1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Heresy and Heretics

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Heavenly Pilgrim, Mar 6, 2010.

  1. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Evidence can be gleaned from other versions concerning the NT: Itala, Peshitta, Syriac"

    What evidence?

    BTW, the Peshitta was used and comes by the Church of the East. Pretty Catholic bunch!

    The Old Syriac Gospels were probably produced in the third century (although some date it to the early fourth century).

    If you have evidence to the contrary then I will look at that. Don't think I'm not teachable. Unlike some who post on this board I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong and learn from it.
     
    #81 lori4dogs, Mar 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2010
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The evidence that these translations only had the 27 books that we use today. They had the same canon that we have today.
    Considering the the RCC didn't start until after the beginning of the fourth century and the Eastern Orthodox after that, your argument makes no sense. The Peshitta was translated in the earlier part of the third century when there was no Catholic Church. If it was used by the Catholic Church then good for them.
    So. The RCC did not even originate until after the beginning of the fourth century which makes your point moot.

    Now look at your previous statements, (and the answers I have given), then consider them in light of what you just said:
    There was no need for the Catholic Church to canonize something that had already been canonized by the early church. Your points make no sense.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV was translated from a Latin (Catholic) Bible.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I suppose then that the translators themselves were lying when in the preface that they wrote they say "from the original languages." Latin was not one of them.
     
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    I remembered wrong about the KJV.

    Sounds like they had a couple of people who could read Hebrew and Greek but mostly used previous English translations.

    a sympathetic site:
    http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm

    King James Bible - Comparison to the Original Manuscripts
    The King James Version translation effort was based primarily on the Bishops' Bible, but the translators also used the Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, and Geneva Bibles; and because many of the translators were skilled in both Hebrew and Greek, they could also refer to the Masoretic text (Hebrew Old Testament) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures) during their work. If all of the Bibles listed here were traced back to their origins (a work beyond the scope of this writing) the path would lead directly back to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments that exist today.


    about bishop's bible
    http://biblehistory.ca/article.php?fragid=22&year=1568
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    They were in fact read and accepted "From the very beginning".

    Nobody set Paul's writings on the shelf saying "let us set these aside for 300 or so years waiting for the Catholic Church to come along and tell us what we should read".

    It is kind of odd that many Catholics fall into the error of apparently making that kind of argument about the NT Apostles.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    On the contrary - we see "Sola Scriptura" testing not only in Isaiah 8:19-20 but also in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by PAUL) were SO".

    The RC argument is sometimes of the form "NT Christians don't count" when they describe what they believe was goining on in the first 300 years of Church history.

    It is not a logical argument.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This thread is titles "Heresy and Heretics" - presumably focused on the dark ages history of the Catholic Church in dealing infallably with what they called "heresy" and "heretics".

    I pointed to some examples of that on page 6 of this thread
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1527170&postcount=51

    I fully understand why the Catholic participants might not want to go too far down the road of looking into those issues and how they reflect on the concept of an infallable magesterium - but why is everyone else turning from the OP and Thread Title as well?

    What is up?

    For example in the OP HP specifically asks about "your definition" of heresy and heretic. (Speaking I suppose of each person here). So looking at the history of how they have been dealt with in the past seems valid.


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, perhaps if you took the time to 'sudy' him you would repent of constantly calling him a murderer.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, indeed, your comments have been most immature as the following examples will demonstrate.

    You, Mr. Steaver, have said that Calvin planned to round-up all non-believers and kill them.

    You insist on calling him a murderer.

    You claim that he was a man obsessed with hatred for a man.

    You would consider the arch-heretic Servetus your brother in the Lord, but not John Calvin.

    You say that Calvin didn't understand the gospel.

    You said he was a forerunner for sects such as the KKK.

    You make bold to maintain that he didn't possess eternal life -- that he was a pretender.

    As I plainly laid-out, you're the infantile one here. Your remarks about Calvin have been most disparaging.


    You bear false witness regularly. And you have no shame -- just recently you admitted to knowing very little about Calvin. Yet on you go with your juvenile rants.

    Yes, remember that.

    I hope you heed your own words.
     
