BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

[Ginger]

Bible Onlyizers

I got a message about Biblicists today, this is part of what it said. I'd say that it fits here pretty good.

Jesus, is a Biblicist. After all, His name is called the Word of God. So why is Biblicism evil spoken of? Because the REAL Jesus, God who IS come in the flesh, to save SINNERS from the wrath to come, IS a Biblicist. Today the Real, Historical, Jesus, THE Messiah, would stand preeminently guilty of the international hate crime of Biblicism. Biblicism was one of the things that infuriated the scribes and Pharisees of His day. The pope does not like biblicism any more than the scribes and Pharisees. The fuds, thuds, and duds hate biblicism too, because it makes respect of their person and their, Phd., ThD. or DD, no automatic right to rule over you. Same goes for the false teachers and false prophets of today, they hate Biblicism. Religious spirit bound people hate Biblicists. About the only people who really don't hate Biblicists are other Biblicists.

 

[rapt]

Originally posted by rapt

If the laws of any land exalt themselves over the law of God, no Christian is under obligation to keep such laws! If the law of a land requires a Christian to MURDER someone, better to die than to disobey God.



bill: Quick question Rapt, Should Christians die as lambs or buy guns and fight to the death?

Bill, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, and to be harmless as doves. He said to put up our swords, for if we live by them we will die by them.

Find one place in the New Testament that the sword was used by CHRISTIANS that Jesus didn't forbid it's use. It can't be found.


Hypocrits wrest Romans 13 to their own destruction, telling Christians they can be members of the military, police force, etc. The early church didn't do so. They excommunicated any believer who went and joined the military. At least that's what I've read. But I can't say I know that was truly the case.

It just seems to me that if Jesus was our example in all things, and He suffered the soldiers to take him and kill him, then what shall we do, when He said if we seek to save our life we will lose it, but if we lose it for His sake and the gospel's, we will save it? I just pray that if such a trial is presented to me to be faithful with, that I will. Shouldn't that be every Christian's prayer?

What more can one do?

 

[Jaltus]

Jesus also talked about the faith of the centurion, never once telling him to quit his job. Jesus also mentioned the wages of a soldier, and yet never once told them to quit their jobs.

rapt, you seem to be such a good judge, tell me what the CORRECT interpretation of Romans 13 is. so far you have said we cannot apply it to Christians nor can we apply it to city governance. Where can it be applied then?

Ginger,

I took Calvin's side over rapt, not over God's. You may want to reread what I wrote.

In case anyone is wondering, I am an Arminian, not a Calvinist. I just think that the character assassination and rewriting of history that is going on here is pathetic.

As for the "notes in the columns" Servitus' notes showed him to be a heretic, which was against the laws of Geneva (instituted before Calvin came, sorry rapt). Thus, he was banished. upon BREAKING the banishment that Servetus AGREED TO, he was executed.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

lol

 

[Jaltus]

Laugh it up, fuzzball!

 

[Redeemed]

Originally posted by rapt Hypocrits wrest Romans 13 to their own destruction, telling Christians they can be members of the military, police force, etc. The early church didn't do so. They excommunicated any believer who went and joined the military. At least that's what I've read. But I can't say I know that was truly the case.

What about Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10? Did Peter excommunicate him right after he converted him?

 

[Ginger]

Jaltus said "I took Calvin's side over rapt, not over God's. You may want to reread what I wrote."

Exactly what I said, that you were taking Calvin's side, I reread it too.

 

[rapt]

Jaltus says Calvin WAS the law in Geneva, then contradicts himself by saying that the execution of heretics was in place before Calvin came. But he KNOWS that Geneva agreed to do things CALVIN'S way when they asked him back! He IGNORES the fact that Calvin said he would do everything in his power to have Servetus executed if he came there. Anyone knowing that Calvin said that and still considering him a Christian denies the Word of God, that says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT in the New Testament for a Christian to excecute anyone for anything! If you think there is, I CHALLENGE you to show it. The position of police or military is NOT one assigned to Christians in the bible...no, not once.

The argument that Jesus didn't immediately rebuke the soldier for being a soldier is lame because Jesus didn't immediately reprove the woman that anointed His feet with oil, either, and she was known to be a harlot. He said He didn't come to turn the righteous, but SINNERS to repentance (as if there WERE any righteous! ALL have sinned! But some THOUGHT themselves to be righteous, even apart from obedience to God's Word. They did so then, and they do it now just the same. They embrace the traditions of men and reject God's commandments, and suppose they are justified in God's eyes if men justify them.

