Thread: Those Who Teach Contrary to the Word and Those Who Defend Them ( PART 2)
Admin
Those Who Teach Contrary to the Word and Those Who Defend Them ( PART 2)
Posted : 13 Sep, 2012 02:18 PM
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11
Why does this seem to be such a sore subject among so many "believers" today? Is it perhaps because they have succumb to a perverse understanding of what "love" looks like? Is it because they are submitting to their own flesh rather than the pure Word of God?
I am choosing to quote from Calvin's commentary here with respect to this passage for those who might desire a more detailed explanation. I, however, would maintain that this passage speaks very clearly all by itself.
John Calvin:
Avoid an heretical man This is properly added; because there will be no end of quarrels and dispute, if we wish to conquer obstinate men by argument; for they will never want words, and they will derive fresh courage from impudence, so that they will never grow weary of fighting. Thus, after having given orders to Titus as to the form of doctrine which he should lay down, he now forbids him to waste much time in debating with heretics, because battle would lead to battle and dispute to dispute. Such is the cunning of Satan, that, by the impudent talkativeness of such men, he entangles good and faithful men, so as to draw them away from diligence in teaching. We must therefore beware lest we become engaged in quarrelsome disputes; for we shall never have leisure to devote our labors to the Lord�s flock, and contentious men will never cease to annoy us. When he commands him to avoid such persons, it is as if he said that he must not toil hard to satisfy them, and even that there is nothing better than to cut off the handle for fighting which they are eager to find. This is a highly necessary admonition; for even they who would willingly take no part in strifes of words are sometimes drawn by shame into controversy, because they think that it would be shameful cowardice to quit the field. Besides, there is no temper, however mild, that is not liable to be provoked by the fierce taunts of enemies, because they look upon it as intolerable that those men should attack the truth, (as they are accustomed to do,) and that none should reply. Nor are there wanting men who are either of a combative disposition, or excessively hot-tempered, who are eager for battle. On the contrary, Paul does not wish that the servant of Christ should be much and long employed in debating with heretics.
We must now see what he means by the word heretic. There is a common and well-known distinction between a heretic and a schismatic. But here, in my opinion, Paul disregards that distinction: for, by the term �heretic� he describes not only those who cherish and defend an erroneous or perverse doctrine, but in general all who do not yield assent to the sound doctrine which he laid down a little before. Thus under this name he includes all ambitious, unruly, contentious persons, who, led away by sinful passions, disturb the peace of the Church, and raise disputings. In short, every person who, by his overweening pride, breaks up the unity of the Church, is pronounced by Paul to be �heretic.�
But we must exercise moderation, so as not instantly to declare every man to be a �heretic� who does not agree with our opinion. There are some matters on which Christians may differ from each other, without being divided into sects. Paul himself commands that they shall not be so divided, when he bids them keep their harmony unbroken, and wait for the revelation of God. (Phi_3:16.) But whenever the obstinacy of any person grows to such an extent, that, led by selfish motives, he either separates from the body, or draws away some of the flock, or interrupts the course of sound doctrine, in such a case we must boldly resist.
In a word, a heresy or sect and the unity of the Church � are things totally opposite to each other. Since the unity of the Church is dear to God, and ought to be held by us in the highest estimation, we ought to entertain the strongest abhorrence of heresy. Accordingly, the name of sect or heresy, though philosophers and statesmen reckon it to be honorable, is justly accounted infamous among Christians. We now understand who are meant by Paul, when he bids us dismiss and avoid heretics. But at the same time we ought to observe what immediately follows,
After the first and second admonition; for neither shall we have a right to pronounce a man to be a heretic, nor shall we be at liberty to reject him, till we have first endeavored to bring him back to sound views. (266) He does not mean any �admonition,� whatever, or that of a private individual, but an �admonition� given by a minister, with the public authority of the Church; for the meaning of the Apostle�s words is as if he had said, that heretics must be rebuked with solemn and severe censure.
