Johnathan Edwards in light of Roots and possible Double Standards

[DJ Links]

Let me say this before this thread begins. This thread is not to belittle anyone personally at all!!! This thread is about a big pink elephant mindsets that many either refuse to discuss, are scared to discuss or just want to overlook completely.

For months now I have seen post after post calling into question the salvation of people on basis of several different criteria. I heard some say that people can have the appearance of a christian and do all the things that christians do yet still be a false convert. Again this is just a small bit of things that have been discussed.

So with that being said here is the question that I have.

We have a man such as Johnathan Edwards esteemed by many yet when the criteria of someone that could not be saved Edwards is never talked about. Personally I believe that he is so well respected that many of us want to overlook a big spot on his record and that being that he owned slaves. The argument that him owning slaves was not wrong because the bible mentions the owning of slaves. The argument has also been made that we don't know how Edwards treated his slaves and could have treated his slaves graciously as the bible commands.

Here is the problem I have with Edwards and his slave ownership. His owning of slaves was not the way slavery is mentioned biblically. Biblically mentioned slavery is NOT American Slavery. I repeat it is not!! The manner in which slaves were brought to America is reprehensable, absolutely reprehensible and we cannot downgrade egregiousness of it. I say this because my wife is a teacher and I have seen first hand how slavery is downplayed in today education system. Unfortunately I think this has carried over into in some fashion to our religious circles.

Please watch Roots this month or go and peep Amazing Grace about William Wilberforce and see if just by chance you can even diminish the grievous, glaring and heinousness of american slavery.

Now after having said that I have this next question. Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[Devin]

Idolatry Masked With Respect.

that could be one reason why.i dont know how edwards treated his slaves.thats debatable and i would have to research that.or has that already been done with nothing of no help?

[DJ Links]

Idolatry Masked With Respect.

that could be one reason why.i dont know how edwards treated his slaves.thats debatable and i would have to research that.or has that already been done with nothing of no help?

Selling slaves in the open market isn't debatable. Edwards had this done.


1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

[Devin]

Selling slaves in the open market isn't debatable. Edwards had this done.

no.what is debatable is his TREATMENT.thats the question that must be answered.im not sure of his TREATMENT of his slaves.Biblically you could own slaves.but if JE was like everyother Christian Slave Master in those days then he was indeed Sinful.but i dont know yet.most Reformed assume he was simply because of his doctrine.i dunno.Creflo has preached some good sermons before too.:)

[DJ Links]

no.what is debatable is his TREATMENT.thats the question that must be answered.im not sure of his TREATMENT of his slaves.Biblically you could own slaves.but if JE was like everyother Christian Slave Master in those days then he was indeed Sinful.but i dont know yet.most Reformed assume he was simply because of his doctrine.i dunno.Creflo has preached some good sermons before too.:)


How do you treat something good that you believe is less than human.

Here are some questions in light of American Slavery and the bible.

What is the biblical criteria for owning slaves?

Biblically what leads to one becoming a slave?

From a biblical standpoint what is the length of the time in which a person is to be a slave?

From a biblical perspective if we wanted a slave could we go out and purchase one?

[Devin]

How do you treat something good that you believe is less than human.

Here are some questions in light of American Slavery and the bible.

What is the biblical criteria for owning slaves?

Biblically what leads to one becoming a slave?

From a biblical standpoint what is the length of the time in which a person is to be a slave?

From a biblical perspective if we wanted a slave could we go out and purchase one?


well like i said.the issue is the TREATMENT.how do we know rather or not Edwards viewed his slaves as "inferior"?


theres several Biblical reasons for becoming a slave.

1.captivity.(Israel)
2.POW(prisoners of War)
3.Debt(i owe u money.so i do work to pay it off)
4.Wife(i wanna be your slave for a few years so i can marry your daughter)

theres several reasons why people were slaves in the Bible.but i will say that PROPER treatment of slaves is Biblical and if Edwards was IMPROPER then he disobeyed GOD and if anyone one here can stick up for him knowing that he was Unbiblical with this issue then you are a sad case.but like i said...i have no idea how Edwards treated his slaves.But i will probably do some research on it.

[DJ Links]

well like i said.the issue is the TREATMENT.how do we know rather or not Edwards viewed his slaves as "inferior"?


theres several Biblical reasons for becoming a slave.

1.captivity.(Israel)
2.POW(prisoners of War)
3.Debt(i owe u money.so i do work to pay it off)
4.Wife(i wanna be your slave for a few years so i can marry your daughter)

theres several reasons why people were slaves in the Bible.but i will say that PROPER treatment of slaves is Biblical and if Edwards was IMPROPER then he disobeyed GOD and if anyone one here can stick up for him knowing that he was Unbiblical with this issue then you are a sad case.but like i said...i have no idea how Edwards treated his slaves.But i will probably do some research on it.

I know that many will harp on Edwards "treatment" of his slaves but putting them in an open market in his will to be sold like cattle is a pretty good indication don't you think?

[Devin]

I know that many will harp on Edwards "treatment" of his slaves but putting them in an open market in his will to be sold like cattle is a pretty good indication don't you think?

lol.its a start.more examination is needed.i thught QS did some studying on this though?

[BlackCalvinist]

Let's hope that after you die, people don't dig into your open support of heretics and others who blaspheme the name of God with doctrines of demons and lead folks to hell, and pray that they don't question your life and commitment to Christ and simply call it 'lip service' and 'works salvation' after you've died and drag your name, your family, wife and kids through the mud in the same way.

:)

Let's also hope they don't find out about any of your secret sins that you've been harboring and plaster them out in public.

Edwards has been talked about ad infinitum, ad nauseum - both here and in other places (i.e.- a recent discussion on my AACL list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aacl ). Like John Newton, he owned slaves in his youth. His own writings show he was conflicted on the issue, vacillating back and forth on whether or not it was right. We also know that near the end of his life, his writings were starting to head more toward condemning slavery - but he died young. Newton, on the flip side, lived longer and eventually renounced slavery. Edwards was on the fast track to doing the same. But he died, so we won't know where he would've ended up on the issue.

Find a new hobby. If your life exists to only bash Edwards, you have hatred in your heart that you need to stop and deal with before the Lord because none of this discussion is designed to 'do good' toward others in any shape, form or fashion.

Seriously.

Repent.

[DJ Links]

lol.its a start.more examination is needed.i thught QS did some studying on this though?


We can go around and around on the subject of him treating his slaves wrong. Thats secondary. The man purchased and owned people stolen from their land.

[eternal]

Let's hope that people don't dig openly into your support of heretics and question your life after you've died and drag your name, your family, wife and kids through the mud in the same way.

:)

Should it only happen while we are alive?

What is your opinion on all the threads and posts that are made calling people heretics and false prophets/teachers for various reasons?

I was under the impression that you approved?

[DJ Links]

Let's hope that people don't dig openly into your support of heretics and question your life after you've died and drag your name, your family, wife and kids through the mud in the same way.

:)


Please don't try and divert and hijack the thread. I did that in Nubia's thread and was wrong for it. For the record I don't support heretics. What gets me worked up is the maliciousness and the sarcasm that people on here use and the "Paul did it" doesn't cut it.

[DJ Links]

The question still remains......


Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[eternal]

The question still remains......


Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

Valid question. Very valid.

[BlackCalvinist]

see above.

I edited.

[DJ Links]

Let's hope that after you die, people don't dig into your open support of heretics and others who blaspheme the name of God with doctrines of demons and lead folks to hell, and pray that they don't question your life and commitment to Christ and simply call it 'lip service' and 'works salvation' after you've died and drag your name, your family, wife and kids through the mud in the same way.

:)

Let's also hope they don't find out about any of your secret sins that you've been harboring and plaster them out in public.

Edwards has been talked about ad infinitum, ad nauseum - both here and in other places (i.e.- a recent discussion on my AACL list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aacl ). Like John Newton, he owned slaves in his youth. His own writings show he was conflicted on the issue, vacillating back and forth on whether or not it was right. We also know that near the end of his life, his writings were starting to head more toward condemning slavery - but he died young. Newton, on the flip side, lived longer and eventually renounced slavery. Edwards was on the fast track to doing the same. But he died, so we won't know where he would've ended up on the issue.

Find a new hobby. If your life exists to only bash Edwards, you have hatred in your heart that you need to stop and deal with before the Lord because none of this discussion is designed to 'do good' toward others in any shape, form or fashion.

Seriously.

Repent.

Edit...

If you think I am trying to bash Edwards then you obviously didn't read my post in its entirety. I am only using Edwards as an example of a larger problem that exists.

Please re-read.

edit....


Maybe Edwards coming to the defense of an Arminian minister whose stance and doctrine he vehemently opposed would get up your ire.

[Quiet storm]

His own writings show he was conflicted on the issue, vacillating back and forth on whether or not it was right. We also know that near the end of his life, his writings were starting to head more toward condemning slavery - but he died young.

I didnt plan on making any comments on the thread but I have to ask what you are referring to here. I know that in time Edwards condemned the "slave trade" (even though his position was inconsistent how do you condemen the "trade" but benefit from it) but what in his writings indicates that he was "conflicted on the issue, vacillatiing bakc and forth on whether or not it was right" or where do you find in his writings that he "started to head more toward condemning slavery". I am not saying that you are wrong but I have researched him quite well and I simply have not come to this conclusion. What I do see in his writings is this


In a letter, Edwards wrote in his own defense, "If [the critics of slave owners] continue to cry out against those who keep Negro slaves," they would show themselves to be hypocrites, because they too benefited from the slave trade. "Let them also fully and thoroughly vindicate themselves and their own practice in partaking of negroes' slavery," he charged, "or confess that there is no hurt in partaking in it," otherwise "let 'em own that their objections are not conscientious." http://www.yaleslavery.org/WhoYaleHonors/je.html

I see a defense of slavery as indicated above as well as a rebuke against those who opposed it. Now it is true that Edwards is dead and we can not sit down and interview the cat but for personal educational purposes if he started to change his theology when it came to slavery I would like to know. I do not condemn Edwards or even believe him to be unregenerate (since thats not my place) but I would like to see evidence of his struggle over the issue. Grace & Peace

[eternal]

From what I can tell, the point of the thread is what is the distinction between judging Creflo Dollar or Joel Olsteen or Rob Bell and Jonathan Edwards?

It seems that it is often the same people who have no problem "bashing" (since that is the word being used here) these folks, are also the same ones who find offense when it is done in respects to Edwards.

I think this is the "double standard" Links referred to. Perhaps someone can explain?

[DJ Links]

From what I can tell, the point of the thread is what is the distinction between judging Creflo Dollar or Joel Olsteen or Rob Bell and Jonathan Edwards?

It seems that it is often the same people who have no problem "bashing" (since that is the word being used here) these folks, are also the same ones who find offense when it is done in respects to Edwards.

I think this is the "double standard" Links referred to. Perhaps someone can explain?


Eternal that is the point to the this thread!!!!!!

Edwards has alway been a side issue to me in regards to this bigger issue that no one seems to want to answer.

[king neb]

ummmm...owning a slave and saying that Christ become satan on the cross really don't compare in my book.

[BlackCalvinist]

I've made my statement on it.

You and the rest of your Edwards-bashing club can keep pushing the page on to page 7-8 or whatever.

You are and continue to be a divisive man and threads like these only continue to show it to be fact.

Good day.

[DJ Links]

I've made my statement on it.

You and the rest of your Edwards-bashing club can keep pushing the page on to page 7-8 or whatever.

You are and continue to be a divisive man and threads like these only continue to show it to be fact.

Good day.

I beg to differ with you saying that I am devisive and I would say other would back me up on that claim. Your own avatar says that you are zealous for truth. So the fact of the matter you haven't answered the question which is the crux of this thread. You have in fact discussed a side issue which I made it very clear that Edwards was. However this questions still remains....


Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[ctide]

a double standard indeed,

in fact black, it find it interesting that you are harping on Links for support preachers that are ... (names sins)

then say it's unfair to name edwards sins.... in the same aspect, is it unfair for you to lable preachers are false because of there sin, yet claim yourself a true teacher?

are we never aloud to judge a tree by its fruit?

:) @ the comment that Newton "eventually renounced slavery"

dude, he was unregenerate & traded slaves... got saved and repented, all prior to his public ministry.... as a baby christian newton may have not been opposed to slavery... but as a mature believe he certainly was

are you arguing that edwards was in the same state as newton?

not even close ;)

but its all good famo!

nice talking to you on the phone last night

[lisajames96]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

edit: Links I have read through some of you posts and see the JE issue is not really your focus here, so you don't have to reply.

[eternal]

ummmm...owning a slave and saying that Christ become satan on the cross really don't compare in my book.

1) He didn't say Christ became satan. That is a misquote. He said that Christ became the nature of satan (sin). Now Christ did become sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So the only dispute is if "sin" is the nature of Satan.

When looked at in context, it isn't as egregious as thought at first glance.

Secondly, a person's lifestyle is theology. If a pastor was a practicing and open homosexual would it change?

We are not supposed to steal or support the stealing of human beings.

[Quiet storm]

WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...


Im glad you picked up on that as well in my earlier post I mentioned him being "inconsistent" this is what I had in mind. Great post by the way I just pray you will not be labeled as a "basher" since you have examined the evidence and have reached a conclusion which is accurate.

[DJ Links]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

LJ no disagreements here and the pluck the plank from your eye summarization about Edwards defense is on point. Knowing all this it still leads me back to this question.....



Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[king neb]

eternal,

Who am i misquoting? I didn't mention any names. I did have a particular person in mind based on a book i used to sell as a Christian Bookstore manager 10 years ago...do you even know who or what i was referring to?

[eternal]

eternal,

Who am i misquoting? I didn't mention any names. I did have a particular person in mind based on a book i used to sell as a Christian Bookstore manager 10 years ago...do you even know who or what i was referring to?

Pretty sure, as I have heard the quote many times.

Maybe I am wrong, and you are reffering to someone who said that exact quote. Maybe you can PM me.

I was talking about Benny Hinn though. I am not a fan of his at all, I just like to keep things nice and neat when critiquing folks.

[Moody]

I read all the posts in this thread, and DJ Links, you got a good point and I agree with you.

I think the reason some cats on here don't want to recognize what you are pointing out is because quite frankly, they highly esteem Jonathan Edwards and for them acknowledge what you are suggesting, it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

For Edwards to have slaves and to do what he did showed that he was just as nasty of a man as anybody else. For some reason though, history tends to polish people up and make them not look so bad. Sometimes folks don't like reading that their "heros" did some stuff that if done today, they would just as quickly label them as a "heretic" or what not. You are basically asking people to re-evaluate what they think about the man, and clearly some are not ready to do that.

You've made a very poignant observation.

Anyway, I checked out some of the "evidence", and this is my thought. Edwards must not have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit, because if he were, we wouldn't have 1) toiled about what to do and 2) he wouldn't have owned slaves in the first place. That means he was probably somewhat of a carnal man, and blended in just well with the good White Men back in the day.

What a man to model yourself after.

[lisajames96]

Im glad you picked up on that as well in my earlier post I mentioned him being "inconsistent" this is what I had in mind. Great post by the way I just pray you will not be labeled as a "basher" since you have examined the evidence and have reached a conclusion which is accurate.

Well if I can take the "basher" moniker at homeand around friends, I can surely take it on a message board. I love my fam on HCR even if I don't agree.

[king neb]

it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.
Like what?

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

[lisajames96]

LJ no disagreements here and the pluck the plank from your eye summarization about Edwards defense is on point. Knowing all this it still leads me back to this question.....


Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

Well, i am really gonna get in now, but I don't see the difference in any other the names you mentioned, that is why like QS, i wont comment on whether any of them are regenerate or not(like i would before), cause they all fall into the same bucket like me, God will condemn or save them.
As you get older, you learn that all our lives are an open book, and people will examine(pick apart) your life whether you like it or not. dead or alive...lol

[TrueConvert]

it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.
Like what?

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

Just read it last week lol. It's what comes to mind right now.

[The_Expositor]

1) He didn't say Christ became satan. That is a misquote. He said that Christ became the nature of satan (sin). Now Christ did become sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So the only dispute is if "sin" is the nature of Satan.

When looked at in context, it isn't as egregious as thought at first glance.

Secondly, a person's lifestyle is theology. If a pastor was a practicing and open homosexual would it change?

We are not supposed to steal or support the stealing of human beings.

Actually, the phrase "became sin" or "to become sin" is derived from the word that we use for scapegoat. I'd have to go home and pull it up to give you the specific word. It means to become a "sin offering" and not sin itself. You have to go back to Old Testament sacrificial system and understand that the actual sin offering was without blemish. It was merely symbolic of the magnitude of sin that something innocent and spotless must die. If Christ had actually become sin, then He would have no longer been the spotless Lamb and would have not been a sufficient offering. Christ was our scapegoat. He remained perfect and without sin, but he took the punishment for our sin.

[The_Expositor]

I read all the posts in this thread, and DJ Links, you got a good point and I agree with you.

I think the reason some cats on here don't want to recognize what you are pointing out is because quite frankly, they highly esteem Jonathan Edwards and for them acknowledge what you are suggesting, it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.

For Edwards to have slaves and to do what he did showed that he was just as nasty of a man as anybody else. For some reason though, history tends to polish people up and make them not look so bad. Sometimes folks don't like reading that their "heros" did some stuff that if done today, they would just as quickly label them as a "heretic" or what not. You are basically asking people to re-evaluate what they think about the man, and clearly some are not ready to do that.

You've made a very poignant observation.

Anyway, I checked out some of the "evidence", and this is my thought. Edwards must not have been very sensitive to the Holy Spirit, because if he were, we wouldn't have 1) toiled about what to do and 2) he wouldn't have owned slaves in the first place. That means he was probably somewhat of a carnal man, and blended in just well with the good White Men back in the day.

What a man to model yourself after.

Curious, but how would it screw with one's theology? If you mean Reformed Theology, then I don't understand.

[Moody]

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?

Are you saying the letter that Paul wrong to Philemon is justification for "enslaving people" so that you can build them up in Christ? I can't answer why Paul would have a "slave", but because He did doesn't mean he was justified, and it doesn't mean Jonthan Edwards, AKA the gully preacher, was justified either.

[Moody]

Curious, but how would it screw with one's theology? If you mean Reformed Theology, then I don't understand.

I wasn't intending to get specific. The point was, some have put a lot into Jonathan Edwards and what he wrote. To acknowledge that he was involved with "shady" stuff (i.e. slavery) would mess with some folks, that's all. I'll have to put more thought into it to come up with specific examples. Point being, it shows why it is important to read the Word for youself and allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate it, vs reading the "teachings" of a man who supposedly did the same.