Ok, if Geneva was doing God's will to execute so called heretics, then answer me this: What about the Muslim town that judged a 10 year boy, who was convicted of walking down the street with a girl like this: the elders of the city decided they would punish not the boy, but his family. They decided that the best way to punish the family was to punish the teenage daughter of the family, so they decided that her punishment would be that she should be raped. Guess who they assigned to rape her?

THEMSELVES!

Now you tell me: this was the law of the land, wasn't it? Were they JUSTIFIED by Romans 13 to rape that girl or not?

Does this have any bearing on what you are trying to do, you who are trying to justify Geneva and Calvin, based on a gross misinterpretation of Romans 13, and completely IGNORING many other scriptures. You strain at my pointing out such hypocrisy and judging it according to scripture, yet you SWALLOW A CAMEL by allowing for such an atrocity as burning a person at the stake slowly with green wood!!.

Ye blind guildes! How are you any better at heart than those wicked men who actually did those evil deeds? Fill ye up the measure of your fathers! Continue to reject the judgment of God against your embrace of evil. Keep calling evil good and good evil. Vote your kind into office, and then rule like Calvin did. God will reward you according to your works.

 

[Redeemed]

Originally posted by Ginger We need to know the scripture, the whole thing, because there is alot of things being said today that do not agree with the scripture. Don't believe everything you read or hear people say but test it against the truth of the scripture. The truth will set you free.

Most King James Only folks I've run across would have no idea if God's Word had been changed or not because they have little knowledge of the early manuscripts and the origins of later translations, including the King James. They myopically cling to an inferior translation and demonstrate an alarming ignorance of the history of God's Word. This debate was a fine example of such.

I have tested the King James Only doctrine against the truth of scripture, as you wisely suggest, and have found it wanting. I completely agree with you: Don't believe everything you read or hear people say. The truth can set you free as well.

 

[rapt]

Thanks, Ginger, for that info about the KJV being circulated through Europe to keep people from being deceived by Calvin's notes. I didn't know that. I'm glad SOMEONE was concerned enough to make a different bible for the public!

I'm sure glad that we aren't limited in the U.S. to the Scofield reference bible, or the John MacArthur bible, or the Ryrie study bible! I'm sure glad we have access to bibles who's center refs aren't someone's prejudiced notes and heresies! I appreciate a center reference bible, for refs to like scriptures are very valuable, but the Scofield DENIES God's Word just like Calvin did. So do all the rest of those bibles with notes; some are worse than others.

What better tool does Satan have to use other than mass media to deceive the masses? If he can simply add his notes to God's Word, certainly he can make it of none effect, so that all who believe the notes will worship God in vain.

Those hypocrits who justify Calvin's scripture-denying bible-distorting notes that filled up an entire third of the pages of a bible, and at the same time say that they shouldn't listen to anyone who might REPROVE such garbage, obviously live a double standard.

 

[Redeemed]

Originally posted by rapt Anyone knowing that Calvin said that and still considering him a Christian denies the Word of God, that says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Wow. All this time I thought David, the adulterer and murderer of Uriah, had eternal life abiding in him. After all, he was a man after God's own heart. And Paul, that man breathing out murderous threats against the church who was an accomplice to Stephen's murder. I thought surely he had eternal life abiding in him also. Hmmm....

That same Word of God that you're quoting also says in the first half of the verse you're using (1 John 3:15) that "anyone who hates his brother is a murderer." I'm sure you don't "hate" Jaltus, but you'd never know it by your dialog.

Does this have any bearing on what you are trying to do, you who are trying to justify Geneva and Calvin, based on a gross misinterpretation of Romans 13, and completely IGNORING many other scriptures. You strain at my pointing out such hypocrisy and judging it according to scripture, yet you SWALLOW A CAMEL by allowing for such an atrocity as burning a person at the stake slowly with green wood!!.

Rapt,

What you are failing to realize is that truth is NOT dependent upon how well its professors adher to it. The fact that David committed murder does not necessitate that everything David believed was false, or even that he believed murder was ok. It simply indicates that he was not faithful to the truth.

Even if Calvin was wrong for executing Servitus, that does not automatically falsify his beliefs. His beliefs should be analyzed independently of his character.

Ye blind guildes! How are you any better at heart than those wicked men who actually did those evil deeds? Fill ye up the measure of your fathers! Continue to reject the judgment of God against your embrace of evil. Keep calling evil good and good evil. Vote your kind into office, and then rule like Calvin did. God will reward you according to your works.

