SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Revivals And Church History : Luther , Calvin , Zwingli and the reformation.....

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 )
PosterThread









 Re:

The "quotes" of men from the past and the historians, etc., don't affect how I see fellow Christians at all.

To coin a phrase I just learned from PaulWest - I know I'm "pretty messed-up", but I knew most of these histories before I 'asked' to be a member of a Reformed Theology Presbyterian Church last year.

Now go figure - because if we 'must' title one another - I'm a pentecostal/anabaptist.

All I know is that it's not about Denominations or Teachers but about the Love of Christ shed abroad from heart to heart. When I feel that - I'm attracted to it.
I can't become reformed theology - but they don't expect me to and never asked I do and I don't try to change their theology neither.

Go figure - we just love each other - even though we all know about these Histories and am happy we all do for the main purpose, that History is to be learned so that we'll avoid repeating it. AMEN !!!


"Love never fails!"

 2008/3/4 22:00
Compton
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 2732


 Re:

Quote:
we just love each other - even though we all know about these Histories and am happy we all do for the main purpose, that History is to be learned so that we'll avoid repeating it. AMEN !!!



Nicely said Annie.


_________________
Mike Compton

 2008/3/4 22:28Profile
tjservant
Member



Joined: 2006/8/25
Posts: 1658
Indiana USA

 Re:

Quote:

HE_Reigns wrote:
The "quotes" of men from the past and the historians, etc., don't affect how I see fellow Christians at all.

To coin a phrase I just learned from PaulWest - I know I'm "pretty messed-up", but I knew most of these histories before I 'asked' to be a member of a Reformed Theology Presbyterian Church last year.

Now go figure - because if we 'must' title one another - I'm a pentecostal/anabaptist.

All I know is that it's not about Denominations or Teachers but about the Love of Christ shed abroad from heart to heart. When I feel that - I'm attracted to it.
I can't become reformed theology - but they don't expect me to and never asked I do and I don't try to change their theology neither.

Go figure - we just love each other - even though we all know about these Histories and am happy we all do for the main purpose, that History is to be learned so that we'll avoid repeating it. AMEN !!!


"Love never fails!"




AMEN. Good post sister, good post. :-)


_________________
TJ

 2008/3/4 22:30Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Brothers, TJ if I might just emphasize your comments as whole earlier, but in part;

Quote:
As a child I sat through many a sermon that contained low blows and cheap shots directed at Calvinists. You could hear and see the pride in them. The pride that comes from knowing they had not fallen into that poor state of deception like those “Calvinists.” I have seen many, on both sides, with puffed out theological chests. This is truly sad. Denominational and theological pride is…scary…at least to me.



All very well said. Chris and everyone else, I do need to do some recanting, at least some clarifying. One of the things that I far prefer is source material when it can truly be had. The tendency to jump to conclusions even when things seem almost extraordinary, that no one would go to quite these lengths to excerpt things that were said and ... am thinking of the earlier comment form TJ as well;

Quote:
After reading an article people say things like, “I never knew that.” I usually reply, “You still don’t. You only know what I wanted you to know.”



I did set about attempting somewhat to see if these things were so. Just as an example, went looking for Luther's words as they were presented originally, but did not find the source and therefore better able to absorb the content. Did come across a piece however, again, if it is also true, that might change up the perspective;

[i]He had no patience with those "monks and priests, snoring in their deep-rooted ignorance" who would perpetuate an erring system, whether through sloth, greed, or fervent belief, mattered not in the least once he had prescribed so clear a course of treatment. Naturally, the Church had no inclination to do this rude upstart's bidding. Frustrated, Luther exploded: "Why do we not seize, with arms in hand, all those evil teachers of perdition, those popes, bishops, cardinals, and the entire crew of Roman Sodom? Why do we not wash our hands in their blood?" When he realized the extent to which a thirsting Europe was hanging on his every word, he softened his rhetoric for fear of sparking a conflagration: "I should not like to see the Gospel defended by force and bloodshed."[/i]

http://www.canadafirst.net/our_heritage/luther/

Just a consideration and maybe that is all that I would want to add, that there is a lot to be considered.

It doesn't change everything else and I will not belabor the point anymore over the puzzlement whether there is something inherently wrong by disclosure of things done. It is really in your face and disturbing, I do not know how else to put it.

