- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
For the umpteenth time you have told this lie. I have NEVER said that. Those are YOUR words. They are definitely not mine.
Bible Study According to Caldwell
- Thread starter reformed1689
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Oct 15, 2019
- 4,618
- 1,481
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
It is blatant lie after another. He needs to apologize and repent.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,741
- 5,593
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
There is a lot being said here, and this is just one point.
But it should first be understood that all scripture is inspired by God "in spirit." This is the means by which all scripture came to men...and that is the key of all interpretation. That is--not by study, not by literary means, but "in spirit."
Every other form of interpretation is of men, mere conjecture.
Preacher4Truth
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Only the LORD will accomplish this in his heart. It is saddening to witness his lifestyle of sinful behavior and intentional harassing of others from site to site.
One thing is true: Jesus sets captives to this type of sin free, John 8:36ff.
Perhaps all the monkeys should stop feeding each other and turn back to the scriptures as the drone of the accusations is deafening.
I know from experience that when I believe that my opinion is the only opinion that is right, I soon discover that I am also, so wrong.
Shalom
I know from experience that when I believe that my opinion is the only opinion that is right, I soon discover that I am also, so wrong.
Shalom
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
It must be dealt with to move forward. 6 of us have shown he is lying. His defense is to call us names. We all call him a liar. I have asked him to prove his claims as i have proven mine out in the open.
He has failed several times to produce evidence.
He has failed several times to produce evidence.
Anthony D'Arienzo
Well-Known Member
If people grasp the truth here, John will need to repent.He has proven nothing, he cannot because all of us know he lied.
Truth
Well-Known Member
Hopefully I am not in presumption, and if I have understood your precept, what you are saying is,! how do we come to an understanding without having a grasp on the time, and culture of said time period in which these things were spoken, written, preached. Most of the Parables were given in Agricultural terms, as to engage understanding in the common people. these words were not given in todays terminology, thus we have to search out what was purposed it what was said!
Hay it's OK to correct me if need be, I am not the brightest bulb.
Truth
Well-Known Member
John Caldwell is a new poster who is a former Reformed Baptist but has given up his Calvinism. So we are just observers here -- bystanders.
Truth
Well-Known Member
Thank You, I haven't a clue, and most likely really not to concerned! Just Curious I guess!
I have not seen his words in RED yet?
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
SovereignGrace
Certified Flunky
I’ve said what needs to be said and I am bowing out of this thread. To the staff, I am sorry it came to this. We just want you to see the truth. Now, it’s up to you to see who has stood with the truth. Again, my apology to you, the staff.
It's hard to follow the he said/she said, sometimes...
I did read through the whole thread. I have gone back and read through again. Seems to me an answer was given you in post #(15). No doubt this thread is the product of other encounters between yall. And so no answer seems to suffice.
And, based on the constant use of the words, 'troll, snake, liar, serpent, repent', I doubt any answer will suffice.
Stranger
Good post, John. What I find interesting are the many agreements you have with the encyclical Dei Verbum. I don't think I am "correcting" or "contradicting" you in any way.
"12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature... (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
25. "...And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying." (6)
Dei verbum
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature... (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
25. "...And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying." (6)
Dei verbum
Last edited:
Preacher4Truth
Well-Known Member
He was never Reformed just as Charles Finney was never reformed.
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I was a Calvinist, but I was never a Reformed Baptist.
It is odd that some Calvinists treat the theology as if it were the gospel itself (once a Calvinist, always a Calvinist- if they are no longer a Calvinist they were never a Calvinist as they never would have changed .... that kind of foolishness).
As for me, I was a "5 point Calvinist". When I moved from Penal Substitution Theory none of the points worked in a Calvinistic context (some of the points, like Limited Atonement, take on a non-Calvinistic meaning without the Theory).
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
I am John Caldwell. Who am I? I am a Christian, just like most here. No more, no less.
Apparently this thread was a trolling effort in a personal agenda against me.
On another thread I mentioned that I believe we have to remain very close to Scripture ("what is written") when considering foundational doctrines. We all have beliefs and understandings, but the closer we get to doctrines upon which we will build other doctrines the more important it is that those "truths" actually be in the text of Scripture.
That is my belief, anyway.
So David started this thread asking me how I believe we should handle Scripture. I answered, but then David said this was designed as a trap and not a real discussion.
The issue is I was once a Calvinist. Worse - I was a Calvinistic preacher and taught Calvinism. My sin is that I no longer hold that theology.
After a sermon I was convinced I has preached my understanding (my theology) rather than God's Word. I went through my theology and while I could see how it was based on Scripture many elements were not actually in Scripture. These were foundational elements without which my view woukd not stand. Over the next couple of years of study my understanding changed.
That's it in a nutshell. I Anthony had an agenda against me, Sovereign Grace and Preacher4Truth joined and calked for support (Steve and David Taylor joined the forum to help the cause).
Last edited:
John Caldwell
Well-Known Member
Lol....or its a pup who stepped in puppy poo
...What part of the method I suggested do you find objectionable?
What method do you use?
Or do you believe we need a study method?
Last edited:
Similar threads
