It is still plagiarism - stealing somebody else's material - when you don't acknowledge the source of your copy and paste or information.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Believing in Wrong Doctrine: Will I lose my salvation?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
It is still plagiarism - stealing somebody else's material - when you don't acknowledge the source of your copy and paste or information.
chessman,
You stated in #359:
Red Herring fallacy is a fallacy used sometimes with a formal debate. We are not debating, we’re discussing the subject of known sin versus unknown sin. Are they both sin???
My response was in #386. See also #395. Oz
Sects are denominations in my part of the world. These include JWs, Christadelphians, Mormons, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.
Montanists, with some of their doctrines, were early Pentecostals/charismatics.
blair,
In #239 it was stated:
To give more insight re OSAS vs OSNAS re the NT, it states many times, that there is one way for salvation, & not one mention how to lose salvation. Well, it does tell us blaspheming the Holy Spirit, is a way, but doing that, also tells us that a person capable of doing so, never was a true believer in the 1st place, so never qualified for salvation.
I responded: 'I asked for 'exegetical support' from the text and not your opinion of what it means'.
Now this list of verses is provided and it's a good list. However, it does not include any meaning from the text (exegesis). I'm no wiser about the meaning of the texts.
(image courtesy Pinterest)
Oz
Northman
Member
Yes I understand what Paul is teaching. The entire thing is about conscience violation and to not do it or cause other people to do it. He uses his examples to show us that someones conscience can be trained badly, but still not to mess with it. Booze and dope are particulars of what a conscience will or won't allow, just like the eating of that meat was for those Paul was using as an example and same for the music thing for those other people you know.
So with the actual act of violating the conscience being the point, I still don't see how it gives weight to the idea that sin isn't sin until it's known sin. Unless of course we aren't talking about that, in which case that's fine too.
chessman
Member
Neither of which answered my question.
Walpole
Member
"Now I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain as I am."(1 Cor 7:8)
Are you actually arguing St. Paul is married?
The text explicitly contradicts such an assertion:
- He is writing TO the unmarried
- He tells them (the unmarried) to REMAIN so - to remain means to continue in their present state unchanged
- He tells them to REMAIN (in their present state of unmarriedness) as he is
No, but even if he was a widow (a pure speculation), by definition that makes him celibate.
Celibate = an unmarried person
This isn't rocket surgery...
Walpole
Member
Protestantism, in many cases, is a hodge-podge of previously condemned heresies. Some heresies the Church dealt with centuries ago are picked up, re-branded, and taken as gospel in many Protestant sects (or denominations).
You gave not one example of what you label as 'heresies' in Protestant denominations. If you are to be careful exegete and expositor of 'heresies', it behooves you to explain some of these heresies for those of us who are Protestants.
I don't believe in any form of OSAS.
Doctrines are "Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful." Doctrines are the divine Church teaching divinely. [Cf. Matthew 28:20] In following false doctrines then the error is in our self.
Doctrine does not cause the soul to be endangered, our error in doctrine, those not taught by the Church, does indeed imperil the soul. The Church was commissioned by Christ to teach the divine Word divinely to the unity of faith. Consider the doctrines of an infinite number of sources. Only one is True, only One is holy, only One is universal, only One is Apostolic. Since truth is immutable, inerrant, and timeless, only one is true given any one doctrine - logically then all the other doctrines followed are false.
What is your opinion?
JosephT
Last edited:
Ok, "I hate "Got Questions" Its existence is to misrepresent Catholicism so as to ensnare Catholics in false doctrines, making a BOOK a holy thing. In its opinion of Catholicism it says "Catholicism is a false religion." Instead they worship a BOOK. Nothing on the website is "right".
Now what?
JosephT
Last edited:
Walpole
Member
Let's use your example of the Montanists as proto-Pentecostals.
"There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.
Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. Mathew 7:15 But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up; and forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.
Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.
And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it nor entrance into it." - Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Ch. 16:7-9
Compare this to the twentieth century founding of the practice of Pentecostalism.
ezrider
Member
If you hear the words of Jesus, then you would know and understand that He said God is SPIRIT, and MUST be worshiped in Spirit and Truth. Jesus was born the Son of Man, in the image and likenes of man: If the first commandment forbid worshiping the image of a man, then how does worshiping Jesus the son of man not constitute idolatry?
williamt
Member
There are only a handful of soterological camps. That is, 40 thousand denominations break down into Universalism, Arianism, Pelagianism (semi) etc. It is far better to follow theological streams than independent churches which are counted denominations etc. A denomination can be labeled differently simply because of a non affiliation. For example Every time a non affiliated non denominational or independent church pops up on the radar it is counted as a denomination. A southern baptist church each independent are listed as separate denominations.
Last edited:
williamt
Member
Jacob Arminius never published his works (Arminianism) during his life time. You're right in that he was reformed, but his laters followers that published his works were corrected by the synod of dort (reformed) and his works were rejected. During Arminius lifetime he was brought up on charges once and he recanted. He never published the controversial works of Arminianism. Arminianism is not reformed, that is redefining "reformed".
I'll consider your "reformed arminianism" right up there next to a "gay christian". It is an oxymoron.
Last edited:
Which is that church?