But I did want to recant where I was also jumping to conclusions without really investigating and looking into the sources. Mentioned earlier about presenting evidence contrary to these statements if they had been embellished or taken out of context and while that may still hold true it seems far better to verify them first rather than the other way around.

Some of them stand alone and are easier to find. The situation with Calvin as was mentioned has been gone through here in this setting many times and again brought to bear. It's still disturbing and it is still ... said I wouldn't belabor the point ... But there it is. Thinking on this earlier the notion that crossed the mind was where a tendency is to 'either\or' matters and really it is 'in addition to'. In addition to these are those of the Crusades, of the horrors of Rome ...

Hate to do this as the perception can be one of lessening the severity, now that I think about it perhaps that was the issue all along. But it does give me pause to fear and humble myself even more knowing those possibilities, seeing that even those who were certain of their constructs could go to such lengths ... all given the right set of circumstances, atmosphere, times. Have said before that I do not need Calvin to convince me of my depravity and that is not a knock on him by any stretch, it just is so. He certainly proved it out even in those instances where he thought he was doing what was right, true and even Godly. He lived his own theology at least on that point.

It's just ugly and the truth of things often are.



_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/3/4 23:32Profile
pastorfrin
Member



Joined: 2006/1/19
Posts: 1406


 Re:

Quote:
He lived his own theology at least on that point.



Brother Mike,

Thus we see the problem with man throughout history.
When we follow our own instead of 'Him' we will fail and fail most miserably. I know some have tired of my insistence of the non-resistance path, but this is the example that Jesus himself set and we would do well to pay heed.
It does not matter that Jesus will one day use the sword, it will be 'Him' the righteous judge doing so.
No, in this life we are called to follow Him and His example and if we refuse to return 'evil for evil' but go about doing good, as our Christ set the example for; their will be none of these atrocities of 'living our own theology' among us.

Let us learn from history and follow the example of Christ, then and only then will we not have to fear becoming apart of the things about to come upon this world.

In His Love
pastorfrin

 2008/3/5 5:18Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

"...as our Christ set the example for; their will be none of these atrocities of 'living our own theology' among us."






[b][color=660000] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. [/color][/b]


- John 5:30(KJV)


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2008/3/5 5:54Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Unbiased

[i]Go to sleep, dear little boy. I have no gold to leave you, but a rich God. If you become a lawyer, I will hang you on the gallows. Some lawyers are greedy and rob their clients blind, it is almost impossible for lawyers to be saved. It's difficult enough for theologians. (Luther, to his son)[/i]

Rather liked that quote, thought I would share it.

Here's another piece that married even my own musings;

[i]People with ideas are our perpetual source of discomfort. We don't really think of Luther much anymore and those who do, don't really think much of him. His monumental achievements are forever subordinate to "what he did to the Church," "what he said about the Jews," or "his insensitivity to women." As Luther might have been the first to ask: isn't imposition of our (dubious) moral authority on persons 500-years-dead something of an arrogance in itself? Alas, it has always been fashionable to dismiss Luther as not quite relevant or not quite nice. All his life he was accused of the oldest (and surprisingly contemporary) Christian libel -- odium humani generis -- hater of the human race: used to such cruel effect in devising tortures against the early Christians. As if to punish the man who did not even want the new Church named after him, Luther was omitted from official histories over 45 years of Communist rule in East Germany. During those dark years, Wittenberg's sole claim to egalitarian glory was a poisonous chemical industry. Today, Luther is eclipsed by the ubiquitous presence of an American civil rights activist. It is ironic in the extreme to remember that Martin Luther King (born just, plain, Michael King) legally changed his name in tribute to a man he rightly regarded as absolutely without peer.[/i]

http://www.canadafirst.net/our_heritage/luther/

Though the thought to beg off all this and just leave well enough alone, found I could not do so - so easily. Would hate to see any animosity or unresolved concerns just left lying to die amongst ourselves.

Quote:
"What this thread appears to me to be is an honest and sincere attempt to arrive at truth."



And how is that going to be known? Are we going to hold the trial of these men here?


If I'm not mistaken, Richard Wurmbrand was a Lutheran Pastor. If after a trial is held here against these men, and Luther is found guilty of (being a false prophet?), should Pastor Wurmbrand's message be removed from the site?



How about any of the speakers here that made statements supporting John Calvin. Or John Knox?


