scenario

last SG · 2006-06-07T01:01:30+00:00

Laoda my friend. REad the Denominational distinctves thread...

Icemoon SG

yah lor.

like if you are Lutheran, why stumbled because of the actions of the Lutherans who, according to Dr Stephen Tong, committed worse atrocities than the Roman Catholics?

Because of this we throw away justification by faith?

Ironside SG

i thought you were are Calvinist my friend.

Calvin had his faults. he was a godly man. His doctine should not be tested by his life. It should be tested by the Biblicality of it. If Peter's doctrine was to be measured by his life, then we should reject his writings in the Bible.

Ironside SG

by the way it should be translated "thou shall not murder"

God permitted death penalty in the Bible. Murder is prohibited.

M©+square SG

I didn't reject his teachings.
I myself is in constant struggle over the two school of thoughts.
He himself admitted that the theory was high handed.

Are you a true Calvinist then?

M©+square SG

God permitted death penalty in NT?
And those lives will be abided to whose will?

Your source of biblical quote?

vince69 SG

and not to mention
Paul, the sinner of all sinners (persecuted christians before his own conversion)
John, James (want to call down fire from heaven to destory an entire village in Luke 9)

hang on, take away all their teachings/writtings .... err... not much of the NT left liao. Rolling Eyes

Icemoon SG

I tot it is quite clear?

Even SIS or CK can tell you the OT permitted stoning.

Stoning by who? Stones from the sky ah?

M©+square SG

Unless you're a believer and post like proper issues like a believer. I am unable to discuss this issue with you.

Icemoon SG

I think you can stop the self-righteousness and declare yourself a believer while others are not.

You asked a factual question. Even a Muslim can answer you with just *basic* knowledge of the Christian Bible.

I suspect Ironside might come out with similar or the same example - that the OT permitted death penalty by stoning.

Stop your Ad Hominem arguments please.

M©+square SG

By this assumption. I'll end the discussion.

Icemoon SG

Forgive me for saying this, it looks like you are a bit off with your fellow "believers".

Ironside, vince and laoda all agreed that we should not look at the sins of men, but to look at Scripture. Test his theory not against his actions, but by the biblicality of it.

When Ironside wrote that death penalty is permitted in Bible, you actually asked him for the quote?

M©+square SG

1) Who isn't? Didn't i say, it's unbelieve?
Where in the first place did you see me condemning John Calvin?
I posted for the cause of issue. So what has Ad hominem got to do with John Calvin and my personal opinion? Was it a personal attack? did i even try to discredit him?
The trend of my post weren't directed at a particular person.
Until Ironside posted, that was my personal opinion onto Calvinist theory which Calvin had written before he rose to power.
Looking at Laoda inital topic. I've answered directly, without the knowledge that laoda was referring to J.Calvin.
I have mentioned i struggled and have *Unbelief in the Calvinist theory

*un·be·lief
n.
Lack of belief or faith.

When one rejects 1 or 2 points of the TULIP. It's considered unbelief to the Theory. Of cos, many still consider themselves Calvinist still.

2) I've ask him to quote me the Permit on Death in NT. Which meant, my question is : Does God permit death in the New Covenant. If yes, which verse in NT.

__

I don't understand why you insist of me being in this Ad hominem nonsense, i've made it clear that John Calvin's on his own sins and theory issue is not my fight.

The opinions about J.Calvin and Laoda's topic are two different matters altogether.

Icemoon SG

Wah .. I use 5.56mm you use 120 artillery fire ah. Mr. Green

1. I didn't say you tried to discredit Calvin per se. By all means, call him a bad apple. I'd called Luther a rotten apple for disrespecting Scripture. Problem comes when you evaluate his "theory" against his character.

2. You asked for the Permit on Death in NT. This is unfair. He said "Bible", he did not say "NT". Wink

Icemoon SG

By the way, I have nothing against you.

I find it puzzling you evaluate Calvinism based on the rotten character of Calvin. I have no issues with people struggling with particular doctrines.

What's more, you are not the elaboration type of person, unlike most others.

I don't think my understanding of your replies are very off. In fact, vince, laoda and ironside all replied along the same vein.

Cheers.

M©+square SG

1. Ad hominem

To the individual. Relating to the principles or preferences of a particular person, rather than to abstract truth. Often used to describe a personal attack on a person.

I did not evaluate his theory.
I give up.

2. In page 2

I suppose the message was unclear?

God permitted death in NT?
NT is the keyword.

Your source of biblical quote to support?
Of cos there are verses in OT which supports stoning and death in disobedience. But i'm finding out if there's any verse in NT which agrees on this act of 'killing'?
Apostle Peter and Paul both mentioned about persecution and enduring sufferings. But i haven't found any verses in NT which was written about defending the message thru persecuting anti-christians.
Or incline with OT regarding this issue.

vince69 SG

Murder, no.

Death Penalty, well there is one that maybe debatable, the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) both died after attempting to lie to the Holy Spirit (did Peter actually gave them the death penatly? or God did?).

Ironside SG

The NT is predominantly for the Church. It's not about governmental dealings. It's for individuals. Individuals included in the church, the spiritual body of Christ.

yes, the Church is a nation. But it is a spiritual nation.

The OT starting from Sinai to the cross is about the nation Israel. During this time period the law of God sanctioning man death penalty was carried on.