    #90 Rippon, Mar 10, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 10, 2010
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Steaver,
    There is thread in the theology forum about "Calvin, the man" here:
    http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2143

    The first post also contains a link for those who misalign the character of Calvin. It is here.
    http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/i.../www.reformed.org/calvinism/jc_character.html

    It is worth it to read "the other side" before making up one's mind. In other words read both sides of the story first.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It is easy to forget that BOTH Luther and Calvin were in fact CATHOLICs - born and raised and educated. After some enlightenment they both became "PROTESTING" Catholics - but they did not see themselves as "a new religion" but rather as the voice of correction against the abuses in their own church.

    Thus it is not too surprising if a FEW of the values and methods of Catholicism followed with them for years after they were disowned by their own church.

    The point here is not to uphold vice or to condemn reformers - but to show that leaving Rome was a long and difficult process. You can take the man out of Rome - but it is difficult to take Rome out of the man.


     
  13. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    God Bless!

    :jesus:
     
  14. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Thanks brother :thumbs:

    I read it all and if I had to summarize it would go like this;

    On the "good" Calvin side;
    A) Calvin showed compassion for he asked that Servetus be murdered with a sword rather than with fire.
    B) Calvin was in character with those on the OT who murdered their enemies.
    C) Calvin was only acting as his buddies were acting. It was an acceptable behaviour.
    D) Look how many writers have written great things about Calvin.

    On the "bad" Calvin side;
    A) Cavin's own words speak for themselves. He consented to the murdering of those who disagreed with the power that be on Christian doctrinal matters.

    Here we have the Calvin defenders pointing to OT Law to justify Calvin's actions and others like him. However Jesus taught grace and mercy and began a new way of life through regeneration. Calvin had the NT teachings just as we do today and he simply did not understand them. Was he spiritually discerned?

    We have many here who believe that the Catholic leaders today are blind and unsaved. Even though they profess Jesus Christ is Lord. Why is it different for Calvin or any other?

    Mat 7:21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

    We have many debates on just who is really a true Christian according to the scriptures. Why should Calvin and his actions be excused? But Daddy, everone else is doing it! And God said to kill the disobedient, so we are Just in killing those who disagree with God's word!

    I have to hang my hat on John;

    1Jo 3:15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

    I have asked for some kind of evidence I could consider that Calvin had the Spirit of Christ indwelling him. Catholics, Mormons, JWs and even the KKK profess Jesus Christ is Lord. What evidence is there that Calvin was born again? Because he choose to live poorly?

    I don't know if he was or not. I do know that what he had in his heart towards Servetus by his own words is not of the Spirit of Christ. We all have our flaws but John is pretty clear about hatred being murder and no murderer having eternal life.

    :jesus:
     
  15. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    What say you?

    In light of their own words, do you believe Calvin and Luther understood this gospel?

    Mat 5:43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
    Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
    Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
    Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
    Luk 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

    For those here defending these men by the OT Law, do you understand what Jesus said here? The Law is NO excuse! Did Calvin and Luther not have these instructions from Jesus, did they simply not comprehend what Jesus was saying or did they deliberately choose to disregard Jesus' words?


    :jesus:
     
  16. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    >A) Cavin's own words speak for themselves. He consented to the murdering of those who disagreed with the power that be on Christian doctrinal matters.

    Servitus (sp?) was warned that if he returned to Geneva he would be killed thus he participated in his own death.

    Who were the 2nd and 3rd cases? "Those" indicates a number larger than 3.
     
  17. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    First of all, don't worry about trivial spelling imperfections. If I were to correct your spelling it would only reflect upon my own heart. Your good with me :thumbsup:

    Second, as pertaining to your comment,

    And this matters why? Jesus and Paul were warned as well not to go to Jerusalem lest they be killed.

    "Those" are all who defend Calvin by OT examples of behaviour.

    :jesus:
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Steaver persists in saying irresponsible things. he has admitted his ignorance yet continues with his infantile rants.

    Calvin was not a murderer literally or figuratively.

    You should be ashamed of yourself with remarks like he was a forerunner of sects such as the KKK. Perhaps a hot iron has been applied to your conscience.
     
  19. steaver

    steaver Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,443
    Likes Received:
    182
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You have yet to "debate" me with substance?

    I have posted scripture that explains to us how we as children of God are to view and treat our enemies. Of which you have not addressed. Can you explain why Calvin did not understand Jesus' words to this instruction?

    Could it be as Jesus said?

    Jhn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

    :jesus:
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You've got that right Rip!
     
Loading...