Where does the investigation of fruit stop?



Brothers, there is no trial here in that sense, but I myself may have contributed to an appearance of it being so earlier.

Quote:
EDIT: "...isn't publishing these things deliberately harmfull?"

I don't mean that brother Christian was being deliberately harmfull in publishing these things, but that the allegations themseves seem to be, that is, deliberately harmfull.



"The allegations". Yes, it's true in part ... May have skimmed a bit too quickly over the source of the original material and got caught up in the severities which seem pretty understandable, but still, it is difficult not to look at the forwarding agenda of the source of the material. Even the Luther excerpt they used may have been shortened to further their agenda.

The word; "Unbiased". How difficult a word it is for us many times, it is something of a constant challenge and for the life of me, for more of it. It has been a particular pet peeve for some time to be reading along something for all intents and purposes is truthful or seemingly so and then out of the blue comes some notion, some bent that wants to be forwarded and the whole thing takes on a different color. It is either contrived or embellished, overplayed or underplayed. Pragmatic reasoning ... frankly it's just flat out lying at bottom. Who knows what reasonings may be behind it at times, what motivations, sometimes they are overt and obvious others it seems the great fear is that people can't think for themselves so it needs this extra bit to move it along ... Just as well, there are times when it could be wished people would do their own thinking.

But for the record, if it really mattered, am very much unbiased or strive to be that is over many a matter. The whole C and A debate. I get just enough of it all to be somewhat comfortable in my purposeful ignorance ... I just do not see a need to be forced into an acceptance of a pointed, systematic construct, there is just to much to be considered. "Perhaps" is a favorite word and even that perception must have it's own elements of being 'wishy-washy' but it's not that, it's a misunderstanding, something I think is emblematic of attempting to be unbiased while the musing goes on ... "Consider". I think that is the beauty of all this. SermonIndex is a challenge when you boil it all out. We are up against it not by purposeful attempt to do so but by the range of perspective that is presented here. Beyond that, it is true to this life that we have as peculiar people that we do not think more highly of ourselves than we ought and the realm of things that we might know and our perceptions of how the Lord might challenge us often clash, and there we are, here we are, up against it. I think it is just flat out tremendous. It puts us in the humble place of disciples, "learners" if we apt to be always after the truth ... [i]have you considered?[/i] is the large looming attribute that comes from all these discussions. It's far different than a sloppy ecumenicism that lets compromise dictate at the expense of sacred truth yet allows for a compromise or better just a consideration where we do not have all our facts straight.

"I never thought of that". "I didn't really consider this." "I think I missed something that you brought out that has challenged me here."

"I was\am wrong." Seems to me if we were a bit more honest that these kinds of statements would be much more in our repertoire, but [i]perhaps[/i] pride wins out, bias rules more than we know.

Guess I felt a need to unload that burden here, not that it has never been appealed to before. I hate things that are shaded or contrived or embellished. The force in any challenge is the challenge itself, not the forcing or painting of things in more or less favorable light. To get back to the matter at hand, the original out takes (and not the presenter, our brother) certainly there is a bias and an agenda that casts it back to wonder of the motivation, not that difficult to discern considering the source. Too bad they couldn't make their argument on better grounds, without bias, without shading and painting it in hues and colors ... let the reader decide.

[url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm]The usually excellent Catholic Encyclopaedia's surprisingly tendentious "Luther" entry [/url]

The title speaks enough for itself. The content even more so. Still trying to be unbiased, is even this perception and description expressed previously (In the first link) regarding Luther without it's own slant and purposes? ... Painting him in more favorable light? [i]Perhaps[/i] ;-) It seems fairly well presented, primarily unbiased but ...

That is what I would draw our attention to here in even this whole exercise of just discussing these men and these matters. That is to present them unbiased and to present them in all their failings and triumphs, it is the same as scripture does, warts and all. I think it also proves out our mettle and is a witness all it's own that we fear nothing of the truth no matter how ghastly it might be. There is no intent to put anyone on trail though we could easily be led to do so but jumping to conclusions or ratcheting up the rhetoric, I am guilty of doing some of that earlier.

Though it got launched off from a biased perspective and has disturbing elements in it, would like to see it truly explored with that same noble Berean mindset that anything ought to be done in, just to see if these things be so. It is right and true and healthy to test all things and that doesn't need to be back laced with a lot of suspicion before hand though it may become evident enough before long.