God permitted man to govern his fellowmen by giving him the full aurthority in in Genesis 9. it has never been abrogated. When the NT says the law was abolished at the cross it refered to the law in Sinai. But the authorization of government in Genesis 9 regarding capital punishment was never abrogated. The Mosaic Covenant was repealed. Not the Noahic Covenant which God promised to mankind. And in that Noahic Covenant with man is the authorization to govern in full authority.

That's why regarding govermental authorities Paul said:

Ro 13:1 Let everyone put himself under the authority of the higher powers, because there is no power which is not of God, and all powers are ordered by God.

2 For which reason everyone who puts himself against the authority puts himself against the order of God: and those who are against it will get punishment for themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to the good work but to the evil. If you would have no fear of the authority, do good and you will have praise;

4 For he is the servant of God to you for good. But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his hand for nothing: he is God's servant, making God's punishment come on the evil-doer.

NOTICE THE WORD 'SWORD'. IT REFERS TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. paul used the strongest term representing full authority of the government. the sword was the symbol of capital punishment. he could have used 'whips' or 'rods' or other forms of instruments of punishment but he used 'sword' to inculcate into our minds that God has given government authority to inflict the severest punishment a government could give, namely; the SWORD OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

THUS WE SHOULD RESPECT AUTHORITY. God delegated to government full authority. Government's authority emanates from God. When you respect government you honor God.

'thou shall not kill' is a mistranslation; it should be 'thou shall not murder'. It speaks to individuals not goverments.

i am not a Calvinist 5 points. i am a 4 point Calvinist. I do not believe his teachings just because he taught it. i believe them because they are Biblical.

I am not even a Reformed Christian [belonging to their group] as you know i am a Dispensationalist.

That's the opposite of Reformed Covenant theology.

Calvin both had ecclesiastical and state power in his hands. he was Geneva's ruler during their time. "King" and preacher at the same time. [Baptists disagreed with this structure].

In his hands is the power of the sword. He was the representative of the government in Geneva at that time. He left Geneva but the people called him back to be their ruler.

And Servetus came..........teaching heresy.........a NO-NO in Geneva at that time.

Ironside SG

When Calvin ruled Geneva....the land was highly moral.

or to be more accurate...He strictly implemented high moral standards to the state.

laoda99 SG

i read somewhere that Sevestus's death show that we shouldn't mix affairs of the state with religion...knows this is not always possible....but would Servestus have escaped death if the authorities did not give too much power to Calvin?

though I am a christian, I am quite afraid to live in somewhere ruled by christian fundamentalists....i find them too extreme....

have asked a pastor abt his opinions on this case and he says drastic measures have to be taken during John Calvin's time and this is unavoidable....

laoda99 SG

ironside....can u put in simple terms for me....

what actually is a reformed church/christian.....and what they really believe in....and how ur views differed from them...???

Originally posted by Ironside:

The NT is predominantly for the Church. It's not about governmental dealings. It's for individuals. Individuals included in the church, the spiritual body of Christ.

yes, the Church is a nation. But it is a spiritual nation.

The OT starting from Sinai to the cross is about the nation Israel. During this time period the law of God sanctioning man death penalty was carried on.

God permitted man to govern his fellowmen by giving him the full aurthority in in Genesis 9. it has never been abrogated. When the NT says the law was abolished at the cross it refered to the law in Sinai. But the authorization of government in Genesis 9 regarding capital punishment was never abrogated. The Mosaic Covenant was repealed. Not the Noahic Covenant which God promised to mankind. And in that Noahic Covenant with man is the authorization to govern in full authority.

That's why regarding govermental authorities Paul said:

Ro 13:1 Let everyone put himself under the authority of the higher powers, because there is no power which is not of God, and all powers are ordered by God.

2 For which reason everyone who puts himself against the authority puts himself against the order of God: and those who are against it will get punishment for themselves.

3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to the good work but to the evil. If you would have no fear of the authority, do good and you will have praise;

4 For he is the servant of God to you for good. [b]But if you do evil, have fear; for the sword is not in his hand for nothing: he is God's servant, making God's punishment come on the evil-doer.

NOTICE THE WORD 'SWORD'. IT REFERS TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. paul used the strongest term representing full authority of the government. the sword was the symbol of capital punishment. he could have used 'whips' or 'rods' or other forms of instruments of punishment but he used 'sword' to inculcate into our minds that God has given government authority to inflict the severest punishment a government could give, namely; the SWORD OR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

THUS WE SHOULD RESPECT AUTHORITY. God delegated to government full authority. Government's authority emanates from God. When you respect government you honor God.

'thou shall not kill' is a mistranslation; it should be 'thou shall not murder'. It speaks to individuals not goverments.

i am not a Calvinist 5 points. i am a 4 point Calvinist. I do not believe his teachings just because he taught it. i believe them because they are Biblical.

I am not even a Reformed Christian [belonging to their group] as you know i am a Dispensationalist.

That's the opposite of Reformed Covenant theology.

Calvin both had ecclesiastical and state power in his hands. he was Geneva's ruler during their time. "King" and preacher at the same time. [Baptists disagreed with this structure].

In his hands is the power of the sword. He was the representative of the government in Geneva at that time. He left Geneva but the people called him back to be their ruler.

And Servetus came..........teaching heresy.........a NO-NO in Geneva at that time.

[/b]

« Previous Page Next Page »