[Danielle]

I agree with the views of Links, QS and Lisa.....

[king neb]

Are you saying the letter that Paul wrong to Philemon is justification for "enslaving people" so that you can build them up in Christ? I can't answer why Paul would have a "slave", but because He did doesn't mean he was justified, and it doesn't mean Jonthan Edwards, AKA the gully preacher, was justified either.

No, i didn't say that.

Have you read Philemon?

[Moody]

No, i didn't say that.

Have you read Philemon?

Uhh... yeah. I'm assuming we are talking about the letter that Paul wrote, right?

[lisajames96]

I agree with the views of Links, QS and Lisa.....
That's too easy Danielle... you gotta contribute:)

[dogfight!]

I agree with Danielle

[jnorman888]

Selling slaves in the open market isn't debatable. Edwards had this done.


1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

[Quiet storm]

http://img50.photobucket.com/albums/v154/CeeCee73/Smilies/popcorn.gif

[BondServant]

http://img50.photobucket.com/albums/v154/CeeCee73/Smilies/popcorn.gif

[king neb]

Uhh... yeah. I'm assuming we are talking about the letter that Paul wrote, right?

Riiighhttt.... so tell me a little bit about the guy Paul wrote that to.

[eternal]

I think it is easy to get off track but we must try. The focus of the thread is not to condemn JE.

Rather it is an exploration as to why there is such hypocricy. Why it is called "bashing" when Edwards is discussed and exposed, but it is a Christian duty when Dollar or Olsteen or Jakes is exposed? Or why it is considered "redundant" and "ad naseum" when Edwards is discussed, but there always seems to be eagerness to expose or discuss the other guys. It doesn't make sense.

And to be honest it goes both ways.

I am just unclear as to the apparent double standard and hypocricy. But no one is obligated to explain themselves, but the question is certainly worth asking.

Personally I think all of them are brought up far too often, and I think all of them border on bashing far too often. And all of them invoke zealous blind defenses from people far too often.

Just my take.

[eternal]

Riiighhttt.... so tell me a little bit about the guy Paul wrote that to.

He participated in the slave trade? He supported the stealing of human beings? Where do you get this impression?

Maybe I am reading your point wrongly here, forgive me if I am, and I hope you might clarify. Thanks.

[king neb]

He participated in the slave trade? He supported the stealing of human beings? Where do you get this impression?

Maybe I am reading your point wrongly here, forgive me if I am, and I hope you might clarify. Thanks.

actually eternal, again, you're reading too much into my posts. I haven't made any points yet...I simply asked for something.

[eternal]

actually eternal, again, you're reading too much into my posts. I haven't made any points yet...I simply asked for something.

Cool. So tell us something about Philemon, and perhaps even Apphia, Archippus, and the church there)

[Danielle]

That's too easy Danielle... you gotta contribute:)

lol, you got me....

yeah, I completely believe that thier was no evidence that would or could ever contribute to the justification of the American Slave Trade, and anyone that claimed to be Christiany yet owned slaves or participated in the act were not being obedient to the word of God, which clearly states to love your neighbor as yourself, and also is thinking of yourself superior to another person not Christ-like, isn't Christ full of humlity?(rhetorical of course)

[Danielle]

I agree with Danielle

lol :)

[Moody]

I agree with Danielle too. Case closed.

Good point eternal. We on the same page.

[jnorman888]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

edit: Links I have read through some of you posts and see the JE issue is not really your focus here, so you don't have to reply.


Yeah christians buy extravagent things now days like big Gold and Platinum Chains with Jesus on it....or with a Cross on it. Or they buy Platinum teeth with diamond in them. Or big Whips with big Rims!!!

Let me stop!!! Mr. Edwards was far far from perfect......and far from an example of what we should be like or even want to be like. But in knowing this we should judge everyone with the same standard. I am all for that.

[BondServant]

Well, I agree with everyone, at the same time, simulaneously.

*waits for Neb to say something about logic*

[eternal]

Well, I agree with everyone, at the same time, simulaneously.

*waits for Neb to say something about logic*

or 70AD

[king neb]

Well, I agree with everyone, at the same time, simulaneously.

*waits for Neb to say something about logic*

nah...not much to say. lol. i expect that from vanTillians. hahaha.

[Moody]

or 70AD

LOL. Let's do the happy dance cuz Satan is in chains for a 1,000 years... wait, wouldn't that be 1070? Uh oh...

[jnorman888]

lol, you got me....

yeah, I completely believe that thier was no evidence that would or could ever contribute to the justification of the American Slave Trade, and anyone that claimed to be Christiany yet owned slaves or participated in the act were not being obedient to the word of God, which clearly states to love your neighbor as yourself, and also is thinking of yourself superior to another person not Christ-like, isn't Christ full of humlity?(rhetorical of course)


Don't forget this too sis!!!


1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

[king neb]

so that's it then? ....eternal jumps in and reads things into my posts...Moody concurs and doesn't supply any info from Philemon as I asked.

oh well... i guess i'll hop off the train of thought also and move on to other things.

[eternal]

Don't forget this too sis!!!


1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

That is a great passage, because it shows something us western intellectual elites often neglect, that ACTIONS is theology too. We often celebrate the intellectual assent, but neglect the equally important life lived doctrine. Here Paul calls ACTIONS "sound doctrine."

Good word.

[eternal]

so that's it then? ....eternal jumps in and reads things into my posts...Moody concurs and doesn't supply any info from Philemon as I asked.

oh well... i guess i'll hop off the train of thought also and move on to other things.

Perhaps you can tell us what you had in mind when you asked to tell you something about Philemon? We all are familiar with the letter, maybe it would help if you would just get to your point? I admitted at the time I made my post I may have misunderstood. So I am hoping, as I asked, you would "clarify."

What is it about Philemon's status that helps us understand the Edwards situation?

[BondServant]

nah...not much to say. lol. i expect that from vanTillians. hahaha.

I think you have assumed too much. I haven't offered any points one way or the other.

John Frame:eek:

[king neb]

bond...just ribbing you over a past reference to vanTil. No harm done.

eternal...i attempted to get Moody on a train of thought to eventually lead to the issue with Edwards and how he is treated. But if Moody doesn't want to participate, then i won't waste my time. I'm not playing that game.

If folks don't want to THINK through something but rather post off-the-wall stuff and draw in cheerleaders for your squad, why the heck post the questions to begin with?

sorry..not interested.

[eternal]

bond...just ribbing you over a past reference to vanTil. No harm done.

eternal...i attempted to get Moody on a train of thought to eventually lead to the issue with Edwards and how he is treated. But if Moody doesn't want to participate, then i won't waste my time. I'm not playing that game.

If folks don't want to THINK through something but rather post off-the-wall stuff and draw in cheerleaders for your squad, why the heck post the questions to begin with?

sorry..not interested.

I'm interested. I'll stand in for Moody.

[BondServant]

bond...just ribbing you over a past reference to vanTil. No harm done.


I was only messing with you cause you said the same thing to eternal.

[LENZ_1]

it would really screw with their theology and thoughts on certain subjects.
Like what?

Am i the only one that has read Philemon in here?


Didn't Paul encourage Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother, instead of a slave? How does that support having slaves?

[3SpiritsEM]

Hey yall, if only American slavery is wrong. Let"s go to Africa, or India or China or any place other than America and buy us some slaves then. As long as we keep them in their homeland and treat um real nice its all good. :D

[The apologist]

man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please let us not judge JE for this one sin, I hope all of his accusers are living a more righteous life than JE, Jonah, David, Samson and Solomon.

Thank you LORD for your grace that you would forgive men like these:)

[eternal]

man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please let us not judge JE for this one sin, I hope all of his accusers are living a more righteous life than JE, Jonah, David, Samson and Solomon.

Thank you LORD for your grace that you would forgivr man like these:)

Do you say the same thing about those who critique Creflo? Jakes? Hinn? Olsteen?

[The apologist]

Do you say the same thing about those who critique Creflo? Jakes? Hinn? Olsteen?


no:)

[eternal]

no:)

lol. At least you are honest about your hypocrisy.

[seal]

Yo,

Wait a minute here all you JE Bashers.... Have you read your own Bible??? It wouldn't seem you have.... If ya'll want to say that Edwards wasn't a Believer then guess who else you are going to have to add to that list.....Clears throat ;) ....

Names----- Sin
1. Abraham Doubted God and had Concubines

2.Samson He was just nasty!!!

3.David Murder, Adultery,Concubines

4.Solomon Pimping on wax...

5.Lot Having sex with daughters

6.Gideon Doubted God and had many wives

7. Jacob Con-Artist, Multiple wives, Lier...


So please all of you who bash JE for his sins I want you to start a post on each one these guys who are considered Hall of Famers in Scripture but who committed the worst sins habitually. Also don't listen to the message they taught and reject all of the Psalms, Proverbs and books that David and Solomon wrote b/c how could the Lord use such a man as David and Solomon right??? Ridiculous :rolleyes:

You all act as if we are trying to re-institute slavery or something b/c Edwards did it. Edwards was just sinner saved by Grace just like all you Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29 are. I'm sure he's in Glory laughing at your accusations against his down falls and so are the rest of the saints. God uses the lest likely people who are terrible sinners themselves for his Glory. Unfortunately us Americans are very blind of the terrible sinners we are therefore we condemn others of their sins. However, Heresy isn't just a sin but it's teachings. If you are teaching Heresy then you either need to be informed of Truth or you aren't part of the Flock. None of the saints I listed above were ever charged with Heresy. Think about it first, then respond...;)


Romans 8:33

33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

Seal you have missed the entire point of this thread. The Apostle Paul said that slave trading was a matter of "sound doctrine" and those who participated did not have it.

So the question of the thread, that MANY people have misunderstood (so don't feel bad) is WHY is there an apparent double standard?

Why do some people flip out when JE is mentioned, but then the same people will "bash" TD Jakes and Creflo, and Hinn and Olsteen?

The question is about a "double standard" as the THREAD TITLE makes known.

Maybe you can add another post that actually deals with the topic of the thread?

[Spiderman]

lol. At least you are honest about your hypocrisy.

Is being a "sinner" different then teaching false doctrine?

[WhyMe]

Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards?

I wonder what the saved non-slave owners said about JE back then? For example, there are confessing saved preachers and people who disagree with many things John Piper has said and done recently (i.e. unclean language, Remaining in fellowship with unlike yolk) and acknowledge these things as sin, but they are not questioning his salvation. Here is a whole thread where people are debating just about John Piper! http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=5250&page=1&pp=7

This is just the first example that came to my mind. Sin is Sin and God hates all sin. I would hate for somebody to say I must be a false convert every time I sin because I do it everyday. :(

[seal]

Seal you have missed the entire point of this thread. The Apostle Paul said that slave trading was a matter of "sound doctrine" and those who participated did not have it.

So the question of the thread, that MANY people have misunderstood (so don't feel bad) is WHY is there an apparent double standard?

Why do some people flip out when JE is mentioned, but then the same people will "bash" TD Jakes and Creflo, and Hinn and Olsteen?

The question is about a "double standard" as the THREAD TITLE makes known.

Maybe you can add another post that actually deals with the topic of the thread?

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Now after reading this verse tuff guy, how doesn't all the people I listed not fall into this category as well.

Abraham---- Liar, Adulter, pervert
Lot---- Pervert
Samson---- All the above except slave trader and Parent killer
Solomon----Adulter, pervert
David---- Murder, Pervert, adulter..... Need I say more, Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

So maybe you aren't understanding the gist of the arguement you're making against this man's one sin from above. B/c the saints did a lot worst. But Edwards wasn't on some Heresy like the guys you are listing so maybe you need to re-read what being posed to you. WHY DOES JE GET HARASSED FOR HIS SIN BUT NOT THESE SAINTS? And also.... Joel Osteen, Creflo, and Jakes preach Heresy maybe not to you but to some of us, so can any of these charges be laid against Edwards? There is no double standard. Edwards preached truth, these other guys don't. It's an open and shut case. Edwards was a sinner, but some of the OT Saints were worst. But Edwards didn't teach Heresy neither did they. So Nah!!! :p

[eternal]

I wonder what the saved non-slave owners said about JE back then? For example, there are confessing saved preachers and people who disagree with many things John Piper has said and done recently (i.e. unclean language, Remaining in fellowship with unlike yolk) and acknowledge these things as sin, but they are not questioning his salvation. Here is a whole thread where people are debating just about John Piper! http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=5250&page=1&pp=7

This is just the first example that came to my mind. Sin is Sin and God hates all sin. I would hate for somebody to say I must be a false convert every time I sin because I do it everyday. :(

It is more about sin as a lifestyle. One can't say, "yes I am a practicing homosexual but David sinned too." Or I can't say that I would hate for someone to judge my sins the same way people judge the sin of an active homosexual. This is a different issue.

As Paul wrote,

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Or as we find in Exodus:

Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

I do not speculate as to whether Edwards is saved or not. But there is clearly the same justification for his condemnation that we often find being tossed at the names mentioned earlier. The thread is about hypocrisy. Why do we protect Edwards but encourage scrutiny of these others?

It makes no sense.

[eternal]

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Now after reading this verse tuff guy, how doesn't all the people I listed not fall into this category as well.

Abraham---- Liar, Adulter, pervert
Lot---- Pervert
Samson---- All the above except slave trader and Parent killer
Solomon----Adulter, pervert
David---- Murder, Pervert, adulter..... Need I say more, Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

So maybe you aren't understanding the gist of the arguement you're making against this man's one sin from above. B/c the saints did a lot worst. But Edwards wasn't on some Heresy like the guys you are listing so maybe you need to re-read what being posed to you. WHY DOES JE GET HARASSED FOR HIS SIN BUT NOT THESE SAINTS? And also.... Joel Osteen, Creflo, and Jakes preach Heresy maybe not to you but to some of us, so can any of these charges be laid against Edwards? There is no double standard. Edwards preached truth, these other guys don't. It's an open and shut case. Edwards was a sinner, but some of the OT Saints were worst. But Edwards didn't teach Heresy neither did they. So Nah!!! :p

Do you believe there is a difference between a lifestyle of these sins, and simply falling in to them spuraticaly?

[seal]

Do you believe there is a difference between a lifestyle of these sins, and simply falling in to them spuraticaly?

Hmmmmm.....If you read scripture would it appear that having hundreds of concubines is a lifestyle??? Hmmmmm.... Let's think hard on this on :rolleyes:

Look guy, we are tired of these threads blasting Edwards for him being a sinner rather then his teachings. The reasons we debate about these other guys isn't b/c of their life but their teachings. So there's no double standard, we shouldn't be posting to condemn someone for their lifestyle b/c God ordained him to be who he was but their doctrine is another thing. These guys are still alive therefore they have ample time to repent and I pray God grants it to them. Edwards is dead and gone, but only his teachings are things we have to go off. So if you want to criticize Edwards, let it be his teachings and we can go from there. B/c if we are going to bring up his shortcomings let it be just something for us not to repeat, you know like his son who was one of the leading Abolitionist of his day.

[eternal]

Hmmmmm.....If you read scripture would it appear that having hundreds of concubines is a lifestyle??? Hmmmmm.... Let's think hard on this on :rolleyes:

Look guy, we are tired of these threads blasting Edwards for him being a sinner rather then his teachings. The reasons we debate about these other guys isn't b/c of their life but their teachings. So there's no double standard, we shouldn't be posting to condemn someone for their lifestyle b/c God ordained him to be who he was but their doctrine is another thing. These guys are still alive therefore they have ample time to repent and I pray God grants it to them. Edwards is dead and gone, but only his teachings are things we have to go off. So if you want to criticize Edwards, let it be his teachings and we can go from there. B/c if we are going to bring up his shortcomings let it be just something for us not to repeat, you know like his son who was one of the leading Abolitionist of his day.

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."

Do you believe as Christians we are saved from sin? Are Christians "sinners?" Are we still "slaves to sin?"

Also, would you have a problem with someone who had sound reformed and covenant theology doctrine, but was a practicing and unrepenting homosexual to the day he died?

[seal]

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."

Do you believe as Christians we are saved from sin? Are Christians "sinners?" Are we still "slaves to sin?"

Also, would you have a problem with someone who had sound reformed and covenant theology doctrine, but was a practicing and unrepenting homosexual to the day he died?

Okay guy are you saying that Paul is condemning these OT saints b/c they all lived as Perverts, Adulters, and Murders? Is there something about David and Solomons Doctrine we need to be aware of?? Answer the question, Cookie..... I never imposed that Christians are slaves to sin, this is your distractive tactics to try and take away from the point I've clearly made. If these Great men of God committed these sins but they are still considered righteous why are you all picking on Edwards. We are all sinners saved by Grace. Edwards is dead, but his writings and teachings live on. Man ... are you guys really that miserable to pick on a dead man b/c you hate his doctrine b/c he's still banging your views to this day... This is sad :( .... Really it is.... :mad:

Also to your last subjective question. It's too hypothetical to answer b/c to this date we've yet to see such a thing. You need to stop it with these questions b/c all it does is prove your bias against JE. Let it go Eternal... please let it go. Edwards is Right, you're wrong :rolleyes: . At least in our eyes.... Have a nice day Cookie....

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

Okay guy are you saying that Paul is condemning these OT saints b/c they all lived as Perverts, Adulters, and Murders? Is there something about David and Solomons Doctrine we need to be aware of?? Answer the question, Cookie..... I never imposed that Christians are slaves to sin, this is your distractive tactics to try and take away from the point I've clearly made. If these Great men of God committed these sins but they are still considered righteous why are you all picking on Edwards. We are all sinners saved by Grace. Edwards is dead, but his writings and teachings live on. Man ... are you guys really that miserable to pick on a dead man b/c you hate his doctrine b/c he's still banging your views to this day... This is sad :( .... Really it is.... :mad:

Also to your last subjective question. It's too hypothetical to answer b/c to this date we've yet to see such a thing. You need to stop it with these questions b/c all it does is prove your bias against JE. Let it go Eternal... please let it go. Edwards is Right, you're wrong :rolleyes: . At least in our eyes.... Have a nice day Cookie....

Hail King Jesus,


seal


Do you think multiple wives and fornication are identical? Serious question.

It is an interesting question about having the concubines. It is likely the only example I can think of that can pertain to this in the bible. Good question.

It fits right in with my question earlier, about homosexuals. Would we consider a lifestyle of homosexuality to be of the same regard?