Pentecostalism wasn't founded in 20th century. It was founded in the 1st century, according to Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12-14.
williamt,
You provided not one piece of documentation for your statements, so they are your opinions and not verified until you provide the evidence.
Your post here is insulting to me and ridiculing me for labelling Reformed Arminianism as being next to "gay Christian".
Arminius's not publishing his works in his lifetime has nothing to do with the authenticity of what he wrote, preached and taught. These were in the early days of the printing press.
I suggest that you go read the conclusions of the kangaroo court of the Synod of Dordt. The theology of the Remonstrants (Arminians) was NOT 'corrected' by Dordt, On the Arminians was pronounced the anathema. Many of them experienced severe persecution.
Arminius died in 1609 at the age of 49 (source). 'The works of Arminius (in Latin) were published at Leiden in 1629, and at Frankfort in 1631 and 1635' (source).
There was no way the Arminian Remonstrants could get a fair hearing at the Synod of Dordrecht (1618-1619) because it was a kangaroo court, where the anathema was pronounced on Arminius and Arminians by a Synod that consisted only of Calvinistic reformed leaders. It was like the Remonstrants in the lions' den.
When all of the members of the Synod of Dordt who judged the Arminian Remonstrants were from Calvinistic Reformed denominations from across Europe (source), there was no way the Arminians could get a fair hearing - hence labelling it a kangaroo court:
[King] James is noted as the Instigator and primary Promoter of the Synod of Dordrecht: He “not only gave his sanction to, but forwarded all the proceedings of the more rigid Calvinistic party, in bringing about the synod of Dort, by whose decisions the Remonstrant ministers were banished from their country, and their flocks exposed to the most cruel and unrelenting persecution.” But the Calvinists do not care that either King James or Prince Maurice bolster and affirm their kangaroo court proceedings for political gain. All that matters is that their theology be adjudged as sole orthodoxy (Life after Arminius: The Arminians and Dordt 2016).
I suggest you become better informed about Classical/Reformed Arminianism that is a Reformed teaching of the Reformation.See:
Overview
Does the Bible support the concept of "once saved, always saved," or can a person lose his or her salvation? How do the Scriptures portray the complex interplay between grace and free will? These and related questions are explored from different angles in this thought-provoking Counterpoints volume.
The contributors each state their case for one of four prominent views on eternal security: classical Calvinist, moderate Calvinist, reformed Arminian, and Wesleyan Arminian. In keeping with the forum approach of the Counterpoints series, each view is first presented by its proponent, then critiqued and defended. This fair and respectful approach allows you to weigh for yourself the strengths and weaknesses of the different doctrinal stances. By furnishing you with scholarly and thoughtful perspectives on the topic of eternal security, this book helps you sift through opposing views to arrive at your own informed conclusions.
Contents
- A Classical Calvinist View, Michael S. Horton
- A Moderate Calvinist View, Norman L. Geisler
- A Reformed Arminian View, Stephen M. Ashby
- A Wesleyan Arminian View, J. Steven Harper
Oz
chessman
Member
No because it doesn’t matter to my point about what this Scripture actually says, one way or the other. Although he was married.
Are you actually arguing Paul was a widow??? He’s addressing widows in the same way in this same verse too!
Beside the exegetical point (and no I’m not going to argue it further but I’ll link to them): Both Clement and Eusebius wrote that Paul had a wife. Origen says he’s unsure about it but does refer to the tradition (as of Origen’s time) that Paul had a wife (and left her while traveling extensively because he was gifted with sexual self-control and his wife had agreed, which is what the context is about. Sexual self-control). But their views are beside the exegesis of the Text, one way or the other.
These commentators and historian would not be so absurd as to claim Paul was a widow (a woman who’s husband as died). Yet that’s exactly what your assumption would mean if you were being consistent, that is.
Chapter XXX.—The Apostles that were Married.
1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.“Or will they,” says he, “reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.”
No, this Text doesn’t assert his marital status on way or the other. Rather he asserts his gift of sexual self-control and encourages some, including women (widows) to be this way too. That is, if they have this same gift of sexual self-control as he does.
You are assuming that he was unmarried. You are also assuming that to say (and I quote) “remain as I am” really means to ‘remain as you are’. These are two different sayings with two different meanings.
He meant for both these two different groups (of men and women) to “remain as him”, in precisely the way he meant it and said it, not in the way you do.
He explains the way he means it within the context of v7-9. Don’t rip it out of context, or if you continue to do it, don’t expect me to follow you.
The exegetical fact is He told a group of “widows” to “remain as I am” in this very verse. So using your ‘logic’ consistently, why don’t you think he was a widow? Simple question! Profound answer!
Correct. “And” he is writing to widows (women who husbands have died), explicitly distinguishing between them in this Text yet telling them both to remain “as he is” if gifted with sexual self-control.
Nope.
Nope. That’s assuming.
Widow = a woman who has lost her spouse by death and has not remarried. Was Paul a woman?
No it’s not. I’m no brain surgeon but I do happen to be a rocket scientist.
If a sexually self-controlled rocket scientist told a group of brain surgeons (including some who were women); “I wish that you remain as I am” would he be telling them to remain sexually sel-controlled or to remain a rocket scientist?
Last edited:
