKJV2 Peter 3:3-7www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A3-7&version=NKJVJob attribute erosion and geological changes to the Flood. Job 14:18-19www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+14%3A18-19&version=NKJVYou gotta be a complete fool to think that the Flood is allegory. Jesus didn't teach a lie to point to the truth. He referenced the Flood as a way of describing the people of the last days...our present now. The Apostle Peter makes it very clear that those who mock the Flood are deliberately in denial. You have been greatly misled by hollow philosophy. As I said, not a single one said "this is true history." So...despite my painfully deliberate clarity, it's like I have cast seed on the road and the birds have eaten it. Did I just reference "true history"? By the way, "allegory" is not the only alternative to "true history." |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 3:38:35 GMT
As I said, not a single one said "this is true history." So...despite my painfully deliberate clarity, it's like I have cast seed on the road and the birds have eaten it. Did I just reference "true history"? By the way, "allegory" is not the only alternative to "true history." Typical intellectual dishonesty from a liberal with absolutely no honor and no respect for God. As far as I'm concerned you are an atheist. Anyone with a literacy of a 4th grader would understand that those Bible passages say the Flood is literal, true history. There is nothing in the text that suggests allegory. Nothing. Then you have Apostolic tradition that supports the correct interpretation of the Flood being true history. So here again you've slumbered into intellectual dishonesty and refuse to be a man and admit you're wrong when proven wrong. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 13:41:52 GMT
As I said, not a single one said "this is true history." So...despite my painfully deliberate clarity, it's like I have cast seed on the road and the birds have eaten it. Did I just reference "true history"? By the way, "allegory" is not the only alternative to "true history." Typical intellectual dishonesty from a liberal with absolutely no honor and no respect for God. As far as I'm concerned you are an atheist. Anyone with a literacy of a 4th grader would understand that those Bible passages say the Flood is literal, true history. There is nothing in the text that suggests allegory. Nothing. Then you have Apostolic tradition that supports the correct interpretation of the Flood being true history. So here again you've slumbered into intellectual dishonesty and refuse to be a man and admit you're wrong when proven wrong. Pathetic. You didn't even really read my post, did you? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 14:48:14 GMT
As I said, not a single one said "this is true history." So...despite my painfully deliberate clarity, it's like I have cast seed on the road and the birds have eaten it. Did I just reference "true history"? By the way, "allegory" is not the only alternative to "true history." As far as I'm concerned you are an atheist. Well, what can I say, you're the kind of Christian that would make me want to be an atheist. That's both funny and sad, because I wonder how many other people you've actually successfully persuaded to become an atheist. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 1, 2021 15:20:31 GMT
As far as I'm concerned you are an atheist. Well, what can I say, you're the kind of Christian that would make me want to be an atheist. That's both funny and sad, because I wonder how many other people you've actually successfully persuaded to become an atheist. Only those who were already atheists in their hearts. Honest hearts have no contention with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 1, 2021 15:39:17 GMT
Well, what can I say, you're the kind of Christian that would make me want to be an atheist. That's both funny and sad, because I wonder how many other people you've actually successfully persuaded to become an atheist. Only those who were already atheists in their hearts. Honest hearts have no contention with me. I find it hard to believe that "honest hearts" have no contention with your accusations, misrepresentations, etc. Honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 2, 2021 16:59:04 GMT
"John Calvin is a liberal!" is something I've been laughing about for days.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 2, 2021 23:54:59 GMT
Only those who were already atheists in their hearts. Honest hearts have no contention with me. I find it hard to believe that "honest hearts" have no contention with your accusations, misrepresentations, etc. Honestly. I have no problem interacting with other Christians. But I do have a problem with those who call themselves Christians but deny God's power. Other Christians speak to other Christians in a Christian matter. You speak as a typical leftist who's more influenced by the left than by the word of God. You trust the word of fallible corrupt men over God. That's where you and I greatly differ. I do not trust fallible corrupt men over God. Genesis chapters 1--11 are true history. God does not lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 3, 2021 14:13:24 GMT
I find it hard to believe that "honest hearts" have no contention with your accusations, misrepresentations, etc. Honestly. I have no problem interacting with other Christians. But I do have a problem with those who call themselves Christians but deny God's power. Other Christians speak to other Christians in a Christian matter. You speak as a typical leftist who's more influenced by the left than by the word of God. You trust the word of fallible corrupt men over God. That's where you and I greatly differ. I do not trust fallible corrupt men over God. Genesis chapters 1--11 are true history. God does not lie. Restating your premise does not make it true. As for your other contentions directed towards myself, I have no idea how you are able to make those judgments. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 4, 2021 2:01:12 GMT
"John Calvin is a liberal!" is something I've been laughing about for days. Calvin was a liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 4, 2021 2:11:42 GMT
"John Calvin is a liberal!" is something I've been laughing about for days. Calvin was a liberal. You haven't yet clarified--do you mean "politically liberal," "theologically liberal," both, or something else? |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 4, 2021 6:44:09 GMT
You haven't yet clarified--do you mean "politically liberal," "theologically liberal," both, or something else? Theological liberal. But today that is politically far left. Calvin taught liberal theology because he had no basis for some of his views. 2000 years of theology can't go wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 4, 2021 19:55:37 GMT
You haven't yet clarified--do you mean "politically liberal," "theologically liberal," both, or something else? Theological liberal. But today that is politically far left. Calvin taught liberal theology because he had no basis for some of his views. 2000 years of theology can't go wrong. I'm not at all a Calvinist, but I'm wondering which of his views you would characterize as liberal, i.e., the views for which he had no basis? |
|