Can we openly live in drunkeness and greed and homosexuality and slave trading and still be saved?

Great questions.

You suggest that Solomon had concubines thus it is reasonable to believe someone can persist in a sinful lifestyle and be saved as long as their intelectual doctrine is accurate.

I would be inclined to disagree, but will have to think further about the Solomon question. Thanks for offering it up, it gives me something to chew on.

In the mean time, could you answer the homosexual question?

Also, what do you make of Paul aligning "slave trading" with "sound doctrine?"

[king neb]

Didn't Paul encourage Philemon to receive Onesimus as a brother, instead of a slave? How does that support having slaves?

Lenz,

Your post is exactly the reason why i am done with the thread. All i have done is ask questions to keep Moody on a particular train of thought. No where...I REPEAT...NOWHERE have i said anything on this thread about justifying slavery.

I can't go two posts long before someone jumps in and reads baloney into my posts...things i never said.

[eternal]

Lenz,

Your post is exactly the reason why i am done with the thread. All i have done is ask questions to keep Moody on a particular train of thought. No where...I REPEAT...NOWHERE have i said anything on this thread about justifying slavery.

I can't go two posts long before someone jumps in and reads baloney into my posts...things i never said.

Dude, are you trying to say I'm fat? Man...explain yourself.

[seal]

Do you think multiple wives and fornication are identical? Serious question.

It is an interesting question about having the concubines. It is likely the only example I can think of that can pertain to this in the bible. Good question.

It fits right in with my question earlier, about homosexuals. Would we consider a lifestyle of homosexuality to be of the same regard?

Can we openly live in drunkeness and greed and homosexuality and slave trading and still be saved?

Great questions.

You suggest that Solomon had concubines thus it is reasonable to believe someone can persist in a sinful lifestyle and be saved as long as their intelectual doctrine is accurate.

I would be inclined to disagree, but will have to think further about the Solomon question. Thanks for offering it up, it gives me something to chew on.

In the mean time, could you answer the homosexual question?

Also, what do you make of Paul aligning "slave trading" with "sound doctrine?"

Multiple wives is adulterous, fornication is just that, fornicating. Scriptures says this...

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.


Nope, not answering the question til after your done chewing on my questions as you say. I'd like for you to show ever in my post where I condoned any of the saints sins as being okity dokity or Edwards for that matter, God is the one who used both the saints and Edwards, so you don't disagree with me but God, but hey GO FIGURE. I will preach and teach that all the saints and Edwards were wrong for their sins, but their Doctrine is what we learn from b/c it teaches us Righteousness and Truth according to the Scriptures. Therefore once again SOLA SCRIPTURA rears it's beautiful head again, so we like good Christians take what they wrote and test it by the scriptures to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). So Edwards was a Juggernaut when it came to the scriptures, but we should never accept him owning slaves as something to adapt in our lives today. But his stress on the Depravity of Humankind and the Soveriegn God is something we should grasp.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

Multiple wives is adulterous, fornication is just that, fornicating. Scriptures says this...

Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.


Nope, not answering the question til after your done chewing on my questions as you say. I'd like for you to show ever in my post where I condoned any of the saints sins as being okity dokity or Edwards for that matter, God is the one who used both the saints and Edwards, so you don't disagree with me but God, but hey GO FIGURE. I will preach and teach that all the saints and Edwards were wrong for their sins, but their Doctrine is what we learn from b/c it teaches us Righteousness and Truth according to the Scriptures. Therefore once again SOLA SCRIPTURA rears it's beautiful head again, so we like good Christians take what they wrote and test it by the scriptures to see if it is true (Acts 17:11). So Edwards was a Juggernaut when it came to the scriptures, but we should never accept him owning slaves as something to adapt in our lives today. But his stress on the Depravity of Humankind and the Soveriegn God is something we should grasp.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Um, I never said you thought sin was okay. That is a straw man. Not fair.

I started a thread entertaining your question. It is a good one. Maybe you can give me YOUR thoughts on your question there.

[seal]

Um, I never said you thought sin was okay. That is a straw man. Not fair.

I started a thread entertaining your question. It is a good one. Maybe you can give me YOUR thoughts on your question there.

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie is the question. Are you saying that God didn't speak through Solomon even though he we was a Adulter??? I'd say he sure did since this guy penned some books in the Hebrew Canon. So if God can speak through Solomon why not Edwards? Don't tell me being a Slavetrader just debunked this guy from being able to know Truth b/c then you'd be disqualifying many of the Saints and then what foundation do you have. So you need to respect what he wrote and argue against that. His lifestyle can't discredit his Truth b/c if it lines up with the scriptures we can't do anything about that b/c God uses whom he wills to get the message of his Sovereignty out. Even Rocks if he has too...

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[eternal]

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie is the question. Are you saying that God didn't speak through Solomon even though he we was a Adulter??? I'd say he sure did since this guy penned some books in the Hebrew Canon. So if God can speak through Solomon why not Edwards? Don't tell me being a Slavetrader just debunked this guy from being able to know Truth b/c then you'd be disqualifying many of the Saints and then what foundation do you have. So you need to respect what he wrote and argue against that. His lifestyle can't discredit his Truth b/c if it lines up with the scriptures we can't do anything about that b/c God uses whom he wills to get the message of his Sovereignty out. Even Rocks if he has too...

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Seal I think you have made a lot of assumptions.

I have never said that God could not speak through Edwards. And I have said in this thread that I have no comment or opinion on his salvation. Only questions. I think you need to read more of what I said, so as to cut down on some of the false speculation.

The strawman was that you claimed I said you believe sin is ok. I have never said that, and I do not believe you believe it to be. So yes it was a strawman.

But not everyone God uses, or everyone who says true things are saved. That is the point. You are confusing a lot with your speculation and assumptions.

peace.

[CHRISTion]

You may call it a strawman, but did you read the rest of the sentence Cookie

Have a nice day Cookie....

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

Edwards was just sinner saved by Grace just like all you Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29 are

http://onewholeclove.typepad.com/one_whole_clove/images/chocolate_chip

http://www.graveerror.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/Cookie%20Monster.JPG
SYLVESTER YOU ARE HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!
http://bestsmileys.com/lol/13.gif

[jnorman888]

Is being a "sinner" different then teaching false doctrine?

Did JE "teach" about slavery? If so then people can attack his false teaching just like people attack other false teachings.



1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.


Did Edwards sleep with some of his slaves? Did Edwards see himself as being better than slaves or racially more superier?






INLOVE Jnorm

I just got done watching roots on TV so I am a bit upset right now.

[Devin]

man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please let us not judge JE for this one sin, I hope all of his accusers are living a more righteous life than JE, Jonah, David, Samson and Solomon.

Thank you LORD for your grace that you would forgive men like these:)

yawn....

[DJ Links]

Seal you prove the point of my question so well. Why is Edwards not held to the same scrutiny that other ministers in modern day times held to.

Your issue seems to be an issue with Edwards doctrine. If that is the case I have something for you.....

Here is a quote from mouth of JE himself -


“Where the foundation is weak,” says the common law, “the structure falls.” “What is invalid from the beginning, cannot be made valid by length of time.” (Noyes’ Maxims.) “He that stealeth a man and selleth him,” says Moses, “or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” “The law was made for men-stealers,” says Paul. “Stealers of men,” said the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1794, “are those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them.” “Those are man-stealers,” says Grotius, “who abduct, keep, sell, or buy slaves or freemen.” “To hold a man in a state of slavery,” said Dr. Jonathan Edwards, “is to be, every day, guilty of robbing him of his liberty, or of man-stealing.” “Men-buyers,” said John Wesley, “are exactly on a level with men-stealers.” http://www.dinsdoc.com/goodell-1-1-23.htm

Edwards own words convict himself. Here is the scripture that he agrees with -


Exodus 21:16 "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

Here is exerpt from an essay on Samuel Hopkins one of JE students. Check out the mindset of the time and the reason why slaves were owned and if some doctrine was off here.....


Slaves had existed in the American colonies since the early 17th century. By the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, one out of five people were of African descent and were held as slaves in the thirteen colonies. In the Colonial period of America, opinions on slavery were divided. Some believed slavery was a "necessary evil" which meant although one disagreed with the practice, there was really nothing anyone could do about it because ultimately it would upset the social order in America. At this time, some believed the social order was founded upon the freedom of some men to hold the labor of other men. Those who believed this way and owned slaves were mainly the aristocratic class.

The majority did not argue on behalf of slavery merely because they thought the Africans were less human, arguing from the curse of Ham in Genesis (although there were a few that argued this way). But the majority of the aristocrats who owned slaves at this time argued that slavery was a divine institution --an ontological institution which God had positively sanctioned in the Bible. The aristocratic class both Christian and non-Christian, argued that slaves had been held in bondage since Biblical times and that the Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice of slave holding. They argued that they did not own the slaves as beings in God's image, but that they owned the slave's labor. This was in important distinction for those of the upper class of this period.

Unfortunately, some scholars have argued against slavery from the abuse of the institution until more recently. What is most interesting of a culture and a republic supposedly founded on Christian principles is how the majority of the slaveholders argued for the Biblical support of slavery in contrast to a man like Samuel Hopkins who used the same Bible to argue its abolition. This is more than a mere matter of interpretation because the majority of both the abolitionists and the slaveholders, used the Bible to support their position. The theological and philosophical presuppositions of the individuals were driving their interpretations of the Bible and while the slaveholders maintained that the Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice, the abolitionists including Samuel Hopkins, appealed to what they called the "spirit of the gospel." [B]The main arguments of the Christian and non-Christian slave holders who used the Bible to support the practice and trade were the following: (1) Africans could be enslaved, because they were under Noah's curse upon his son Ham; (2) God's people Israel had held slaves; (3) Christ did not prohibit slavery; (4) Slavery was merely the lowest grade in a divinely approved social order; and (5) Enslavement of Africans actually improved the lives of the slaves, particularly in giving them access to the gospel. In contrast to the slaveholder's eloquent exegesis, were those such as Hopkins who said that while the texts themselves might not positively condemn the practice, the very spirit of the gospel message was antithetical to the practice. http://www.aplacefortruth.org/hopkins.htm

I will give JE props for preaching the gospel to his slaves, but peep what he thought of Africans and Indians before salvation and what their reward would be in heaven.


The "liberty" he assumed for blacks was not a social and political liberty on a par with whites, but a solely spiritual one. Even ontologically, Edwards harbored a typically paternalistic outlook that saw black and Indian adults, before conversion, as little more than children in the extent of their innate capacities. To be sure, both blacks and whites were equally in need of the means of grace and of salvation, but that was as far as equality went. Edwards and his fellow colonists lived in a hierarchical world, including racially, and that hierarchy was to be strictly observed; even in heaven, as Edwards conceived it, there would be "degrees of glory."53 http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/mhr/4/minkema.html


Again Seal I am just showing you these things to say that the info is out there on Edwards but people decide to overlook it. If you are going to go after others ie; Dollar then use that same indignation to those that are in your own camp.

[BlackCalvinist]

yawn....

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

[Devin]

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

Yawn....



im not yawning because the man is talking about Grace.that is beatiful to me.im Yawning because the dude is calling people "JE accusers"

aint no one accusing JE of anything.this topic is about How cats sweep this stuff under the rug.ok.

[DJ Links]

That was very stupid, Devin. Perhaps you need to spend time in your Word and getting hooked up with a local church rather than yawning when folks praise God for His mercy and grace over their sin.

I see no response with the evidence at hand.



Why is it that the same criteria of someone possibly being a false convert won't be applied to Edwards? I view this as a double standard here on HCR amoungst the brethren. We are quick to jump on a Hagin, or Copeland or Hinn, Dollar and most recently Ted Haggard yet we won't apply that same indignation against Edwards. Why?

[illuminaticx]

So Edwards was a false convert? Is that was is being argued?

J =]

[BlackCalvinist]

Ok. I believe our actions are doctrine, and Paul says that living as a trade trader is an issue of "sound doctrine."


Two things.

#1 - the text doesn't say slave trader. It says kidnapper or manstealer. That's not the same as a slave trader or a slave owner. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself in Col. 3 and Ephesians 6.

#2 - Edwards didn't kidnap or steal his slaves. He bought them. :)

and a third - American slavery was wrong and his owning of slaves and some of his responses were wrong. However, as noted earlier, he struggled with the issue at times. He's written contradictory things about it in his life.......so at the very least, it was a conscience issue.... exactly what we would expect to find when a BELIEVER tries to justify sin.

[Devin]

Two things.

#1 - the text doesn't say slave trader. It says kidnapper or manstealer. That's not the same as a slave trader or a slave owner. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself in Col. 3 and Ephesians 6.

#2 - Edwards didn't kidnap or steal his slaves. He bought them. :)

and a third - American slavery was wrong and his owning of slaves and some of his responses were wrong. However, as noted earlier, he struggled with the issue at times. He's written contradictory things about it in his life.......so at the very least, it was a conscience issue.... exactly what we would expect to find when a BELIEVER tries to justify sin.

ok kerry.i'll give u that.i think i understand where u getting at.but i would have to disagree with number 2.even if he BOUGHT a slave He knew very well it was KIDNAPPED person.no different then buying a DVD from a guy that supposedly "founded" it from a Delivery truck.but i guess you admitted that dude was wrong.and thats what counts.

[eternal]

So Edwards was a false convert? Is that was is being argued?

J =]

No, the topic/what is being argued is the apparent double standard that is placed on these kinds of conversations, ie JE vs. Creflo/Olsteen/TD Jakes, etc.


Two things.

#1 - the text doesn't say slave trader. It says kidnapper or manstealer. That's not the same as a slave trader or a slave owner. Otherwise, Paul would be contradicting himself in Col. 3 and Ephesians 6.

#2 - Edwards didn't kidnap or steal his slaves. He bought them. :)

and a third - American slavery was wrong and his owning of slaves and some of his responses were wrong. However, as noted earlier, he struggled with the issue at times. He's written contradictory things about it in his life.......so at the very least, it was a conscience issue.... exactly what we would expect to find when a BELIEVER tries to justify sin.

1. True, but that is implied, especially in light of Exodus 21:16 don't you think? Isn't that the implication and what is being talked about?

2. Isn't it the participation in the slave trade that is being condemned? And doesn't buying and supporting the system inherently condone its methods? John Wesley and others were adamantly against this type of stuff.

3. I am unsure how conflicted he was, but I can accept that.

I think the main point of the thread that has largely been missed by folks is the apparent double standard in these convos.

peace.

[Devin]

actually.i would say the MAIN issue is that for the Longest we have come to believe that the Reformed JE Fan Base doesnt Care about this issue and they see him as Justified and that it wasnt a bad thing.thats what the MAIN issue was and is now.this is why i created a thread where i challenge the JE Camp to say that "JE was wrong" so we can dead.cats saying im starting drama and fueling the fire.im trynna bring clarity.but no one has accepted that.

[dremarshall]

actually.i would say the MAIN issue is that for the Longest we have come to believe that the Reformed JE Fan Base doesnt Care about this issue and they see him as Justified and that it wasnt a bad thing.thats what the MAIN issue was and is now.this is why i created a thread where i challenge the JE Camp to say that "JE was wrong" so we can dead.cats saying im starting drama and fueling the fire.im trynna bring clarity.but no one has accepted that.
Dude you are the HCR Parrot

[Devin]

Dude you are the HCR Parrot

excuse me?

[seal]

Seal you prove the point of my question so well. Why is Edwards not held to the same scrutiny that other ministers in modern day times held to.

Simple, Edwards preached Truth these other guys don't. If you don't like it, prove Edwards doctrine wrong. We all know his lifestyle was wrong and we have plenty of examples in Scripture of the wrong lifestyle. But I don't see you starting post on Samson, Solomon, or David. You are very selective therefore showing your bias against Edwards not only b/c of his Doctrine but b/c he's a white man who owned slaves (yo peoples).

To all ya'll African folks. I have a question for you. Why don't ya'll ever get mad at those of Spanish decent? The Spaniards were trading slaves like crazy, but I don't see anyone or any movies on the Spaniards. The next time you see a Puerto Rican, Dominican, or whatever, I want you to have that same indignation that you have against your Caucasian brothers and sisters. Let me see ya'll get mad at Vic b/c his ancenstors use to trade, rape, and sell your ancenstors back in the day to. Whoops..... That will be unbearable for you all to think, huh? Know your history folks...



Your issue seems to be an issue with Edwards doctrine. If that is the case I have something for you.....

Here is a quote from mouth of JE himself -

http://www.dinsdoc.com/goodell-1-1-23.htm

Edwards own words convict himself. Here is the scripture that he agrees with -



Here is exerpt from an essay on Samuel Hopkins one of JE students. Check out the mindset of the time and the reason why slaves were owned and if some doctrine was off here.....

http://www.aplacefortruth.org/hopkins.htm

I will give JE props for preaching the gospel to his slaves, but peep what he thought of Africans and Indians before salvation and what their reward would be in heaven.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/mhr/4/minkema.html

Okay, how have I proved you right??? Have I said anywhere in my post that I agreed with Edwards on this point? Is there anyone on this board that you have seen me agree with in every single point? Edwards was a man of his time and was skewed in his view of Equality and the Curse of Ham is Heretical. I'd boom Edwards on this point if he were alive, but he's not. But was his Doctrine off when it came to Justification by Faith Alone???? Was his Doctrine off on the Sovereignty of God??? Need I say more? Africans did get access to the Gospel and Edwards did Baptize his Slaves which is something you don't see in Roots. His son also became one of the leading Abolitionist of his day but I don't see you focused on that. You are after of the flaws of the man and his Character. We take the Truth that he spoke and spit out the bones. But we'd all have to agree that the slaves of Edwards who received Salvation were blessed.

I'll tell you what I think the real problem is. You're mad b/c God gave this Slave owning White Man insight into his Word that is far superior then who you want it to be. Like Creflo, Jakes, Long, and friends. Your post rink with your prejudice b/c you ain't Racist b/c you have to no power to discriminate against anyone. The more you come against the flaws of a man the more you expose your flaws. You struggle to trust in the God who's providence reigns through the Earth to use such a thing like slavery to give Africans access to the Gospel. Continue to shake your fist at the God of History and the Future b/c of something you never went through. But just like God was with Israel in Babylon, God was with my people in America.



Again Seal I am just showing you these things to say that the info is out there on Edwards but people decide to overlook it. If you are going to go after others ie; Dollar then use that same indignation to those that are in your own camp.

