Okay. You're not being persecuted for the content of your message. Other Evangelicals who visit this board have shown themselves able to present their points of view with conviction and with very clear statements of why they disagree with us, yet with the utmost desire to truly understand what we believe and the maturity to not take our criticism of their beliefs personally. Such posters are very welcome here.
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?
Yes, you are.
A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.
Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?
My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.
Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.
I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.
If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?
I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:
1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
Why not. Scratch the itch!
You, however, choose to pontificate without taking the time to really understand what we believe. When others criticize your point of view, you refuse to acknowledge that their criticism may be valid and keep right on pontificating. Either that or you take the criticism personally and cry that you're being persecuted. You're not acting like one who wants to enter into a genuine two-way discussion with us; rather, you're acting like a jackass and are merely reaping the fruit of your jackassery.
Good on you Peter!
Now I am a proponent of the scripture - obviously. But upon the advice of some sensible and polite people on this site I have gone about to read through some of the writings of the ante-nicene fathers. Just to see what they have to say and whether it matches up with the bible.
Anyway, I have been reading the 1st epistle of Clement of Rome - to the Corinthians. This apparently was written around 96.. In the 13 chapter of his epistle, headed 'an appeal to renounce obstinacy and schism' he says;
"My brothers, do let us have a little humility, let us forget our self assertion and braggadocio and stupid quarrelling, and do what the Bible tells us instead.
The Holy Spirit says, The wise man is not to brag of his wisdom, nor the strong man of his strength, nor the rich man of his wealth; if a man must boast, he should boast of the Lord, seeking Him out and acting with justice and uprightness".
This is definitely great advice for me. Very encouraging and uplifting. Humility is something I do struggle with and what I am engaging in here on this thread would be hard to argue that I'm not quarrelling.. 'Oh wretched man that I am'.. I thank Him for saving me.
Now I understand that there are various canons of scripture compiled over the years from the early church. The canon we have now, perhaps not until the mid 300's? Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I also understand that the books in the N.T would have been mostly completed in the 1st century, no later than 150. The books and letters that were written were also apparently in circulation at the time of Clement. It is apparent that he was using these himself - at least according to his writings.. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.
The book I am reading is called 'early christian writings'. Published by penguin. Translated into English.
I bought it a while ago, but haven't read much of it. It was recommended to me by a relative of mine who is 'orthodox'.
Has what Clement said above been translated correctly? Does he not say let us turn to what the bible says? Or have I again misinterpreted something?