Your vehement condemnation of fellow believers for not adhering to your misunderstanding of scripture indicates a severe lack of spiritual maturity. Perhaps if you would calm down, you may be able to hear what is being said.

 

[rapt]

Do I think Cornelius ever repented of killing people?

Do I think Cornelius ever repented of killing people?

Redeemed:

What about Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10? Did Peter excommunicate him right after he converted him?

I'm quite sure that just as someone who gets converted ceases from his fornication, his thefts, his adultery, his covetousness, his murder, that Cornelius too obeyed the command that came even through John the Baptist to the soldiers, (which, btw, is OMITTED from the new versions) to "DO VIOLENCE TO NO MAN".

Why don't you new versionists go look what you 'superior" versions say at that verse?


Luke 3:14
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

(...don't steal from the public)


Proverbs 28:17
A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person shall flee to the pit; let no man stay him.

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

(Calvinists don't know it!)

Jaltus, though he claims not to be a Calvinist accuses me of having no love because I manifest the murderous spirit of anyone whose deeds match Calvin's in Geneva! How utterly backward! If there was ever a professing arminian that is just ready to fall away from the truth into the Calvinist abyss, Jaltus fits the bill.

 

[rapt]

Redeemed:

Wow. All this time I thought David, the adulterer and murderer of Uriah, had eternal life abiding in him. After all, he was a man after God's own heart. And Paul, that man breathing out murderous threats against the church who was an accomplice to Stephen's murder. I thought surely he had eternal life abiding in him also. Hmmm....

A post having similar "reasoning" as the one quoted above has already been answered. If you think murderers are saved at the time they are murdering, you are quite deceived. David knew better than what he did, and had he never repented he would have died UNSAVED. Paul wasn't yet converted when he was killing Christians, and he MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT YET SAVED.
You Calvinists DENY God's word, and suppose that someone is saved even before they repent!! You think they will be saved REGARDLESS of their choices, since you deny they have any choice in the matter! You also claim that if a person is lost, he was that way from birth, and there's NOTHING HE CAN EVER DO ABOUT IT! It's called "limited atonement" and "irresistable grace" isn't it?

Concerning what I "hate": I am instructed by God's Word to HATE EVERY FALSE WAY. If I see my brother going astray and fail to rebuke him, scripture tells me that I don't love him. To ignore him while I watch him go the way of destruction and just to keep silence would be the worst form of hatred.

Open rebuke is better than sympathetic hypocrisy.

Rev 2 says that God has it against a church that embraces false doctrine, and the evil deeds of false prophets, which He hates! It says

Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars
6 ...this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

I don't want MY candlestick taken away! I don't want to become like salt without savour! I don't want to be cut off because I failed to warn my brethren of the lies they embrace, and the judgment that will accompany it! But will you, like the guilty person who reviled Moses for seeking to correct a disagreement among brethren, ask me how I have any right to judge between right and wrong (Acts 7:27?

I want to HATE WHAT GOD HATES. I don't want to call evil good or good evil.
There are WOES upon loving what God hates, and calling evil good and good evil.

Isaiah 5
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Know ye not that the church will judge angels? (1Cor 6:1-10) Are ye not capable of judging righteous judgment like Jesus commanded (Jn 7:24)? Examine yourselves, test yourself to see if you are in the faith. Know ye not that Jesus Christ is in you unless you are a reprobate unto good works? (Titus 1:16; 2Cor 13:5)

 

[Redeemed]

Rapt,

I will quote from the King James to make you more comfortable....

Romans 13:4 says that the civil authorities are "the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

God has delegated different responsibilities and commensurate authority to the different institutions that He established.

To the institution of the civil authorities, He has delegated the sword, and NOT in vain. They are to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Execution (justified killing) of criminals is prescribed and expected by God. This authority is NOT given to individuals. Now, the civil authorities may or may not rule in accordance with God's principles. They may abuse the authority that God delegated to them, but they have the responsibility rule righteously nonetheless.

To the institution of the family, God has delegated the punishment of children.

To the institution of the church, God has delegated the punishment of unruly Christians.

When you confuse the responsibilities and authorities of these institutions, you quickly paint yourself in a corner with conflicting positions. It is not wrong for a Christian to be a part of any of God's institutions: civil authority, family, church. There are principles that govern a believer's behavior in each area.

 

[Redeemed]

Originally posted by rapt You Calvinists DENY God's word, and suppose that someone is saved even before they repent!! You think they will be saved REGARDLESS of their choices, since you deny they have any choice in the matter! You also claim that if a person is lost, he was that way from birth, and there's NOTHING HE CAN EVER DO ABOUT IT! It's called "limited atonement" and "irresistable grace" isn't it?

I've been waiting for you to accuse me of being a Calvinist. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you or challenges your logic is a Calvinist. You're demonstrating your myopic point of view, your hastiness to jump to conclusions, and your unwillingness to listen to what's actually being said.

Concerning what I "hate": I am instructed by God's Word to HATE EVERY FALSE WAY. If I see my brother going astray and fail to rebuke him, scripture tells me that I don't love him. To ignore him while I watch him go the way of destruction and just to keep silence would be the worst form of hatred.

Open rebuke is better than sympathetic hypocrisy.

I absolutely agree with you! But when you openly rebuke someone, it behooves you to make sure the plank is removed and that you are certain that you are judging rightly. To rebuke in ignorance is to lose credibility with the one you are rebuking and those that are observing.

But will you, like the guilty person who reviled Moses for seeking to correct a disagreement among brethren, ask me how I have any right to judge between right and wrong?

We all have, not only the right, but the responsibility, to judge between right and wrong. But make sure that you are judging rightly.

I want to HATE WHAT GOD HATES. I don't want to call evil good or good evil.
There are WOES upon loving what God hates, and calling evil good and good evil.

Absolutely!! Preach on, brother!

Just make sure you correctly identify evil before calling it evil and correctly identify good before calling it good. Calling the King James "good" and all other translations "evil" demonstrates a lack of wisdom and understanding. It casts a shadow upon the credibility of the rest of your judgments.

 

[Explosived]

"Even if Calvin was wrong for executing Servitus, that does not automatically falsify his beliefs."-Redeemed

You mean murder don't you?

Was Calvin a "civil authority"?

 

[Jaltus]

Jaltus says Calvin WAS the law in Geneva, then contradicts himself by saying that the execution of heretics was in place before Calvin came. But he KNOWS that Geneva agreed to do things CALVIN'S way when they asked him back! He IGNORES the fact that Calvin said he would do everything in his power to have Servetus executed if he came there. Anyone knowing that Calvin said that and still considering him a Christian denies the Word of God, that says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Not a contradiction at all, rapt. Calvin was the law, but he did not change that law. Please show me where the contradiction lies, as there is not one apparant. You are correct that Calvin said he would execute Servetus, for Servetus, IF HE CAME BACK, would have transgressed the law.

rapt, do you ever plan on telling us what Romans 13 say?

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth if you do not answer the above question. You cannot tell us we are pisapplying it IF YOU WILL NOT TELL US WHAT YOU THINK THE CORRECT application of the passage is.

Bottom line, put up or shut up.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO PRECEDENT in the New Testament for a Christian to excecute anyone for anything! If you think there is, I CHALLENGE you to show it. The position of police or military is NOT one assigned to Christians in the bible...no, not once.

There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for driving cars. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays. There is also no precedent for sermons to the church. There is also no precedent for buying a church building. there is also no precedent for seminaries. There is also no precedent for Sunday Schools. There is also no precedent for ANY Christian to hold ANY political authority. Does that mean it was wrong for a King to become a Christian?

rapt, your arguments are hollow. Not having a precedent does not make something wrong, it makes it NEW. If you had a real biblical principle to share, that would be great. But you don't.

By the way, the "harlot" who anointed Jesus' feet WAS ALREADY SAVED (read John 11). It would really help if you knew your scripture a little better. Your lack of intertextual understanding is a bit frustrating.

 

[Explosived]

....search the Scriptures

....search the Scriptures

--Jaltus

There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays.

Wrong and wrong again.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

[Redeemed]

Re: ....search the Scriptures

Re: ....search the Scriptures

Originally posted by Explosived Wrong and wrong again.

Explosived,

Instead of simply telling people they're wrong, why don't you provide the evidence that proves them wrong? Then, perhaps, your rantings might have substance.

Jaltus said, "There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name. There is also no precedent for meeting on Sundays."

All you have to do is show one instance of Christians praying in Jesus' name or meeting on Sundays. If you can produce it then you've proven Jaltus wrong. If you can't produce it, then quit telling Jaltus he is wrong.

 

[bill betzler]

There is also no precedent for Christians to pray in Jesus' name.

John
14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Actually, if you want anything from the Father, you must pray in Jesus' name.

The above verses are greater than precedent. Were you speaking "technically?" Surely, you know these verses.