Yeah right, this isn't what you're getting at, you want me to use this same indignation against the White Man. You act as if Edwards slave owning was just an issue that was overlooked. Please.... Dollar? Not worth my time to go after Dollar and Friends anymore b/c they've already been dealt with. You need to go Repent like BC said to you or someone.

[DJ Links]

Simple, Edwards preached Truth these other guys don't. If you don't like it, prove Edwards doctrine wrong. We all know his lifestyle was wrong and we have plenty of examples in Scripture of the wrong lifestyle. But I don't see you starting post on Samson, Solomon, or David. You are very selective therefore showing your bias against Edwards not only b/c of his Doctrine but b/c he's a white man who owned slaves (yo peoples).

To all ya'll African folks. I have a question for you. Why don't ya'll ever get mad at those of Spanish decent? The Spaniards were trading slaves like crazy, but I don't see anyone or any movies on the Spaniards. The next time you see a Puerto Rican, Dominican, or whatever, I want you to have that same indignation that you have against your Caucasian brothers and sisters. Let me see ya'll get mad at Vic b/c his ancenstors use to trade, rape, and sell your ancenstors back in the day to. Whoops..... That will be unbearable for you all to think, huh? Know your history folks...



Okay, how have I proved you right??? Have I said anywhere in my post that I agreed with Edwards on this point? Is there anyone on this board that you have seen me agree with in every single point? Edwards was a man of his time and was skewed in his view of Equality and the Curse of Ham is Heretical. I'd boom Edwards on this point if he were alive, but he's not. But was his Doctrine off when it came to Justification by Faith Alone???? Was his Doctrine off on the Sovereignty of God??? Need I say more? Africans did get access to the Gospel and Edwards did Baptize his Slaves which is something you don't see in Roots. His son also became one of the leading Abolitionist of his day but I don't see you focused on that. You are after of the flaws of the man and his Character. We take the Truth that he spoke and spit out the bones. But we'd all have to agree that the slaves of Edwards who received Salvation were blessed.

I'll tell you what I think the real problem is. You're mad b/c God gave this Slave owning White Man insight into his Word that is far superior then who you want it to be. Like Creflo, Jakes, Long, and friends. Your post rink with your prejudice b/c you ain't Racist b/c you have to no power to discriminate against anyone. The more you come against the flaws of a man the more you expose your flaws. You struggle to trust in the God who's providence reigns through the Earth to use such a thing like slavery to give Africans access to the Gospel. Continue to shake your fist at the God of History and the Future b/c of something you never went through. But just like God was with Israel in Babylon, God was with my people in America.



Yeah right, this isn't what you're getting at, you want me to use this same indignation against the White Man. You act as if Edwards slave owning was just an issue that was overlooked. Please.... Dollar? Not worth my time to go after Dollar and Friends anymore b/c they've already been dealt with. You need to go Repent like BC said to you or someone.

God bless you fam. Seriously!!! God bless you.

Love you brother!!! Really.

[The_Expositor]

actually.i would say the MAIN issue is that for the Longest we have come to believe that the Reformed JE Fan Base doesnt Care about this issue and they see him as Justified and that it wasnt a bad thing.thats what the MAIN issue was and is now.this is why i created a thread where i challenge the JE Camp to say that "JE was wrong" so we can dead.cats saying im starting drama and fueling the fire.im trynna bring clarity.but no one has accepted that.

Referring to those who enjoy the writings of Dr. Edwards as a fan base is not an accurate depiction and is quite insulting. What you're doing indirectly is accusing those who enjoy his works of being carnal as the Corinthians were in 1 Cor. 3. Some saying, "I am of Paul", others saying "I am of Apollos." I think I can speak for most of us in that we'd never put a man on a pedestal and "follow" him. People do that for us. They say we follow Calvin, but that's not true, either. I respect Calvin's teaching, but I am no follower of him. We follow Christ, and stick as close to the Scripture as possible.

Also, for you to say that we don't care that he owned slaves is a lie. You may asuume to know something, but you have no idea. Therefore, please don't speak as if you know something about what I personally think. If Edwards repented and placed his trust in the Savior, then he is Justified by faith alone, not by works. So, you're right. I think we do see HIM as justified, even if his actions were not justified when it comes to slaveholding.

[Moody]

So a life long pattern of UNJUSTIFIED actions somehow makes you think he was justified or saved? (scratching my head)...

Why do you think he was even saved?

Vic, you hit the nail on the head. Truth is, if the Holy Spirit was working in him (as some claim), he would have been having a war inside of him. Evidently he did not, because his actions state that much. While our actions don't get us into Heaven, our actions are always a reflection of who we are and who we belong to.

An in regard to Jonathan Edwards, this would explain his lack of "love". Dude was mean spirited (in my opinion.) Not exactly a characteristic of Christ.

Anyway...

[RJ of MMM]

Hey fam;
Links came to me about this post because he wasn't understanding some things that were being discussed. He and I talked and see some things that could have been said or done differently from the outset, but that is the past and there's no changing that.

Concerning the issue of the double standard in the light of the J. Edwards example, may I ask that you all consider this:

In 100+ years, many of you will have had books, albums, children, and other followings. Can a Christian question your faith because of what it is that you have produced?

If so, are they really questioning faith, or faith thru the lens of their understood culture?

As I stated to Links, I am quick to throw judgement in a lot of places. But like B. Morr's CD so nicely said, should I pray for a change in circumstance or a change in my reactions? You see, it is my reactions that create that fruit that is left for people not named me to bear witness of. The reactions here have been such that ALL OF US, will be questioned in light of HCR being something of God, or something of culture that tried to look like God's work, but fell far short.

I admonish all of you, check your cards at the door in the case of throwing judgement. Sure, we all make mistakes and speak quickly. But it pays a lot more attention to read slowly and consider your words before speaking. When you do not, the reaction you leave equals the fruit that people will eventually only share about you.

[Moody]

Did JE "teach" about slavery? If so then people can attack his false teaching just like people attack other false teachings.


JNorman, he didn't preach it... HE LIVED IT.

[Moody]

RJ of MMM

We (well, at least not me) are not talking about Christians who sin and repent. We are talking about "Christians" who have REPEATEDLY walked in error in their sin, without repentance. Two different things. So while I agree with you, we need to be careful in judging and casting stones, there is a problem with "Christians" who choose to habitually sin.

So that can be sexual immorality, money, or [drumroll please] owning slaves.

Those who belong to God have a heart to purge themselves of such things. At least from what folks can tell, the "highly esteemed by many it seems" John Edwards did not display such a trait, at least not when it came to owning slaves.

[dante]

I began listening to this sermon by Sherard Burns from the conference John Piper had called "A God-Entranced Vision of All Things." I have yet to finish listening to this sermon but he sheds some light on the issue being discussed here. Below is the link.

Sherard Burns - The Riches of Edwards for All Races (http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3)

[Moody]

exactly... it doesnt even have to be owning slaves.

What if we replaced that with um...lets say cheating on your wife.

Lets say Mr. Edwards was one of the major players in an effort to advocate adultery! He preached the same message, wrote the same books, but just had a love (lust) for cheating on his wife, and being unapoligetic about it. In fact, lets say for arguements sake that everyone in his state also supported the idea of adultery! It was "the common, accepted practice of his day" (hahahha, I just love when people use that as the excuse...).

Would you still say Mr. Edwards was dope, want to put his picture up on your shirts, read all his book, quote his sermons, etc etc.

Man, we drinking the same kool-aid today...

[RJ of MMM]

RJ of MMM

We (well, at least not me) are not talking about Christians who sin and repent. We are talking about "Christians" who have REPEATEDLY walked in error in their sin, without repentance. Two different things. So while I agree with you, we need to be careful in judging and casting stones, there is a problem with "Christians" who choose to habitually sin.

So that can be sexual immorality, money, or [drumroll please] owning slaves.

Those who belong to God have a heart to purge themselves of such things. At least from what folks can tell, the "highly esteemed by many it seems" John Edwards did not display such a trait, at least not when it came to owning slaves.

Amen to that.
I was referring to the orig post that spoke on the HCR double standard, not so much the the sin. You make a great point; I should be been more clear in mine.

Thanks for the clearing.

[Moody]

Amen to that.
I was referring to the orig post that spoke on the HCR double standard, not so much the the sin. You make a great point; I should be been more clear in mine.

Thanks for the clearing.

Actually, you are right too. The original post was about the double standard created. So really, this has kind of come full circle. Those who habitually sin, WITHOUT a heart of repentance (or any assemblance of wanting to repent) is someone to stay away from...

Really, a lot of this has come down to some taking exception that others would put Jonathan Edwards in the same "heretic" camp (I use heretic loosely here) that JE followers put others in.

[KFB]

exactly... it doesnt even have to be owning slaves.

What if we replaced that with um...lets say cheating on your wife.

Lets say Mr. Edwards was one of the major players in an effort to advocate adultery! He preached the same message, wrote the same books, but just had a love (lust) for cheating on his wife, and being unapoligetic about it. In fact, lets say for arguements sake that everyone in his state also supported the idea of adultery! It was "the common, accepted practice of his day" (hahahha, I just love when people use that as the excuse...).

Would you still say Mr. Edwards was dope, want to put his picture up on your shirts, read all his book, quote his sermons, etc etc.

Thank You! It's really this simple. We cop plees for those who's views we agree with, real talk.

[The_Expositor]

Expositor, what is the difference between him owning slaves his entire life, and being a life long polygimist? (i know i murked that word).

Ok, he was justified by faith alone right? But he was continually living a lifestyle that dispite what his peers thought, was biblically WRRRRRRONG, SINFUL, AMORAL, etc.

The Fact that he knew scripture, and was a good teacher it totally and utterly irrelavant. Lets just say for instance, that John Piper was also a blatant, outspoken advocate of RACISM. Do you neglect or overlook the fact the guy is DEAD wrong? or do you say, "well, works dont get you into heaven, bla bla bla, he knows his bible and has deep insight, bla bla bla".

I would say your ACTIONS towards those other than white DO NOT ALIGN itself with one who claims to be a servant of The Most High God.... DESPITE your biblical knowledge. Naw mean.

Even my Pastor (Eric Mason) was like "dope preacher, dope author, but DEAD DEAD DEAD wrong and unGodly for owning slaves!"

Does being a dope preacher and a dope author even mean he was saved? Nope.

Amen. I agree with you, mostly. I was just telling Kerry last night on the phone that if something came out concerning Piper admitting that he had been living in some unrepentant sin, then I would no longer support John Piper. I'd pray for him and pray that he'd see the truth of the gospel and repent. But I would no longer support him. Now, that doesn't mean that I'd count everything he's ever taught as dung. I'd still see truth as truth. If the teaching is true, then I can listen to the teaching.

Notice also in my statement, that I said "If" Edwards repented and trusted in Christ, then he is justified before God. I can't say without a shadow of a doubt that he was truly converted, because I am not Dr. Edwards or God.

Let's use a hypothetical for a moment. Let's just SAY that listening to secular music is a terrible offense to God. Let's forget about the terrible offense to others, because our sin is primarily vertical, against God, as David rightly understood when he said, "Against you only have I sinned". So, again, let's just say that it's an offense to God; sin. But, what if you're not convinced that it is, and you listen to 50 Cent all day, every day. If it is considered sin (and please, no one think that I am saying it is; it's hypothetical), then you are in direct violation of God's law and you are living habitually sinful.

Now, let's say you're a teacher of the Word who is vascillating back and forth, trying to figure out whether or not it's sin. So, your stance changes. You flip flop back and forth. People accuse you of not choosing a position and sticking by it. And then they begin to question the validity of your ministry, saying that you're living in sin, when you're not really convinced one way or the other. How would you feel about that?

This next part isn't aimed at anyone in particular:

I've never once said or believed that it was right for anyone to ever own slaves...ever. I believe (are you reading this Devin?) that Edwards was DEAD DEAD DEAD wrong, just like Pastor Mason said, but he was a brilliant teacher. Anyone who actually reads his writings would say so, unless they're biased because of his Reformed view. I've read Edwards works and wept while reading them, because of his high view of God and God's holiness. Read or listen to "The Excellency of Christ" (it's not just a Tim Brindle song) and see if your view of Christ isn't changed for the better.

When dealing with the works of Edwards, I seek to find out if he is sticking close to the Scriptures. I can't judge the morality of a man who is dead and cannot speak from himself. I can say that I believe he was wrong, and I do, but it doesn't take away from the truth that he spit in his writings, essays, and sermons, etc..

When it comes to others, I'm not seeking to look at their sins (not that it doesn't matter), but their teaching. If their teaching doesn't line up with the Word, then I reject their teaching and warn others to be careful as well.

I think one of the major misconceptions is that a person aligns themselves to a particular preacher just because they enjoy listening or reading material from them. Well, for me, it's not so. I am a follower of Christ. That's it. All others can help supplement my knowledge of the Creator, but it's Christ who I follow. He is the Living Word.

I also believe that one of the barriers that block us from spotting false doctrine is a love, affinity, or alignment with these teachers that goes beyond admiration and leads to "I am of this one...I am of that one....Don't you say that about MY preacher". Because we like them so much, we wouldn't dare question their teaching. Well, that's exactly where they want you to be. They don't want you to question their teaching, and when someone does, they call them "heretic hunters". Hunting implies going out and looking for heretics. True heretics are plainly visible, but their heresy is often hidden and disguised. I don't hunt. I stand on the Word of God and contend for the truth that it is. That's a commission given to us all, by God, in Jude.

[Quiet storm]

Mike that was a dope post.....real talk.

[Devin]

for the record.

1.i agree with mikes post.

2.im not a JE Basher.

3.i dont care about JE or his sermons.never heard one.

4.the ONLY issue i was really concerned with is a POSSIBLE double Standard as Links said and perhaps a Misunderstanding about the JE supporters views on JE's Slaveholdings.

[seal]

I see a lot of people are joining in the talk now. Maybe, we can get some answers now....

Yo,

Wait a minute here all you JE Bashers.... Have you read your own Bible??? It wouldn't seem you have.... If ya'll want to say that Edwards wasn't a Believer then guess who else you are going to have to add to that list.....Clears throat ;) ....

Names----- Sin
1. Abraham Doubted God and had Concubines

2.Samson He was just nasty!!!

3.David Murder, Adultery,Concubines

4.Solomon Pimping on wax...

5.Lot Having sex with daughters

6.Gideon Doubted God and had many wives

7. Jacob Con-Artist, Multiple wives, Lier...


So please all of you who bash JE for his sins I want you to start a post on each one these guys who are considered Hall of Famers in Scripture but who committed the worst sins habitually. Also don't listen to the message they taught and reject all of the Psalms, Proverbs and books that David and Solomon wrote b/c how could the Lord use such a man as David and Solomon right??? :rolleyes:

You all act as if we are trying to re-institute slavery or something b/c Edwards did it. Edwards was just sinner saved by Grace just like all you Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29 are. I'm sure he's in Glory laughing at your accusations against his down falls and so are the rest of the saints. God uses the lest likely people who are terrible sinners themselves for his Glory. Unfortunately us Americans are very blind of the terrible sinners we are therefore we condemn others of their sins. However, Heresy isn't just a sin but it's teachings. If you are teaching Heresy then you either need to be informed of Truth or you aren't part of the Flock. None of the saints I listed above were ever charged with Heresy. Think about it first, then respond...;)


Romans 8:33

33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[Devin]

I see a lot of people are joining in the talk now. Maybe, we can get some answers now....

Yo,

Wait a minute here all you JE Bashers.... Have you read your own Bible??? It wouldn't seem you have.... If ya'll want to say that Edwards wasn't a Believer then guess who else you are going to have to add to that list.....Clears throat ;) ....

Names----- Sin
1. Abraham Doubted God and had Concubines

2.Samson He was just nasty!!!

3.David Murder, Adultery,Concubines

4.Solomon Pimping on wax...

5.Lot Having sex with daughters

6.Gideon Doubted God and had many wives

7. Jacob Con-Artist, Multiple wives, Lier...


So please all of you who bash JE for his sins I want you to start a post on each one these guys who are considered Hall of Famers in Scripture but who committed the worst sins habitually. Also don't listen to the message they taught and reject all of the Psalms, Proverbs and books that David and Solomon wrote b/c how could the Lord use such a man as David and Solomon right??? :rolleyes:

You all act as if we are trying to re-institute slavery or something b/c Edwards did it. Edwards was just sinner saved by Grace just like all you Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29 are. I'm sure he's in Glory laughing at your accusations against his down falls and so are the rest of the saints. God uses the lest likely people who are terrible sinners themselves for his Glory. Unfortunately us Americans are very blind of the terrible sinners we are therefore we condemn others of their sins. However, Heresy isn't just a sin but it's teachings. If you are teaching Heresy then you either need to be informed of Truth or you aren't part of the Flock. None of the saints I listed above were ever charged with Heresy. Think about it first, then respond...;)


Romans 8:33

33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

hey.can you please give us a list of supposed "JE BASHERS"?because youve been saying that all throught this thread.but i want you to call names.

[seal]

ONLY ETERNAL RESPONDED LET SEE IF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO SAY.... ;)

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Now after reading this verse tuff guy, how doesn't all the people I listed not fall into this category as well.

Abraham---- Liar, Adulter, pervert
Lot---- Pervert
Samson---- All the above except slave trader and Parent killer
Solomon----Adulter, pervert
David---- Murder, Pervert, adulter..... Need I say more, Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

So maybe you aren't understanding the gist of the arguement you're making against this man's one sin from above. B/c the saints did a lot worst. But Edwards wasn't on some Heresy like the guys you are listing so maybe you need to re-read what being posed to you. WHY DOES JE GET HARASSED FOR HIS SIN BUT NOT THESE SAINTS? And also.... Joel Osteen, Creflo, and Jakes preach Heresy maybe not to you but to some of us, so can any of these charges be laid against Edwards? There is no double standard. Edwards preached truth, these other guys don't. It's an open and shut case. Edwards was a sinner, but some of the OT Saints were worst. But Edwards didn't teach Heresy neither did they. So Nah!!! :p

[BondServant]

Would you stop with the Cookie stuff? :)

[Devin]

ONLY ETERNAL RESPONDED LET SEE IF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO SAY.... ;)

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Now after reading this verse tuff guy, how doesn't all the people I listed not fall into this category as well.

Abraham---- Liar, Adulter, pervert
Lot---- Pervert
Samson---- All the above except slave trader and Parent killer
Solomon----Adulter, pervert
David---- Murder, Pervert, adulter..... Need I say more, Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

So maybe you aren't understanding the gist of the arguement you're making against this man's one sin from above. B/c the saints did a lot worst. But Edwards wasn't on some Heresy like the guys you are listing so maybe you need to re-read what being posed to you. WHY DOES JE GET HARASSED FOR HIS SIN BUT NOT THESE SAINTS? And also.... Joel Osteen, Creflo, and Jakes preach Heresy maybe not to you but to some of us, so can any of these charges be laid against Edwards? There is no double standard. Edwards preached truth, these other guys don't. It's an open and shut case. Edwards was a sinner, but some of the OT Saints were worst. But Edwards didn't teach Heresy neither did they. So Nah!!! :p


again i ask.name the JE Bashers.do you think ima JE Basher?

[DJ Links]

ONLY ETERNAL RESPONDED LET SEE IF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO SAY.... ;)

Okay cookie....I haven't missed any point but proven a tremendous point instead.

1 Timothy 1:9-11

9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Now after reading this verse tuff guy, how doesn't all the people I listed not fall into this category as well.

Abraham---- Liar, Adulter, pervert
Lot---- Pervert
Samson---- All the above except slave trader and Parent killer
Solomon----Adulter, pervert
David---- Murder, Pervert, adulter..... Need I say more, Are you saying David didn't teach sound doctrine COOKIE????

So maybe you aren't understanding the gist of the arguement you're making against this man's one sin from above. B/c the saints did a lot worst. But Edwards wasn't on some Heresy like the guys you are listing so maybe you need to re-read what being posed to you. WHY DOES JE GET HARASSED FOR HIS SIN BUT NOT THESE SAINTS? And also.... Joel Osteen, Creflo, and Jakes preach Heresy maybe not to you but to some of us, so can any of these charges be laid against Edwards? There is no double standard. Edwards preached truth, these other guys don't. It's an open and shut case. Edwards was a sinner, but some of the OT Saints were worst. But Edwards didn't teach Heresy neither did they. So Nah!!! :p

Since you won't hear what I have to say why don't you listen to a message from Piper's site.

Sherard Burns - The Riches of Edwards for All Races (http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3)

This dude has said almost everything that I have said and quoted many of the same links that I gave.

[Moody]

How many of those men repent and turn from their sins. We are talking about a guy who NEVER repented, and better yet, DEFENDED slavery.

so um... yeah, its carne asada.

Carne asada is good with fresh flour tortillas. I like mixing my refried beans and rice together, then make a little burrito with the carne asada inside. (I used to live in South Texas)

[seal]

How many of those men repent and turn from their sins. We are talking about a guy who NEVER repented, and better yet, DEFENDED slavery.

so um... yeah, its carne asada.

Okay, I'm glad you know for sure he never repented yet his son turned out to be an Abolitionalist. Hmmmmm..... ;) and so did a good friend John Newton became an Abolitionalist later on.... :rolleyes: Can you show me where Samson, Solomon, and Lot repented since you got the answers?

[DJ Links]

Okay, I'm glad you know for sure he never repented yet his son turned out to be an Abolitionalist. Hmmmmm..... ;) and so did a good friend John Newton became an Abolitionalist later on.... :rolleyes: Can you show me where Samson, Solomon, and Lot repented since you got the answers?

Umm wouldn't releasing and relinquishing his owning of slaves show that he repented? Hmm!!!

[Devin]

:eek:

actually Seal Vic DOES have a point.no one in here is saying he was unworthy to preach and that God didnt use him.atleast this is what im observing.but i will say this...Those men in the Bible you mentioned have sin and sin GREATLY..but were not making a "sin scale" here.the thing is David Repented.so now i guess Links and Vic wanna know is how do we know if Edwards Repented?



ps.if you refer to me as a Cookie its gonna be a problem:mad:

[seal]

Since you won't hear what I have to say why don't you listen to a message from Piper's site.

Sherard Burns - The Riches of Edwards for All Races (http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3)

This dude has said almost everything that I have said and quoted many of the same links that I gave.

Why don't you stop running and answer my questions??? Are you going to start a post on David, Solomon, and Samson next b/c if you don't I will in your name since we are pulling up the sins on men to discredit them. And along with them you can throw out their books int he Bible. All I'm doing is showing your inconsistency. B/c you are very inconsistant and bias towards JE. Or you wouldn't have started a post like this, do you see us starting post on Creflo's being former Pimp accusasations??? Nope, not worth our time, but you have plenty of time to pull up this dead horse subject...:rolleyes:

Why don't you start a post on the African slave trade within Africa? You won't ever do that, why? B/c you like many others have been fooled into thinking Africans were Kings and Queens in Africa before they were brought to America. The Color Purple was just a movie brutha.... So please open up the scriptures and look in your Bible to see that God has always used imperfect men for his Glory.











THEN TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!!

[seal]

:eek:

actually Seal Vic DOES have a point.no one in here is saying he was unworthy to preach and that God didnt use him.atleast this is what im observing.but i will say this...Those men in the Bible you mentioned have sin and sin GREATLY..but were not making a "sin scale" here.the thing is David Repented.so now i guess Links and Vic wanna know is how do we know if Edwards Repented?



ps.if you refer to me as a Cookie its gonna be a problem:mad:


Is David the only person I listed??? Let's think here people!!!

[Big Ty]

To all my tortillas and Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29, lets not get so worked up about a dude/brother that not living on this earth anymore.

[seal]

hahaha...watchin SEAL skirt the real issue.

Did we say he didnt teach sound doctrine tortilla?'

Did we say that he wasnt a dope preacher tortilla?

Did we say that he wasnt a good auther tortilla?

NO. NO. NO.

We simply said, that living an UNREPENTANT LIFE (yeah, meaning NEVER repenting from your ways) is NOT CONSISTEN with a true believer.

What you are horribly attempting to do here tortilla is NEGLECT the fact that Edwards not only never repented for having slaved, but he PROMOTED it, endorsed it. The more you go out of your way defending this mans action and overlooking the MAIN fact that he supported the cruel act of slavery only sheds more light on how weak your arguement really is. Stick to the facts bredren. The facts.

Dude owned slaves, promoted it, didnt repent, he benefited of the inhumane treatment of other humans. AND NEVER REPENTED. ahhh, what a beautiful picture the Holy Spirit in Edwards! Roses!

So I guess you are going to avoid my question about Solomon and Samson repenting and keep popping off at the mouth about chips... Huh??? Typical :rolleyes:

[DJ Links]

Why don't you stop running and answer my questions??? Are you going to start a post on David, Solomon, and Samson next b/c if you don't I will in your name since we are pulling up the sins on men to discredit them. And along with them you can throw out their books int he Bible. All I'm doing is showing your inconsistency. B/c you are very inconsistant and bias towards JE. Or you wouldn't have started a post like this, do you see us starting post on Creflo's being former Pimp accusasations??? Nope, not worth our time, but you have plenty of time to pull up this dead horse subject...:rolleyes:

Why don't you start a post on the African slave trade within Africa? You won't ever do that, why? B/c you like many others have been fooled into thinking Africans were Kings and Queens in Africa before they were brought to America. The Color Purple was just a movie brutha.... So please open up the scriptures and look in your Bible to see that God has always used imperfect men for his Glory.

.











THEN TAKE A LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!!

Dude you really have no idea. I have had a post ready for a couple of hours but held off after talking to RJ and decided not to post it.

Hey Cookie why don't you listen to that message from Piper's site. Everything I wanted say is said in that message. Listen to it and then re-read all of my posts and you will see the bigger picture that I was getting at.

[Lynaz24]

*Wonders if this is the "Do You Think God is Pleased with HCR thread, realizes he's in the wrong thread and leaves*:D

[seal]

Umm wouldn't releasing and relinquishing his owning of slaves show that he repented? Hmm!!!

Still not answering my questions.... At this point I'm guessing you can't and won't b/c you're just special....;) :rolleyes:

[Quiet storm]

I began listening to this sermon by Sherard Burns from the conference John Piper had called "A God-Entranced Vision of All Things." I have yet to finish listening to this sermon but he sheds some light on the issue being discussed here. Below is the link.

Sherard Burns - The Riches of Edwards for All Races (http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3)

Hey fam lets seriously take a time out and peep this sermon it is honest and fair it is not an Edwards "bashing" type sermon and really deals with the issue in an honest manner. Dante thanks for the Link fam.

[Moody]

I think someone needs a group hug...:p

[Devin]

Is David the only person I listed??? Let's think here people!!!

no.your point?is it possible for me to continually sin in an area in my life with no conviction and goto heaven?

[seal]

Dude you really have no idea. I have had a post ready for a couple of hours but held off after talking to RJ and decided not to post it.

Hey Cookie why don't you listen to that message from Piper's site. Everything I wanted say is said in that message. Listen to it and then re-read all of my posts and you will see the bigger picture that I was getting at.

Your picture is flawed b/c it's full of self righteousness and prejudice. I Love Piper, don't get me wrong, but he's not God nor does his opinions finalized what is true. JE was just a man of his times consumed in it's ideology, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. The double standard is clearly U. You never went through slavery and you pick the bits and pieces of slavery you want to deal with. If you would give a broader spectrum of who was involved in the slave trade, who started it, and etc perhaps you'd be painting an unbias picture. But since your focus is on one guy you are as bias as the KKK. Hands down... :rolleyes:

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[DJ Links]

Your picture is flawed b/c it's full of self righteousness and prejudice. I Love Piper, don't get me wrong, but he's not God nor does his opinions finalized what is true. JE was just a man of his times consumed in it's ideology, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. The double standard is clearly U. You never went through slavery and you pick the bits and pieces of slavery you want to deal with. If you would give a broader spectrum of who was involved in the slave trade, who started it, and etc perhaps you'd be painting an unbias picture. But since your focus is on one guy you are as bias as the KKK. Hands down... :rolleyes:

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Seal. Please listen to that message. It is from a reformed brother speaking from that perspective on Edwards. Just listen to it.

[seal]

no.your point?is it possible for me to continually sin in an area in my life with no conviction and goto heaven?

Hmmm.... First of all you don't know if he had conviction or not, that's something inward. Also if you are God's Elect you are doing just that sinning daily, so don't ask me a question as if you are living perfect lil homie.... Puh-Please.... ;)

[seal]

Seal. Please listen to that message. It is from a reformed brother speaking from that perspective on Edwards. Just listen to it.

Answer my questions COOKIE!!!

[DJ Links]

Answer my questions COOKIE!!!

First of all respect me even if you don't like me. (yeah I was wrong for using Cookie and I apologize).

I'll answer your by you listening to that message. All of your questions are answered in that message.

[seal]

ahahah... SEAL. I'll gracefully bow out. YOUR RIGHT! About EVERYTHING...LOL.

I'll overlook you purposely sidestepped what Devin and I said.

Guys like Edwards preached a good message on Sundays, and then ENSLAVED possibly your ancestors, my wife's ancestors...and never blinked an eye, or shed a tear.... and then went and sat down at his dinner table and ate the produce his "animals" sweated, and bleed over. "But BLESS GOD he's a believer (got that from Paul Washer's sermon...LOL)".

LOL. This convo has really went down south when Christian brothers only see what they want to see based on some good ole sermons. Geez.

I'm outti.

Devin, I highly suggest you opt out in this one too. Because obviously reason, common sense have flown out the window.

Not just good sermons, Great sermons ;) .... Christians brothers have always disagreed especially when it comes to Edwards. All I ask is that we take in the Truth and Spit out the bones. Edwards was a Heretic when it comes to the Curse of Ham, but he was a saint when it came to Theology. All of God's Elect came with flaws yet God knew this before the foundation of the world. Unfortunately, saints today don't see their flaws as being that bad but I recall a scripture... Breaking one, means you break them all....hmmm....Have a good day Vic my Puerto Rican COOKIE....:D

[Devin]

Hmmm.... First of all you don't know if he had conviction or not, that's something inward. Also if you are God's Elect you are doing just that sinning daily, so don't ask me a question as if you are living perfect lil homie.... Puh-Please.... ;)

chill seal.i said sin WITHOUT conviction.meaning you just sin sin sin sin and dont repent.like u comit adultry all day.do u think if u comit adultry all day without repenting and turning to the Lord EVEN IF u know your bible that you will honestly inherit the kingdom of God?i think not brother.


1.im not a JE BASHER.
2.if dude can preach then GOOD.im glad:)
3.i beliver the man was wrong for slaver.do you?

if u do then fine.im done with the issue.but if u believe he wasnt then this is why this issue will never die out.

[seal]

First of all respect me even if you don't like me. (yeah I was wrong for using Cookie and I apologize).

I'll answer your by you listening to that message. All of your questions are answered in that message.

Stop waiting on Piper to answer the questions I posed to you.... Don't assume I don't like you b/c..... Well maybe you can assume that, but as a brother in Christ I have to Love you and try to keep peace as much be within me.... ;)

Can you answer the questions. Vic jumped off this boat and Eternal is the only person to even try and give an answer. Peter says to give an answer for your Faith. What say ye????

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[seal]

chill seal.i said sin WITHOUT conviction.meaning you just sin sin sin sin and dont repent.like u comit adultry all day.do u think if u comit adultry all day without repenting and turning to the Lord EVEN IF u know your bible that you will honestly inherit the kingdom of God?i think not brother.


1.im not a JE BASHER.
2.if dude can preach then GOOD.im glad:)
3.i beliver the man was wrong for slaver.do you?

if u do then fine.im done with the issue.but if u believe he wasnt then this is why this issue will never die out.

Once again none of us know if he felt conviction or not. However we do know that his son learned from him and was an Abolitionist. Tis is true...:D


You better get to know your Bible lil homie.... God didn't have men and women die to get these scripts to you just so you can blow it off :eek: .... Reading... it's fundamental ;)

[Devin]

Once again none of us know if he felt conviction or not. However we do know that his son learned from him and was an Abolitionist. Tis is true...:D


You better get to know your Bible lil homie.... God didn't have men and women die to get these scripts to you just so you can blow it off :eek: .... Reading... it's fundamental ;)

excuse me but how are you assuming that im not reading the Bible?

and you are correct.i do NOT know if JE was convicted.but i cant assumed he was conflicted.i dont know how dude got down when it came to slave owning.

[seal]

this was never the issue, you'd like to make it that so you can have an arguement..but its neve been about that.

Its about someone who made up his mind, and carried out the horrific act of ENSLAVING people against their will in order to benefit financially. Period. He owned, and supported slavery till his death. There is no record of him every changing his mind, or acknowledging how horrific slavery REALLY was! If your arguement is based of the possibility that he could have said a quick prayer before he croaked, then you really have nothing (in terms of your arguement, or even sounding remotely legit). Stop making the issue about what YOU want it to be about. Its about a consisten lifestyle contrary to Gods Word. I guess you would call that "a carnal Christianity"..LOL.

So I guess Samson and Solomon and Lot went to Hell as well b/c we don't see or have evidence that they repented. Is this what you are saying TERD COOKIE??? I'm sure Solomon benefitted a lot from his hundreds of wives and concubines, wouldn't you say :D . But do you dare call Solomon a Carnal Saint??? Puh-Please jive turkey.... Why don't you get off the ship before it sails and we get in deep water, you know you can't swim.... :rolleyes: ;)

[DJ Links]

Stop waiting on Piper to answer the questions I posed to you.... Don't assume I don't like you b/c..... Well maybe you can assume that, but as a brother in Christ I have to Love you and try to keep peace as much be within me.... ;)

Can you answer the questions. Vic jumped off this boat and Eternal is the only person to even try and give an answer. Peter says to give an answer for your Faith. What say ye????

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Since you aren't hearing me

http://www.lessontutor.com/asl_when.jpg
WHEN
http://www.lessontutor.com/ASLyou1.gif
YOU
http://www.lessontutor.com/ASLsee.gif
SEE
http://www.lessontutor.com/aslwhat2.gif
WHAT
http://www.lessontutor.com/asl_the.gif
THE

message says then your questions that you are asking me would have been answered. I am going to let the sermon speak for me.

I'm done.

[seal]

Yo,

I'm going to leave this subject alone due to some p.m.'s I've received. However, let it be known and teach ya childlin, don't mess with Johnathan Edwards b/c that's my boi!!! :D


PROTESTANTS 4 LIFE!!! :p

[KFB]

well, at least we know the real reason you were defending him so much. (him being "ya boy" n' all). I'm wondering if thats what he referred to his male slaves as? "hey BOI come hurr, do this do that... what? CRACk!..... take that boi!... CRACK!... hurry up and pick my cotton so I can have your mom sew me a nice white shirt to preach in".

Real talk. But thats prolly what happened.


heyooooooo!

lol:eek:

[seal]

well, at least we know the real reason you were defending him so much. (him being "ya boy" n' all). I'm wondering if thats what he referred to his male slaves as? "hey BOI come hurr, do this do that... what? CRACk!..... take that boi!... CRACK!... hurry up and pick my cotton so I can have your mom sew me a nice white shirt to preach in".

Real talk. But thats prolly what happened.


heyooooooo!

You see I told ya'll to watch them cats of the Spanish Decent too :p .... Ya'll thought it was a Game...Yokes on you....... Vic did that tooo good.... It's in ya genes brutha :D

Okay I'm really done now, unless Vic da Puerto Rican Cookie posts again..:rolleyes:

[Devin]

check ya pm seal.

[seal]

I mean, seriously... can you imagine SEAL trying to talk doctrine to Edwards back in the day on his plantation? WOW... it would sound like the 4th of July with all the cracking sound that would come preceding that attempt to dialouge! Think about THAT seal! AND Kerry... really, think about that.


http://www.understandingrace.org/images/482x270/society/resisting_slavery.jpg

Or I may have even been getting whipped trying to talk Doctrine with your great......great Grand Papi Cookito....LOL...ROFL.... You know ya'll had slaves too.... I would have been getting whooped for telling him that the Spanish KJV isn't the only version we have to read..... No Cookito, we can read the ESV too senor..... as the whipped cracked and I said my name..... seal...seal....sealtacus da reformer....LOL....

[Devin]

haha.after peeping this thread ive learned a few things.

1.Seal is sensitive:p
2.Seal doesnt respond to Pm's or any question by Me.unless im stroking his ego:p
3.im hungry and want Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29:D
4.that pic Vic posted was kinda hilarious.
5.Seals response didnt have that "comic edge" i was looking for so its not comparable and i believe he couldve came with a better "come back":D

[eternal]

haha.after peeping this thread ive learned a few things.

1.Seal is sensitive:p
2.Seal doesnt respond to Pm's or any question by Me.unless im stroking his ego:p
3.im hungry and want Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29:D
4.that pic Vic posted was kinda hilarious.
5.Seals response didnt have that "comic edge" i was looking for so its not comparable and i believe he couldve came with a better "come back":D

6. Seal is a lot nicer to Vic than he is to the rest of us. LOL. I guess its the power of the ban :p

[seal]

6. Seal is a lot nicer to Vic than he is to the rest of us. LOL. I guess its the power of the ban :p

Amen to that.... ;) Don't act like you ain't nicer to Vic too....:D

[Devin]

:) Seal still hasnt responded to my PM.

[eternal]

Amen to that.... ;) Don't act like you ain't nicer to Vic too....:D

You should ask him about a certain phone call we had, lol

[The_Expositor]

well, at least we know the real reason you were defending him so much. (him being "ya boy" n' all). I'm wondering if thats what he referred to his male slaves as? "hey BOI come hurr, do this do that... what? CRACk!..... take that boi!... CRACK!... hurry up and pick my cotton so I can have your mom sew me a nice white shirt to preach in".

Real talk. But thats prolly what happened.


heyooooooo!


http://www.tribes.org/content/articles/npowers/slavery.jpg

Come on, Vic. That's not fair. You know very well that not all slave holders were that way.

[seal]

hahaha... yeah, basically.. SEAL = NOT FUNNY


VIC = PUERTO RICAN HATER/COOKIE... :rolleyes:

[seal]

Now Expositor... brova'.... I know (i hope) you dont want to discuss the "level" or meanness between the different slave owners. Thats not the point. c'mon famo, you know that.


Well I'm sure he'll at least answer your questions unlike you ;) :cool:

[Devin]

http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3

:)

this definitely helped me out.

[Tarii_2sweet]

Remeber, they saw blacks as animals back then so they actually didn't think they were doing anything wrong by enslaving black, which is silly,christians where the main ones back then owning slaves back then.

[The_Expositor]

Now Expositor... brova'.... I know (i hope) you dont want to discuss the "level" or meanness between the different slave owners. Thats not the point. c'mon famo, you know that.

Yes. This I know. But I still don't think it was fair of you to imply that Edwards would have responded in that manner.

[eternal]

Yes. This I know. But I still don't think it was fair of you to imply that Edwards would have responded in that manner.

He supportted the institution. He held it up. And by supporting the institution he gave approval to the slave trade. He is complicit to the whole thing

[eternal]

The more kats look at how disquisting slavery really was. The more i "hope" kats will stop jockin' Edwards.

One thing about that. I am not reformed or a Calvinist in any sort of way. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

But we have to acknowledge that truth is truth regardless of who says it. I read works from athiests, Muslims, Jews, and all sorts of different types of Christians. I read stuff from those who think little of the bible or are overly critical of it (ie Jesus Seminar). I have found truthful statements from all of them, and have incorporated all that truth into my own frame of mind.

Edwards' sin doesn't disqualify the true things he said. And for the reformed/calvnist people, that is in large abundance.

I think his true statements are far less, but I can still apreciate his brilliant mind and takes on scripture. And I can learn from his life.

We can all learn from each other, warts and all.

So those who "jock" Edwards, I am sure it is for his true statements (or what they perceive to be true statements) and not the false ones.

[BondServant]

lol at the deleted threads:rolleyes:

[Devin]

vic:

http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3

this gave me more insight.

[jnorman888]

Remeber, they saw blacks as animals back then so they actually didn't think they were doing anything wrong by enslaving black, which is silly,christians where the main ones back then owning slaves back then.

True

[jnorman888]

He supportted the institution. He held it up. And by supporting the institution he gave approval to the slave trade. He is complicit to the whole thing

Did Edwards write anything about abolitionists?

[eternal]

Did Edwards write anything about abolitionists?

Yes, I read one thing, there may be more.

http://www.yaleslavery.org/WhoYaleHonors/je.html


"If [the critics of slave owners] continue to cry out against those who keep Negro slaves," they would show themselves to be hypocrites, because they too benefited from the slave trade. "Let them also fully and thoroughly vindicate themselves and their own practice in partaking of negroes' slavery," he charged, "or confess that there is no hurt in partaking in it," otherwise "let 'em own that their objections are not conscientious."

[The_Expositor]

He supportted the institution. He held it up. And by supporting the institution he gave approval to the slave trade. He is complicit to the whole thing

I'm talkin' about him treating his slaves the way Vic described. I don't think it's fair to say that he'd talk to them and treat them that way, especially since none of us were there. I hear the word "slander" on this board quite often, and rightfully so because I think it does happen. But to me, this is slander. Yes, we all agree that he got it wrong. But, that doesn't mean that he was as vile with his words as Vic suggested. That's my contention.

[The_Expositor]

If Edwards didnt see anything wrong with slavery, if he didnt see anything wrong with viewing those africans as animals or property, why would I think that he didnt? I mean, this was common practice back then. common practice for a common slave owner right? he obviously didnt see anything wrong with enslaving people. i mean... i think its more than fair. logical, probable... heck, Edwards could very well have beaten the man in the picture. real talk.

Do you have any quotes from Edwards calling Blacks animals? Did he truly view them as animals? If you believe so, then please share with us proof to validate your claim. Not every slave owner treated their slaves as such. Yes, they were still slaves, and that's wrong. But to say that all the owners beat and called their slaves "Boy" all day is not accurate if you study history.

[eternal]

I'm talkin' about him treating his slaves the way Vic described. I don't think it's fair to say that he'd talk to them and treat them that way, especially since none of us were there. I hear the word "slander" on this board quite often, and rightfully so because I think it does happen. But to me, this is slander. Yes, we all agree that he got it wrong. But, that doesn't mean that he was as vile with his words as Vic suggested. That's my contention.

That is a fair point. But we can't minimize how HUGE this issue was at that time. If he disagreed with the abuse, surely we would expect commentary on it, as we find from people like John Wesley and others.

Silence does in fact equate with compliance. If he didn't call his slaves the n word, or woop them until their skin fell off or cut off their genitals....I am glad. But those things were happening, and he upheld the system that utilized those methods. And he never spoke against it.

Imagine if a modern American preacher NEVER spoke against fornication or greed. These are the issues of our time.

Remember in the post slavery era the big question was "the negro issue." Everyone talked about it. No matter where you go. Reading the autobiography of an Ex-Colored man shows this in a very fascinating way. EVERYONE was discussing it, because it was the major issue of the day.

And in Edwards' time you couldn't escape the issue of slavery and the horrible treatment of slaves. We know he supported slaves, and we know he didn't speak out against the treatment of slaves that was so prevelant.

[The_Expositor]

That is a fair point. But we can't minimize how HUGE this issue was at that time. If he disagreed with the abuse, surely we would expect commentary on it, as we find from people like John Wesley and others.

Silence does in fact equate with compliance. If he didn't call his slaves the n word, or woop them until their skin fell off or cut off their genitals....I am glad. But those things were happening, and he upheld the system that utilized those methods. And he never spoke against it.

Imagine if a modern American preacher NEVER spoke against fornication or greed. These are the issues of our time.

Remember in the post slavery era the big question was "the negro issue." Everyone talked about it. No matter where you go. Reading the autobiography of an Ex-Colored man shows this in a very fascinating way. EVERYONE was discussing it, because it was the major issue of the day.

And in Edwards' time you couldn't escape the issue of slavery and the horrible treatment of slaves. We know he supported slaves, and we know he didn't speak out against the treatment of slaves that was so prevelant.

Yeah, it's like hating sin and seeing people dying in their sins and not saying anything to them about it because we don't want to 'offend' them.

[eternal]

Yeah, it's like hating sin and seeing people dying in their sins and not saying anything to them about it because we don't want to 'offend' them.

yup

[Devin]

i hope you all listen to this

http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3

this helped me understand something about Edwards.

[Devin]

the problem is is that honestly..were not giving Edwards a fair chance.im not speaking his theology.i mean his character.see we gotta examine the BIG picture.not just "o he was a white man who owned slaves"..we gotta examine it ALL.we have to put ourselves in the shoes of Edwards.we just cant look at him in 2007 as a Racist Cracker.it needs proper examination.i think alot of us tend to struggle with that because Slavery was such a cruel and horrific act and the effects remain to this day.alot of bitter folks out.alot of confused people looking for answers.

[BondServant]

the problem is is that honestly..were not giving Edwards a fair chance.im not speaking his theology.i mean his character.see we gotta examine the BIG picture.not just "o he was a white man who owned slaves"..we gotta examine it ALL.we have to put ourselves in the shoes of Edwards.we just cant look at him in 2007 as a Racist Cracker.it needs proper examination.i think alot of us tend to struggle with that because Slavery was such a cruel and horrific act and the effects remain to this day.alot of bitter folks out.alot of confused people looking for answers.

yo fam, edit that

[The_Expositor]

again expositor, im not trying to discuss how well he did or didnt treat his slaves. what did you think about my example of the pedafile. I'm just trying to show you that you are missing the main point. Edwards being a slave owner hasnt give me a reason to NOT think he didnt whoop on em'. Or at least have his people whoop on em'.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand your point. While he was totally wrong for owning slaves, there is still a Christian element to his life, and I think you might be overlooking that.

If someone is a rapist, I can't assume that they're also a murderer just because a lot of rapists also murder their victims.

Is it your belief that Edwards was not a Christian at all? Either way, to imply something about someone that you can't prove nor have ever heard or seen in print is......gossip. This man is long gone and can't defend himself any longer, so your claim cannot be substantiated, taco...(Sorry, I'm hungry and you kept talking about tortillas:D )

[Danielle]

Is it even logical to admonished men that conducted their lives in total disobedience to the scriptures, yet because they were theologically sound it erase their lives? The problem that is evident is that a person's life will be weight with the word of God, is God more please with JE's doctrine or with his heart? We all know that the answer is the HEART. You can be a preacher the studies theologies for years and just regurgitates them out of your mouth, but if the law is not found in his heart, is it still meaningful? We must remember that just like any other man JE was just that a man, a mere mortal with no way of saving himself or anyone else, which means that is theologies and writings were and are not enough to save anyone not even himself, if his life is not properly aligned with the word of GOD, then everything else is meaningless. We cannot justify his sins with making excuses such as "those were the times that he lived in, or he was good to his slaves, or he was an advocate against brutal slavery" because at the core the atrocities of the American Slave Trade were not pleasing to God. Just the same with our sins we cannot justify them by stating that "we did spread the gospel to sinners, or I read my word everyday, or I even was ordained a minister" if your life does not line up with the WORD, isn't everything else meaningless? Is God please with those other things so much that He is willing to disregard all other of sins? No the truth remains that the Word states that those who are involved with slave trading are as bad as murderer, for him to be such a great theologian yet, consciously choose to disregard that scripture overrides every possible indication that he should be admonished, as a great Christian crusader, what type of fruit did he bear? what type of life did he live in the view of his slaves? Has anyone thought about that, if he should be a witness to a dieing world, then how good of a witness was he to his slaves, regarding to the love of Christ? If he was seen as an example of Christ by his slaves, what does that say about Christ? that he condones slavery, that it is pleasing in His eyes? Was he being an effective and accurate witness, an ambassador of Christ, a slave to Christ with his life?

[eyesofphaith]

Is it even logical to admonished men that conducted their lives in total disobedience to the scriptures, yet because they were theologically sound it erase their lives? The problem that is evident is that a person's life will be weight with the word of God, is God more please with JE's doctrine or with his heart? We all know that the answer is the HEART. You can be a preacher the studies theologies for years and just regurgitates them out of your mouth, but if the law is not found in his heart, is it still meaningful? We must remember that just like any other man JE was just that a man, a mere mortal with no way of saving himself or anyone else, which means that is theologies and writings were and are not enough to save anyone not even himself, if his life is not properly aligned with the word of GOD, then everything else is meaningless. We cannot justify his sins with making excuses such as "those were the times that he lived in, or he was good to his slaves, or he was an advocate against brutal slavery" because at the core the atrocities of the American Slave Trade were not pleasing to God. Just the same with our sins we cannot justify them by stating that "we did spread the gospel to sinners, or I read my word everyday, or I even was ordained a minister" if your life does not line up with the WORD, isn't everything else meaningless? Is God please with those other things so much that He is willing to disregard all of sins? No the truth remains that the Word states that those who are involved with slave trading are as bad as murderer, for his to be such a great theologian yet, consciously choose to disregard that scripture overrides every possible indication that he should be admonished, as a great Christian crusader, what type of fruit did he bear? what type of life did he live in the view of his slaves? Has anyone thought about that, if he should be a witness to a dieing world, then how good of a witness was he to his slaves, regarding to the love of Christ? If he was seen as an example of Christ by his slaves, what does that say about Christ? that he condones slavery, that it is pleasing in His eyes? Was he being an effective and accurate witness, an ambassador of Christ, a slave to Christ with his life?

I think we all can benefit from keeping in mind what this sister said.




BUMP!

[ROB]

I also believe we should listen to what Danielle had to say because God DOES ponder the heart, not just head knowledge.

I would also add this. Since he believed that he couldn't lose his salvation, maybe that also had something to do with him living the way a lived and preaching what he preached. I believed JE lived what he preached to the best of his ability. He believed that God had chosen him to be one of His "elect" and that nothing he did or didn't do would change that since he believed he did nothing to earn it. That's what he preached and that's what he lived. I respect him for that, I always respect people who walk what they talk, although I don't believe what he taught or did was right.

With the Roots series coming out again, I pray we all watch it and allow our faith to help us imagine and even feel what it would be like as a slave during those days or even a slave owner. After this we should ask ourselves a question. Knowing what we know about Christ could we really in good conscience own slaves, watch how they were treated, particiapte in it and not be convicted of what we are doing.

Thanks DJ Links for starting this thread.

[BondServant]

ROB,

Would it be safe for me to conclude that you live a legalistic life and that you trust in your own righteousness for your salvation?

[DJ Links]

I am glad this thread sparked much needed discussion on the board, but I hope the main point I was trying to make wasn't lost.

If anyone hasn't heard this message from a Sherard Burns (http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3) (a black man who holds to reformed theology) on JE I recommend all listen. He makes some great points.

Again I am glad that this discussion on JE is taking place because it needs to. In my opinion too long there has been a double standard on this board of going after certain preachers who are not in our perspective backyard and we won't even look at those in our own backyard with the same scriptural microscope.

Specific scrips were used on this board to show JE was living foul in respect to his owning of slaves and showed that scripture says the way you live is also akin to good doctrine. Some disagreed due to who pointed that distinction out and then basically agreed somewhere else.

Fam there is a double standard. If we are going to put one under the microscope for one thing then we can't get upset when another is put under the same microscope. Equity fam equity is all I am calling for.

Now we can really get into the implications of slavery and the church in another thread (if you listen to that message dude says something deep about what Edwards could have done but didnt) but I think we have picked the bones dry regarding his slave owning and I can't and won't stop anyone from discussing further if they so choose.

Thanks for listening.

[Devin]

is it safe to say that edwards is like creflo though links?

because im not arguing the "double standard issue"

i just thought that the the JE supporters couldnt admit he was wrong and that what he did was sin.

but we cant compare someone like edwards to creflo or long.simply because alot of people believe Edwards theology to be BIBLICAL.i cant vouch for that honestly because i never heard a sermon.but ive heard others like olsteen,cref and etc. and i can say that a majority of it isnt Biblically supported type of teaching.

so i guess you possibly are confusing things here.when people bash Creflo or Jakes it isnt because of their personal life.its the TEACHINGS that are being bashed.
when we talk about Edwards were talking about his LIFESTYLE not his teachings.

so there cant be a Double standard with the Judgment that the Reformed Camp uses because its always been about the Doctrine.so im not sure how Edwards and Creflo are the same.i dont see how Edwards and Hinn are the same.

[DJ Links]

is it safe to say that edwards is like creflo though links?

because im not arguing the "double standard issue"

i just thought that the the JE supporters couldnt admit he was wrong and that what he did was sin.

but we cant compare someone like edwards to creflo or long.simply because alot of people believe Edwards theology to be BIBLICAL.i cant vouch for that honestly because i never heard a sermon.but ive heard others like olsteen,cref and etc. and i can say that a majority of it isnt Biblically supported type of teaching.

so i guess you possibly are confusing things here.when people bash Creflo or Jakes it isnt because of their personal life.its the TEACHINGS that are being bashed.
when we talk about Edwards were talking about his LIFESTYLE not his teachings.

so there cant be a Double standard with the Judgment that the Reformed Camp uses because its always been about the Doctrine.so im not sure how Edwards and Creflo are the same.i dont see how Edwards and Hinn are the same.

I only say there is a double standard when Paul said that the manner in which you live is also akin to good doctrine. The 2 go together. The double standard also comes in when some have continually brought up the false convert mantra but when asked the specific question "can someone live in unrepentant sin and still be considered saved?" there was no answer. On that basis alone I believe there is a double standard and that we don't apply the rule of scripture equally to all.

[seal]

Yo,

Once again, I've been ignored. Do people listen to the voice of scripture or their own logic and emotions? I posed questions that only one person tried to answer out of the 20 or more who posted. It looks like people would rather voice their opinions and condemnations then search the scriptures for either examples of this issue or counsel. I have a clear conscious that Johnathan Edwards was a brother in Christ. I see in scripture where great men of Faith like David, Samson, Gideon, Solomon, and Jacob committed terrible sins even worst then Edwards but it was God who showed Mercy on them. Works Salvation is one thing, but to say that God couldn't have been with this man b/c of his habitual sin is another. It sickens me to think that people on Holy Culture take themselves out of this category as habitual sinners. As if you are being Justified and Sanctified by something inherently good in you. It's ridiculous.

I wish we could have a Bible study online so we could go through the Book of Genesis alone and see our judgements are skewed b/c according to the judgements leashed on Edwards on here non of the saints I listed above were saints either. That's if we were consistent. Yet many refuse to be consistent b/c they are being bias and prejudice. Am I not an African American? People may think that I'm bias b/c Edwards was Reformed, well you are right. That doesn't take away the facts of what scripture tells about our saints and their terrible habitual sins but we hold this habitual sin against Edwards as his Tombstone.

When you start thinking you are a more worthier believer then someone else b/c of their sin...THINK AGAIN COOKIE!!! :mad:

Grace and Peace,
seal

[DJ Links]

Yo,

Once again, I've been ignored. Do people listen to the voice of scripture or their own logic and emotions? I posed questions that only one person tried to answer out of the 20 or more who posted. It looks like people would rather voice their opinions and condemnations then search the scriptures for either examples of this issue or counsel. I have a clear conscious that Johnathan Edwards was a brother in Christ. I see in scripture where great men of Faith like David, Samson, Gideon, Solomon, and Jacob committed terrible sins even worst then Edwards but it was God who showed Mercy on them. Works Salvation is one thing, but to say that God couldn't have been with this man b/c of his habitual sin is another. It sickens me to think that people on Holy Culture take themselves out of this category as habitual sinners. As if you are being Justified and Sanctified by something inherently good in you. It's ridiculous.

I wish we could have a Bible study online so we could go through the Book of Genesis alone and see our judgements are skewed b/c according to the judgements leashed on Edwards on here non of the saints I listed above were saints either. That's if we were consistent. Yet many refuse to be consistent b/c they are being bias and prejudice. Am I not an African American? People may think that I'm bias b/c Edwards was Reformed, well you are right. That doesn't take away the facts of what scripture tells about our saints and their terrible habitual sins but we hold this habitual sin against Edwards as his Tombstone.

When you start thinking you are a more worthier believer then someone else b/c of their sin...THINK AGAIN COOKIE!!! :mad:

Grace and Peace,
seal

Seal I'm done with the this thread. I agree with this and will say its my conclusion on this issue as well.


One thing I appreiciate about the sermon is the fact that when he spoke on the "culture context" he did so in the sense to better help people understand why Christian men could be slave owners but he did not do it in the sense of justifying it. This is the balance that has been missed by many people especially those I use to attend school with. I also liked how he dealt with the "slaves were treated better" argumentation that is often used by simply stating the obvious that "they are still slaves". Probably my favorite part of the sermon is when he deals with the question, "Why should we listen to Edwards" and he mainly addresses it to black people. He focusses on the sovereignty of God and how God can still use people to present truth despite the extreme error in their life. Bro. Burns articulated in a much more clearer and excellent fashion many of the thoughts that I have had on this particular topic and we both have reached the same conclusion. I would encourage all to go peep his sermon if not for you but as a resource you could take from to better help people understand this issue. Grace & Peace

[dremarshall]

Yo,

Once again, I've been ignored. Do people listen to the voice of scripture or their own logic and emotions? I posed questions that only one person tried to answer out of the 20 or more who posted. It looks like people would rather voice their opinions and condemnations then search the scriptures for either examples of this issue or counsel. I have a clear conscious that Johnathan Edwards was a brother in Christ. I see in scripture where great men of Faith like David, Samson, Gideon, Solomon, and Jacob committed terrible sins even worst then Edwards but it was God who showed Mercy on them. Works Salvation is one thing, but to say that God couldn't have been with this man b/c of his habitual sin is another. It sickens me to think that people on Holy Culture take themselves out of this category as habitual sinners. As if you are being Justified and Sanctified by something inherently good in you. It's ridiculous.

I wish we could have a Bible study online so we could go through the Book of Genesis alone and see our judgements are skewed b/c according to the judgements leashed on Edwards on here non of the saints I listed above were saints either. That's if we were consistent. Yet many refuse to be consistent b/c they are being bias and prejudice. Am I not an African American? People may think that I'm bias b/c Edwards was Reformed, well you are right. That doesn't take away the facts of what scripture tells about our saints and their terrible habitual sins but we hold this habitual sin against Edwards as his Tombstone.

When you start thinking you are a more worthier believer then someone else b/c of their sin...THINK AGAIN COOKIE!!! :mad:

Grace and Peace,
seal
Yo Seal I don't think the issue is if Jonathan Edwards is a brotha or not, it's the fact that he is no different than Kenneth Hagin. Dad Hagin is dead, but I never seen you or anyone "reformed" so to speak run up in here doing what you're doing now. See the issue is the double standard, the hypocrisy & that is as much sin as owning slaves. I've seen cats in one breath say you're an idiot, but I can't say Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29? It's hypocrites & now the question is still Why the double standard? Now I've seen it said "Edwards preached truth so his lifestyle doesn't matter" but isn't your lifestyle the fruit of that which you study, learn?

[BlackCalvinist]

http://ia300129.us.archive.org/2/items/AGod-EntrancedVisionofAllThings/SherardBurns.TheRichesofEdwardsforAllRaces.mp3

[dremarshall]

Yo one last thing I'd like to add as water reflects the face the heart reflects the man. I do believe it's possible to have a heart for something, but not ever get it right. Some of us deal with lasciviousness quite regularly I think that's what ol' boy was dealing with, but again this thread wasn't about Edwards it was about you. Yes you who is reading it, are you a hypocrite or are you double minded?

[seal]

Yo Seal I don't think the issue is if Jonathan Edwards is a brotha or not, it's the fact that he is no different than Kenneth Hagin. Dad Hagin is dead, but I never seen you or anyone "reformed" so to speak run up in here doing what you're doing now. See the issue is the double standard, the hypocrisy & that is as much sin as owning slaves. I've seen cats in one breath say you're an idiot, but I can't say Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29Eph. 4:29? It's hypocrites & now the question is still Why the double standard? Now I've seen it said "Edwards preached truth so his lifestyle doesn't matter" but isn't your lifestyle the fruit of that which you study, learn?

Okay once again I don't think people are thinking here at all. B/c no one can correllate any scriptural Truth to back their answers. First of all Hagin and Edwards shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. That's just my opinion. But to say that Edwards lifestyle contradicts his Truth is nothing new. Do you know what the scripture tells of the Life of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac? Their lifestyle at times didn't reflect that they knew God at all nor worshipped him. But yet God showed Mercy to them. Hagin wouldn't know Truth if it tapped him on the shoulder and smacked him. That's just my opinion. But what I say about these saints is Truth and recorded in scripture. God used wicked sinners for his Glory. If you don't believe that, then look in the mirror. There's no double standard. In my opinion and what I've concluded from scripture Hagin and friends are preaching a different Gospel then the one past down through Church History. If you don't like that statement, take it to the Theo Boards and debate it.

Nobodies sin is justified nor could it be, but doctrine is to be judged by scripture.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[Devin]

Okay once again I don't think people are thinking here at all. B/c no one can correllate any scriptural Truth to back their answers. First of all Hagin and Edwards shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. That's just my opinion. But to say that Edwards lifestyle contradicts his Truth is nothing new. Do you know the what scripture tells of the Life of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac? Their lifestyle at times didn't reflect that they knew God at all nor worshipped him. But yet God showed Mercy to them. Hagin wouldn't know Truth if it tapped him on the shoulder and smacked him. That's just my opinion. But what I say about these saints is Truth and recorded in scripture. God used wicked sinners for his Glory. If you don't believe that, then look in the mirror. There's no double standard. In my opinion and what I've concluded from scripture Hagin and friends are preaching a different Gospel then the one past down through Church History. If you don't like that statement, take it to the Theo Boards and debate it.

Nobodies sin is justified nor could it be, but doctrine is to be judged by scripture.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Agreed.

[Devin]

ive been thinking about this Edwards issue and peeping the thread.i cant help to think that some people are saying that If we can support Edwards knowing that he owned slaves then somehow Creflo,TD,Hagin and Hinn can be justified aswell.is this true?

i would have to disagree.first Edwards doesnt preach a false gospel.Creflo,Jakes,Hinn and Hagin do.so theres no way the Doctrine can be argued here and there is no double standard.if Edwards preached Heresy then he would be up there with Creflo and them.but he's not.also Seal DOES have a point when mentioning great men of the bible who have commited Adultry,Incest,Murder,Coveting and ETC.But these are men of the Bible we look up to.So hows it different with Edwards?alot of people think Edwards was some Racist Cracker Bigot.but how do we know?peep that sermon that i posted up.it will explain as to why he owned slaves.people are saying there is a Double Moral Standard when theyre isnt.Edwards and Hagin Dont compare because Hagin preaches false doctrine.Edwards doesnt.both men have sinned.like we ALL do.but we cant label Edwards a heretic because he sinned.thats crazy.if we were to operate under this logic the Piper and Washer are Bonafied HERETICS.Every great man of the Bible is Bonafied HERETIC.this Logic isnt even making any sense and is outta line.

[dremarshall]

ive been thinking about this Edwards issue and peeping the thread.i cant help to think that some people are saying that If we can support Edwards knowing that he owned slaves then somehow Creflo,TD,Hagin and Hinn can be justified aswell.is this true?

i would have to disagree.first Edwards doesnt preach a false gospel.Creflo,Jakes,Hinn and Hagin do.so theres no way the Doctrine can be argued here and there is no double standard.if Edwards preached Heresy then he would be up there with Creflo and them.but he's not.also Seal DOES have a point when mentioning great men of the bible who have commited Adultry,Incest,Murder,Coveting and ETC.But these are men of the Bible we look up to.
Loot what was Edwards doctrine sir, in your own words

[Devin]

Loot what was Edwards doctrine sir, in your own words

if u look up above posts you will find out that im just repeating what the others have said about his doctrine.i know Life is reading his material and i believe she has some of it on her website.but ive stated before that i havent heard his stuff and im speaking from the perspective of those who had.

[dremarshall]

Okay once again I don't think people are thinking here at all. B/c no one can correllate any scriptural Truth to back their answers. First of all Hagin and Edwards shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence. That's just my opinion. But to say that Edwards lifestyle contradicts his Truth is nothing new. Do you know what the scripture tells of the Life of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac? Their lifestyle at times didn't reflect that they knew God at all nor worshipped him. But yet God showed Mercy to them. Hagin wouldn't know Truth if it tapped him on the shoulder and smacked him. That's just my opinion. But what I say about these saints is Truth and recorded in scripture. God used wicked sinners for his Glory. If you don't believe that, then look in the mirror. There's no double standard. In my opinion and what I've concluded from scripture Hagin and friends are preaching a different Gospel then the one past down through Church History. If you don't like that statement, take it to the Theo Boards and debate it.

Nobodies sin is justified nor could it be, but doctrine is to be judged by scripture.

Hail King Jesus,
seal
Seal the issue is not necessarily if Edwrads was Christian or not, I don't debate that & I don't think anyone else does. I don't know much about edwards, but in hearing part of the message BC posted, I believe dude was a brother as I just stated. It's interesting that you come at me defensive although I partly agreed with you on the life of Edwards in my last post:rolleyes: Hagin's gospel is no different from what's in the bible my dude sorry;) & I don't debate or argue, but we can discuss doctrine all day, but that will prove nothing sir, cause you can go straight to hell knowing "sound doctrine" Matter of Fact, Satan is a better theologan than anyone on this board, but is still going to Hell. See the study of God does nothing my dude, you can study Michael Jordan tapes all day, go to the MJ training camp all day but somehow still end up like Dickie Simpkins. Dude it's the life, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have come to give you life & life more abundantly He would've came to give you logical explanations of scripture. I'm not saying Edwards is in hell or nothing like that, but I will say that he ain't no different from Finney, but we'll see when we get to heaven

[dremarshall]

i would have to disagree.first Edwards doesnt preach a false gospel.Creflo,Jakes,Hinn and Hagin do.so theres no way the Doctrine can be argued here and there is no double standard..
How would you know? You just said you never read dudes stuff? You can't go around believeing everything you read on HCR or see on TV, that makes your doctrine just as faulty as anyone. Why cause you only believe what you hear. Man read up kid stop being changing direction with the wind,

[Devin]

How would you know? You just said you never read dudes stuff? You can't go around believeing everything you read on HCR or see on TV, that makes your doctrine just as faulty as anyone. Why cause you only believe what you hear. Man read up kid stop being changing direction with the wind,

aint no one changing direction.i know for SURE that creflo is a Heretic.aint no one being "wishy washy".im just taking somethings into consideration here.at the end your looking for an excuse to back up people that cant preach biblical truth.Edwards is an escape goat.and you know it.id like to see you talk about David,Abraham and other Great men of God in the bible and say theyre being judged by a Doube Standard.i can guarantee it that if i listened to 50 Edwards sermons you will still look for soemthing to put me on blast.you fail everytime.

[Devin]

How would you know? You just said you never read dudes stuff? You can't go around believeing everything you read on HCR or see on TV, that makes your doctrine just as faulty as anyone. Why cause you only believe what you hear. Man read up kid stop being changing direction with the wind,

plus ive mentioned before that im relaying what others are saying.Seal believes this,Bondservant believes this.pretty much every JE supporter believes this.im just giving the message Dre.

[Devin]

but i'll be happy to listen to some Edwards sermons with you and compare them to Creflo's to see if they Biblically match:)

ps.i know about some of Edwards beliefs as the lean on a Calvinistic side.im not fully educate on his style of preaching but i am aware on some of his beliefs.

[seal]

ive been thinking about this Edwards issue and peeping the thread.i cant help to think that some people are saying that If we can support Edwards knowing that he owned slaves then somehow Creflo,TD,Hagin and Hinn can be justified aswell.is this true?

i would have to disagree.first Edwards doesnt preach a false gospel.Creflo,Jakes,Hinn and Hagin do.so theres no way the Doctrine can be argued here and there is no double standard.if Edwards preached Heresy then he would be up there with Creflo and them.but he's not.also Seal DOES have a point when mentioning great men of the bible who have commited Adultry,Incest,Murder,Coveting and ETC.But these are men of the Bible we look up to.So hows it different with Edwards?alot of people think Edwards was some Racist Cracker Bigot.but how do we know?peep that sermon that i posted up.it will explain as to why he owned slaves.people are saying there is a Double Moral Standard when theyre isnt.Edwards and Hagin Dont compare because Hagin preaches false doctrine.Edwards doesnt.both men have sinned.like we ALL do.but we cant label Edwards a heretic because he sinned.thats crazy.if we were to operate under this logic the Piper and Washer are Bonafied HERETICS.Every great man of the Bible is Bonafied HERETIC.this Logic isnt even making any sense and is outta line.

Thank the Lord that someone sees the light!!!

There's not one place in my post where I have defended Edwards for him owning slaves. That's another debate all in itself. I even said that I'd BANG Edwards on that Curse of Ham nonsense and that he's a HERETIC ON THAT POINT!!! However, when it comes to these other guys they are off on EVERY POINT!!! Not naming names, just turn on your T.V.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[Lynaz24]

Thank the Lord that someone sees the light!!!

There's not one place in my post where I have defended Edwards for him owning slaves. That's another debate all in itself. I even said that I'd BANG Edwards on that Curse of Ham nonsense and that he's a HERETIC ON THAT POINT!!! However, when it comes to these other guys they are off on EVERY POINT!!! Not naming names, just turn on your T.V.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Can you be a HERETIC on one point? Isn't a HERETIC a HERETIC? It's one way or the other right?

[Moody]

Thank the Lord that someone sees the light!!!

There's not one place in my post where I have defended Edwards for him owning slaves. That's another debate all in itself. I even said that I'd BANG Edwards on that Curse of Ham nonsense and that he's a HERETIC ON THAT POINT!!! However, when it comes to these other guys they are off on EVERY POINT!!! Not naming names, just turn on your T.V.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

Seal, you sure they are off on EVERY point? I challenge you to prove that. Pick you favorite "heretic" (let's assume you'd choose Benny Hinn) and show that every point he has made, he is off. You are exaggerating in order to bolster you argument.

http://www.franklesser.com/black_clown_college_files/black_clown_college.jpg

[seal]

Can you be a HERETIC on one point? Isn't a HERETIC a HERETIC? It's one way or the other right?

I think you're allowed one....LOL... ;) J/K...


I don't really believe in essentials b/c I believe every teaching is essential. Yet the Truth is no one has it all figured out. This is the purpose for debates b/c we need to Love on each other as we critically and exegetically examine the word of God for all it's virtue. God's Laws and Statues gives us God's Righteousness and reflect his Face. So as we analyze scripture we are able to weed out Heresy and learn from those who have gone before us for what they did right, and where they blowed it. Edwards blowed it when it came to the Curse of Ham, but he was right on Justification by Faith alone. It's a beautiful thing that God still shows Mercy even in our unbelief. But this isn't a Gray area. Christianity isn't a pool of Gray and we get in where we fit in.

One can be heretical on a few points but still be a believer. This answer isn't cut and dry though. One would have to give a Doctrinal Statement of Faith and we'd have to open the scripts and see if they are True. I.E. we've searched the script's on Edwards and found the Majority of his writings Biblically consistent. But when it comes to the curse of Ham, like the ideology of their time they missed that. Alot of people during that time believed that Heresy during that time of Edwards, but not the Puritans correct me if I'm wrong.



Hail King Jesus,
seal

[Quiet storm]

Yet the Truth is no one has it all figured out. This is the purpose for debates b/c we need to Love on each other as we critically and exegetically examine the word of God for all it's virtue.


Who is this and where did seal go? :confused:


just jk (kind of)

[seal]

Seal, you sure they are off on EVERY point? I challenge you to prove that. Pick you favorite "heretic" (let's assume you'd choose Benny Hinn) and show that every point he has made, he is off. You are exaggerating in order to bolster you argument.

http://www.franklesser.com/black_clown_college_files/black_clown_college.jpg

Well maybe you're right... Maybe I did exaggerate that point, but you'd have to prove it to me. If I pick up a book on Benny and his 9 person Trinity.... Oh let me take that back he made a correction... 6 persons in the Trinity I think he'd be skewed on pretty much all his views. The issue I think we'd run into is which Jesus Christ are you preaching, like always. He may be correct that Jesus saves but which one is he talking about. There are many false Christ in this world who mix in Truth and come up with an even bigger lie. So theres a balance and discussion we'd have to go through to see what's Truth or Lie.... You decide....

However, even though I exaggerated in your opinion you haven't posted or opened you mouth about my assertions until now. Why is that? Why didn't you answer my questions that I posted from scripture. When the convo is subjective everyone wants to hop in b/c they know it's a free for all but when them script's come up everybody ducks out, except for Eternal. Boi I tell ya....:mad:


Hail King Jesus,
seal

[Moody]

I think you're allowed one....LOL... ;) J/K...


I don't really believe in essentials b/c I believe every teaching is essential. Yet the Truth is no one has it all figured out. This is the purpose for debates b/c we need to Love on each other as we critically and exegetically examine the word of God for all it's virtue. God's Laws and Statues gives us God's Righteousness and reflect his Face. So as we analyze scripture we are able to weed out Heresy and learn from those who have gone before us for what they did right, and where they blowed it. Edwards blowed it when it came to the Curse of Ham, but he was right on Justification by Faith alone. It's a beautiful thing that God still shows Mercy even in our unbelief. But this isn't a Gray area. Christianity isn't a pool of Gray and we get in where we fit in.

One can be heretical on a few points but still be a believer. This answer isn't cut and dry though. One would have to give a Doctrinal Statement of Faith and we'd have to open the scripts and see if they are True. I.E. we've searched the script's on Edwards and found the Majority of his writings Biblically consistent. But when it comes to the curse of Ham, like the ideology of their time they missed that. Alot of people during that time believed that Heresy during that time of Edwards, but not the Puritans correct me if I'm wrong.



Hail King Jesus,
seal

I co-sign with everything that you stated. So I guess we can put Benny Hinn and Jonathan Edwards in the same group... believers who got some stuff wrong.

[Lynaz24]

I think you're allowed one....LOL... ;) J/K...


I don't really believe in essentials b/c I believe every teaching is essential. Yet the Truth is no one has it all figured out. This is the purpose for debates b/c we need to Love on each other as we critically and exegetically examine the word of God for all it's virtue. God's Laws and Statues gives us God's Righteousness and reflect his Face. So as we analyze scripture we are able to weed out Heresy and learn from those who have gone before us for what they did right, and where they blowed it. Edwards blowed it when it came to the Curse of Ham, but he was right on Justification by Faith alone. It's a beautiful thing that God still shows Mercy even in our unbelief. But this isn't a Gray area. Christianity isn't a pool of Gray and we get in where we fit in.

One can be heretical on a few points but still be a believer. This answer isn't cut and dry though. One would have to give a Doctrinal Statement of Faith and we'd have to open the scripts and see if they are True. I.E. we've searched the script's on Edwards and found the Majority of his writings Biblically consistent. But when it comes to the curse of Ham, like the ideology of their time they missed that. Alot of people during that time believed that Heresy during that time of Edwards, but not the Puritans correct me if I'm wrong.



Hail King Jesus,
seal

So in terms of like a TD Jakes..how does that fall..because the only argument against him I see on here deals with his wording in regards to the Trinity..Cuz honestly, I've read books by dude and seen him in person and they've been scripturally on point, but some on here will say that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, or that he is not saved because of his stance or view of the trinity

[seal]

Who is this and where did seal go? :confused:


just jk (kind of)


Well maybe you need to get to know the seal you abhor a little bit more.... I Love everyone on here and I'd rather have them hate me for the Truth then Love me b/c I'm a push over. And if I don't have the Truth, I pray for that person who does bang the Truth into me so I can give what I freely received. That's just how I operate.

[seal]

I co-sign with everything that you stated. So I guess we can put Benny Hinn and Jonathan Edwards in the same group... believers who got some stuff wrong.

Okay whatever Cookie :rolleyes: .... I'm glad you can see what you want to see in my post as if this is just a black and white issue. Well scripture does say they people would be carried like a cloud by every wind of Doctrine :rolleyes: Go Figure......

[BlackCalvinist]

So in terms of like a TD Jakes..how does that fall..because the only argument against him I see on here deals with his wording in regards to the Trinity..Cuz honestly, I've read books by dude and seen him in person and they've been scripturally on point, but some on here will say that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, or that he is not saved because of his stance or view of the trinity

Well.... you deny the Trinity, you're denying the God of the scriptures and worshipping an idol. The God of the Bible is Trinitarian - One in essense and nature, three in Person.

If you say that God is just ONE PERSON as Jakes does, you're not teaching the God of the Bible. You denying the other two people of the Trinity - and therefore, your 'god' is an idol, no matter how much 'Jesus' you scream about.

That's idolatry and makes you a non-Christian, no matter how nice and loving and non-confrontational about it you appear. Jakes has been approached by dozens of Trinitarian preachers, both privately and publicly. He has not changed his position, nor desired to clarify further because he says the issue doesn't matter to him (his own words: "I'm not a theologian"). If not, then you have no business being in the pulpit.

A person who doesn't care enough about the 1st and 2nd commandment to get the doctrine of God right and present it clearly doesn't worship the God of the scriptures.

[CHRISTion]

So in terms of like a TD Jakes..how does that fall..because the only argument against him I see on here deals with his wording in regards to the Trinity..Cuz honestly, I've read books by dude and seen him in person and they've been scripturally on point, but some on here will say that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, or that he is not saved because of his stance or view of the trinity

That's actually a real good question Lynaz...I have no beef with Jakes. but I know others do. Now, I will say that I'm more into line upon line teaching rather than topical stuff, which Jakes does a LOT more now than he used to--but other than that, he's coo wit me...

COOKIE :D

[CHRISTion]

Well.... you deny the Trinity, you're denying the God of the scriptures and worshipping an idol. The God of the Bible is Trinitarian - One in essense and nature, three in Person.

If you say that God is just ONE PERSON as Jakes does, you're not teaching the God of the Bible. You denying the other two people of the Trinity - and therefore, your 'god' is an idol, no matter how much 'Jesus' you scream about.

That's idolatry and makes you a non-Christian, no matter how nice and loving and non-confrontational about it you appear. Jakes has been approached by dozens of Trinitarian preachers, both privately and publicly. He has not changed his position, nor desired to clarify further because he says the issue doesn't matter to him (his own words: "I'm not a theologian"). If not, then you have no business being in the pulpit.

A person who doesn't care enough about the 1st and 2nd commandment to get the doctrine of God right and present it clearly doesn't worship the God of the scriptures.Are you sure he hasn't changed his stance? Do you have evidence of this?

[Lynaz24]

Well.... you deny the Trinity, you're denying the God of the scriptures and worshipping an idol. The God of the Bible is Trinitarian - One in essense and nature, three in Person.

If you say that God is just ONE PERSON as Jakes does, you're not teaching the God of the Bible. You denying the other two people of the Trinity - and therefore, your 'god' is an idol, no matter how much 'Jesus' you scream about.

That's idolatry and makes you a non-Christian, no matter how nice and loving and non-confrontational about it you appear. Jakes has been approached by dozens of Trinitarian preachers, both privately and publicly. He has not changed his position, nor desired to clarify further because he says the issue doesn't matter to him (his own words: "I'm not a theologian"). If not, then you have no business being in the pulpit.

A person who doesn't care enough about the 1st and 2nd commandment to get the doctrine of God right and present it clearly doesn't worship the God of the scriptures.

But I have read his point of view regarding the Trinity and it doesn't sound like he's denying it. then again it doesn't sound like he fully supports it..That wording can get so tricky sometimes..I just wish people would just come out and say stuff...enough of the super intellectual all the time..sometime a good ol "Jesus is Lord" is good for me...lol

[seal]

So in terms of like a TD Jakes..how does that fall..because the only argument against him I see on here deals with his wording in regards to the Trinity..Cuz honestly, I've read books by dude and seen him in person and they've been scripturally on point, but some on here will say that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing, or that he is not saved because of his stance or view of the trinity

I wouldn't say he's a wolf in sheep clothing b/c to me he's clearly a wolf. His stance on the Trinity is atrocious, so me and your issue on T.D. going to come from our presuppositional stances when it come to Doctrine. We are going to come to two different conclusions on Jakes. This is the reason for debate and discussion on what's the correct view of the Trininity and we do this by searching the Scriptures and Church History.

[BondServant]

plus ive mentioned before that im relaying what others are saying.Seal believes this,Bondservant believes this.pretty much every JE supporter believes this.im just giving the message Dre.

Bondservant believes what?

Why do people keep using my name?

[seal]

Bondservant believes what?

Why do people keep using my name?

BS, are you having some sort of crisis in that people can't use or mention your name or use your name in vain???....LOL... J/K

[BondServant]

BS, are you having some sort of crisis in that people can't use or mention your name or use your name in vain???....LOL... J/K


Naw, cats keep using my name because I'm reformed, and they are bias to all things reformed.

[Quiet storm]

Bondservant believes what?

Why do people keep using my name?

BS now you see what I mean. Remember our conversation? :)

[BondServant]

BS now you see what I mean. Remember our conversation? :)

I remember, that's what I was thinking about yesterday. The day of our convo:eek:

[CHRISTion]

From his website:

THREE DIMENSIONS OF ONE GOD (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 1 Tim 3:16)

We believe in one God who is eternal in His existence, Triune in His manifestation, being both Father, Son and Holy Ghost AND that He is Sovereign and Absolute in His authority.


The Bible, the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, and complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ--Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

The Holy Spirit--The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and during this age, to convict men of sin, regenerate the believing sinner, indwell, guide, instruct, and empower the believer for godly living and service.

[BlackCalvinist]

But I have read his point of view regarding the Trinity and it doesn't sound like he's denying it. then again it doesn't sound like he fully supports it..That wording can get so tricky sometimes..I just wish people would just come out and say stuff...enough of the super intellectual all the time..sometime a good ol "Jesus is Lord" is good for me...lol

So you'd have no problems with a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon or a member of the Unification Church, since they all say 'Jesus is Lord' too ?

The wording for the Trinity never gets 'tricky'. It's always been the same. Let me give you a little sampling from various theological traditions:

http://www.the5thquarter.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=32600&view=findpost&p=564658

(not reposting the whole link here because it's a bit long, but I cited doctrinal statements from United Methodist, Baptist General Conference, Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Evangelical Free Church in America, Presybterian Church in America and the Assemblies of God to show that they are UNANIMOUS in their agreement on the doctrine of the Trinity and none of the language is 'tricky' in any sense)

All that said, take time and read through the link above, especially the Assemblies of God's statement (which I think is the strongest one on the subject):

d. Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation; nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship. The Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son, as to fellowship. The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father, as to authority. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding, as to nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence, neither Person in the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the others.

o John 5:17-30 [KJV/NIV]
o John 5:32 [KJV/NIV]
o John 5:37 [KJV/NIV]
o John 8:17,18 [KJV/NIV]


and

h. Transgression of the Doctrine of Christ
Wherefore, it is a transgression of the Doctrine of Christ to say that Jesus Christ derived the title, Son of God, solely from the fact of the incarnation, or because of His relation to the economy of redemption. Therefore, to deny that the Father is a real and eternal Father, and that the Son is a real and eternal Son, is a denial of the distinction and relationship in the Being of God; a denial of the Father, and the Son; and a displacement of the truth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

o 2 John 1:9 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:1 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:2 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:14 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:18 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:29 [KJV/NIV]
o John 1:49 [KJV/NIV]
o 1 John 2:22,23 [KJV/NIV]
o 1 John 4:1-5 [KJV/NIV]
o Hebrews 12:2 [KJV/NIV]


CHRIStion:

As of 5 minutes ago, Jakes' website says:


God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


So, no. He hasn't changed his position. It's still the same as it was when he spoke out in Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/108/13.0.html)back in 2000.

For comparison purposes:
http://www.afcministry.com/TD_Jakes_response_in_Christianity_Today_examined.h tm

ACF has done a great job in this analysis of Jakes' response and shown that even in his response, he affirmed a different view of the Godhead not taught in scripture.

[seal]

From his website:

:eek: HERESY!!!!

[dremarshall]

I wouldn't say he's a wolf in sheep clothing b/c to me he's clearly a wolf. His stance on the Trinity is atrocious, so me and your issue on T.D. going to come from our presuppositional stances when it come to Doctrine. We are going to come to two different conclusions on Jakes. This is the reason for debate and discussion on what's the correct view of the Trininity and we do this by searching the Scriptures and Church History.
Not too much of a wolf whereas he represented Christ well when dealing with the Rutgers situation.

[seal]

Not too much of a wolf whereas he represented Christ well when dealing with the Rutgers situation.

He handled it politically correct, but the Biblical answer is sin. Imus is a sinner and needs the Gospel preached to him. His chatisement gave him grief but no solution. So don't expect him to be a changed man after this unless God intervenes.

Hail King Jesus,
seal

[BlackCalvinist]

Not too much of a wolf whereas he represented Christ well when dealing with the Rutgers situation.

What seal said.

Further, the Mormon church opposes abortion and murder. That doesn't mean they're reppin' Christ - it just means they're right on those issues.

[Devin]

Naw, cats keep using my name because I'm reformed, and they are bias to all things reformed.

im not bias.i didnt use your name in a negative manner.i thought you like Edwards sermons?:confused:

[CCordero]

Hey Links,

I started reading his defense of slavery(opposition to african trade) and I got sick on my stomach. I just closed the page. sigh(but i will finish)...James said I needed to see both sides....lol...Well i tried hubby.

The excuses(defenses) were really sickening(to me)...on a side note. he was NOT the only minister in that NE area who owned slaves. Some when faced with the extravagent conotation of slave owning, freed their slaves and some like JE kept them til his death and never made provision to be freed.

In reading I found it interesting too that his first slave he bought(for his wife, i hope) with almost have a year's salary!...what???...That is like me today paying $20K( or more depending on the economy), for someone to prove my stature, not to make me any money(seems stupid, but Christians buy extravagent things now for stature too).

Also interesting that part of his defense was not a real defense, but a pluck the log out of your own eye first rebuttal.
This is what I can't wrap my mind around... WHY is it wrong to trade a slave from africa to the caribean, but "institutional"(okay) to trade them within a homeland(where mothers and kids were seperated on the spot in NE)? There was no biblical basis to reject one but allow the other. If I am wrong QS/Links let me know yall...

edit: Links I have read through some of you posts and see the JE issue is not really your focus here, so you don't have to reply.

Has anyone seen Lisa around? I would like to know the book she read?

[Cowboy]

:wideeyed:

:swoon:

[naijagirl]

Has anyone seen Lisa around? I would like to know the book she read?

You could PM her.

[CCordero]

You could PM her.

She has not been here for quite some time. I doubt that she checks her pms. At least I haven't seen her around. I was hoping to find out if someone actually personally knows her.

[Deadmanwalking]

ummmm...owning a slave and saying that Christ become satan on the cross really don't compare in my book.

Word.

Ok, so here I am like a year late....but I'd like to chime in, even though what I say has probably already been said.

I don't know much about Jon Edwards. Haven't read his books. Haven't checked his history. I'm more of a bible man myself. I should read some books though.

Anyway, the truth is that his actions are not blasphemous as much as they are sins that at that time were social norms. The buying and selling of slaves was a social norm. The forceful slavery was probably looked upon like conquest slavery...the Jews did that if I'm not mistaken. Now, I would assume that if Jon Edwards is saved, then he treated his slaves kindly. That's just my assumption.

But again I assert that slavery does not compare to heresy. Slavery was a socially acceptable sin. But I don't deny that it was SIN.

But to question his salvation based on that sin is to question your own salvation. Your own gluttony. Your own social apathy in that you do nothing about the hunger over seas. In America we horde the world's resources while children in africa go fatherless and hungry. It is sinful to live a life that is so selfish....With your mortgage that is perishable, dumping tons of your money into it and yet only 20% or your income goes into the kingdom..and only 5% of it sees the mission field...In the book of acts the people SOLD their houses to give to the kingdom!

But see, these things that we do, as apathetic and socially/morally irresponsible as they are, are OUR social norms.....and if the LORD tarries, it might be possible that future Christians would question OUR salvation for allowing so much injustice and not doing anything while we work 8 hours a day (or more) for a wicked company just so we can establish our little frail kingdoms here on earth. You should be convicted by James 2:14-17. And James 1:27. Prayers are nice...well wishes are nice...but what are you DOING?



Hmmmm.....but lucky for us, and possibly Jon Edwards, we aren't saved by works, and we're not disqualified by sins...but we're saved by grace alone. We can't take a person's one ignorance and assume the worst. That's my opinion. If the LORD elected to save Jon Edwards in spite of his sin, praise GOD! There's hope for us too then! And THAT is the power of the cross of Christ! That in spite of our terrible errors, He still purchased us with His blood. And there is no power that can reverse that. Although I see Jon Edwards sins as atrocious, I don't look at them as any worse than my owns sins...and if GOD can save him, then He can save me as well.


CLIFF'S NOTES: i don't know whether Jon Edwards is or isn't saved, but I don't believe that we should disqualify him for his social ignorance.

[Gloria]

Word.

Ok, so here I am like a year late....but I'd like to chime in, even though what I say has probably already been said.

I don't know much about Jon Edwards. Haven't read his books. Haven't checked his history. I'm more of a bible man myself. I should read some books though.

Anyway, the truth is that his actions are not blasphemous as much as they are sins that at that time were social norms. The buying and selling of slaves was a social norm. The forceful slavery was probably looked upon like conquest slavery...the Jews did that if I'm not mistaken. Now, I would assume that if Jon Edwards is saved, then he treated his slaves kindly. That's just my assumption.

But again I assert that slavery does not compare to heresy. Slavery was a socially acceptable sin. But I don't deny that it was SIN.

But to question his salvation based on that sin is to question your own salvation. Your own gluttony. Your own social apathy in that you do nothing about the hunger over seas. In America we horde the world's resources while children in africa go fatherless and hungry. It is sinful to live a life that is so selfish....With your mortgage that is perishable, dumping tons of your money into it and yet only 20% or your income goes into the kingdom..and only 5% of it sees the mission field...In the book of acts the people SOLD their houses to give to the kingdom! But see, these things that we do, as apathetic and socially/morally irresponsible are social norms.....and if the LORD tarries, it might be possible that future Christians would question OUR salvation for allowing so much injustice and not doing anything while we work 8 hours a day (or more) for a wicked company just so we can establish our little frail kingdoms here on earth. You should be convicted by James 2:14-17. And James 1:27. Prayers are nice...well wishes are nice...but what are you DOING?



Hmmmm.....but lucky for us, and possibly Jon Edwards, we aren't saved by works, and we're not disqualified by sins...but we're saved by grace alone. We can't take a person's one ignorance and assume the worst. That's my opinion. If the LORD elected to save Jon Edwards in spite of his sin, praise GOD! There's hope for us too then!


CLIFF'S NOTES: i don't know whether Jon Edwards is or isn't saved, but I don't believe that we should disqualify him for his social ignorance.


It's late but it's full of wisdom. God bless you fam!

Only thing I take exception to is the Jews buying and selling slaves. I really can't recall any instances of this in the Bible although there may be some secular accounts of them participating in it...blah.

Anyway good words!

[phil]

great post DMW, but (like gloria hinted to) any jews that bought or sold slaves were in violate of the law which forbid selling people

[Deadmanwalking]

great post DMW, but (like gloria hinted to) any jews that bought or sold slaves were in violate of the law which forbid selling people

ah, yes...i forgot the selling part...yeah, i remember they didn't sell them.