Probably well into a ramble by this point, but to bring this back again ...

[i]As Luther might have been the first to ask: isn't imposition of our (dubious) moral authority on persons 500-years-dead something of an arrogance in itself?[/i]

Challenging isn't it? We are blessed with the foresight of hindsight, something they didn't have. And while that doesn't excuse any atrocity committed, any foundational, scriptural attribute violated or any other thing that is indeed disturbing ... It can be dubious when we were not in the very midst of it while it was happening. We might like to think otherwise and we very well may have been the ones to stand up and cry out against it, but the fact remains we can't do it in reverse and frankly we just do not really know how it might have played out, if we were to be truly honest about it.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/3/5 10:27Profile









 Re:

There were many who were bringing forth the break from Rome - the reformation and were always around from the first Church - some just got more attention in our history than others.

Whenever there is a true move of GOD to free HIS people unto Spirit and 'Truth', the enemy is right there with a counter or counterfeit move to rob the Glory or thwart the unity of One Body with One Spirit.

That is just part of what we learn that I take to heart for our future. Was it Roberts and Lewis and others that could speak to the moves that affected the genuine revivals of the past?

And we see in our own times, 'barking dogs and squawking chickens' called "revival".

Some are calling what they feel is coming the second reformation. Something inside makes me hold my breath for a moment when I hear that.

I see all of the past, up unto what is coming in our future and feel the need for care and discernment to combine all things and have that "test all things" mindset because of it all.

This topic is so much broader than about the initial three names in it's title. Even the history of the Church in our own generation.
We need a broader scope to face our own futures by what we've seen in days gone by from the first Church until today and then tomorrow.

That's what good I feel comes from this thread and the others on this Revival & Church History Section of the Forum.
The "stickies" and past threads all shed light and give us wisdom on how to protect the Church presently and future tense.

Just grateful for this particular section of the Forum. To combine Revival in the same section with Church History was a very wise decision and I'm grateful.

 2008/3/5 11:38
roadsign
Member



Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777


 Re: more on the formation of biases

Quote:
Do you call yourself a Christian? You will die of old age before you finish reading the horrible deeds done under this banner.



So true! My argument has been regarding the specific banner under which spokesmen shape their story - which tends to colour their portrayal of it. I’ve seen it in my own family history:

During the war my predecessors (ardent reformers in Holland) organized the rescue of Jews. From my grandfather’s viewpoint this operation could have been far more successful if disunity among the churches hadn’t been so prominent. In his written testimonial he faults some evangelicals for what I perceive as indisputably legitimate concerns.

By the time I came along, I could sense a generalized distrust over evangelicals. That thankfully changed and some of us eventually joined them. Then years later, as a Baptist, our pastor taught us that we were essentially the only legitimate branch of Christianity because we were the only ones who could trace our origins back to the apostles. Is there not just a wee bit of pride there? Is that not what leads to prejudice down the road? (compare with how the Jews were persecuting the Gentiles in the Ephesain churches)

...... fast forward to yesterday: The CBC featured a brief documentary on recent religious developments in post-tsunami Asia. Apparently several Christian organizations with money to spare are sweeping in and building new villages, along with their own churches. Apparently (!) some evangelical groups came in with loads of money and offered to build people a new village – but only if they all converted to Christianity. Since not all the villagers were willing to convert, the missionaries left – offering absolutely no help.

Perhaps there is some truth in that, though no proof was offered - other than one testimonial of an angered Buddhist. (Could he not have been a tad bit biased!!) Imagine how "effectively" that press release will colour the already tarnished view of evangelicals, and how that will help propel a hatred towards them. (likely not moderated much by CBC's attempt to balance the document with a more positive testimony of a BIC missionary)

The Bible never glosses over the sins of humanity – and neither should we. But, the Bible, unlike uninspired “history” presents it objectively – or, rather, from God’s point of view - with one goal: to keep us seeing our need for a Savior – the only answer for our human depravity.

What about applying these question when reading articles:
Who's saying this?
What might be the writer's goal?
Is it marked with generalizations?
Does it foster deepening hostility towards certain people?
Does it intensify dividing walls or promote restoration?

Diane




_________________
Diane

 2008/3/5 12:30Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy