Johnathan Edwards in light of Roots and possible Double Standards

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

04-13-2007, 12:49 PM
dremarshall

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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
04-13-2007, 12:53 PM
dremarshall

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin

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,
04-13-2007, 01:02 PM
Devin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dremarshall

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.
04-13-2007, 01:05 PM
Devin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dremarshall

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.
04-13-2007, 01:06 PM
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.
04-13-2007, 01:25 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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
04-13-2007, 03:09 PM
Lynaz24

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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?
04-13-2007, 03:12 PM
Moody

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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_clo...wn_college.jpg
04-13-2007, 03:46 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynaz24

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
04-13-2007, 03:53 PM
Quiet storm

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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)
04-13-2007, 03:55 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moody

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_clo...wn_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
04-13-2007, 03:56 PM
Moody

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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.
04-13-2007, 03:57 PM
Lynaz24

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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
04-13-2007, 04:00 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quiet storm

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.
04-13-2007, 04:40 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moody

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......
04-13-2007, 04:43 PM
BlackCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynaz24

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.
04-13-2007, 04:44 PM
CHRISTion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynaz24

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
04-13-2007, 04:45 PM
CHRISTion

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

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?
04-13-2007, 04:45 PM
Lynaz24

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist

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
04-13-2007, 04:53 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynaz24

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.
04-13-2007, 04:56 PM
BondServant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin

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?
04-13-2007, 05:06 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by BondServant

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
04-13-2007, 05:07 PM
BondServant

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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.
04-13-2007, 05:07 PM
Quiet storm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BondServant

Bondservant believes what?

Why do people keep using my name?

BS now you see what I mean. Remember our conversation? :)
04-13-2007, 05:08 PM
BondServant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quiet storm

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:
04-13-2007, 05:10 PM
CHRISTion

From his website:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.
04-13-2007, 05:16 PM
BlackCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynaz24

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/i...dpost&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:

Quote:

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 back in 2000.

For comparison purposes:
http://www.afcministry.com/TD_Jakes_...y_examined.htm

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.
04-13-2007, 05:23 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTion

From his website:

:eek: HERESY!!!!
04-13-2007, 05:33 PM
dremarshall

Quote:

Originally Posted by seal

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.
04-13-2007, 05:41 PM
seal

Quote:

Originally Posted by dremarshall

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
04-13-2007, 06:47 PM
BlackCalvinist

Quote:

Originally Posted by dremarshall

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.
04-13-2007, 11:03 PM
Devin

Quote:

Originally Posted by BondServant

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:
05-04-2009, 07:35 PM
CCordero

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Has anyone seen Lisa around? I would like to know the book she read?
05-04-2009, 07:39 PM
Cowboy

:wideeyed:

:swoon:
05-04-2009, 07:49 PM
naijagirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCordero

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

You could PM her.
05-04-2009, 07:59 PM
CCordero

Quote:

Originally Posted by naijagirl

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.
05-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Deadmanwalking

Quote:

Originally Posted by king neb

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.
05-04-2009, 11:42 PM
Gloria

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking

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!
05-04-2009, 11:48 PM
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
05-04-2009, 11:59 PM
Deadmanwalking

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-6787153-3']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();