They who infer from this passage, that the supporters of wicked doctrines must be restrained by excommunication alone, and that no rigorous measures beyond this must be used against them, do not argue conclusively. There is a difference between the duties of a bishop and those of a magistrate. Writing to Titus, Paul does not treat of the office of a magistrate, but points out what belongs to a bishop. Yet moderation is always best, that, instead of being restrained by force and violence, they may be corrected by the discipline of the Church, if there be any ground to believe that they can be cured.
Those Who Teach Contrary to the Word and Those Who Defend Them ( PART 2)
Posted : 15 Sep, 2012 03:15 AM
Can you not comprehend that the man Cauvin was a heretic and demonstrated his seed of darkness, by putting 53 people to death?
You cannot possibly show ONE scripture where one of the disciples or apostles were engaged in the business of executing someone.
That is a heretical thought in itself.
You have the same eyes as I do, and the same ability to read as I do, and yet you neither see what I do?
What was Cauvin doing at Geneva, in the first place?
This was not the behavior of �a man walking in the footsteps of the patriarch Abraham�.
Abraham had �no Geneva�, �no city� to call his own, �nothing to defend so as to be engaged in the business of �putting people to death�.
"These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." [(the Ibri) Ha-Ibrim/Hebrews 11:13-16]
This is one of the most obvious things to me, whenever I hear of Christians and Jews, who while being tied to the �cities�, do try their very best to pretend to be doing the works of Abraham, which is to live the life of Abraham. Abraham's life was the Torah.
This reminds me of the situation wherein Jesus/Yahusha was speaking with the Jews, who had abandoned the patriarchal life, were holed up in one of Satan�s cities, proving that they were not the separated, sanctified ones they were professing to be, but were, as was the case with Cauvin, the very deceived they were declaring everyone else to be. Here Jesus, Whom you declare to be your Master, rebukes the Pharisees for not living as Abraham lived:
�They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.� [Yohanan/John 8:39]
Cauvin, as was the case of the Pharisees, did not live the patriarchal nomadic life, nor follow the Abrahamic customs of all of the patriarchs, as did also the Children of Y�isra�el when they left Egypt.
LOOK AT THIS COMMENT AND SEE THE WORDS OF A MAD MAN WHO WAS MERELY SPEWING DOCTRINS HE HAD ACQUIRED ALONG THE WAY, FOR THIS CERTAINLY PROVES THAT HE DID NOT COMPREHEND THE SCRPTURE.
This I quote from his own hand, and your post, as written from a deprived and deranged mind..
�IN A WORD, A HERESY OR SECT, AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH � ARE THINGS TOTALLY OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER. SINCE THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IS DEAR TO GOD, AND OUGHT TO BE HELD IN THE HIGHEST ESTIMATION, WE OUGHT TO ENTERTAIN THE STRONGEST ABHORRENCE OF HERESY. ACCORDINGLY, THE NAME OF SECT OR HERESY, THOUGH PHILOSOPHERS AND STATESMEN RECKON IT TO BE HONORABLE, IS JUSTLY ACCOUNTED INFAMOUS AMONG CHRISTIANS. WE NOW UNDERSTAND WHO ARE MEANT BY PAUL, WHEN HE BIDS US DISMISS AND AVOID HERETICS.�..?
Here this raving lunatic, engrossed in his own mind, ties �a sect� to �a heresy�, and declares those of a sect� to be �heretics�.
I cannot impress upon the human mind a more important distinction worthy of examination when it comes to Cauvin seeking to justify his warped behavior, then for him to justify murder in his own eyes, by declaring �any of a sect� to be �heretics�..
What sheer lunacy?
These are the words of a man possessed of hell, and so deceived in himself, which proves as Paul was stating to Titus, �BEING CONDEMNED OF HIMSELF�.
�A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11�
It was Cauvin�s very involvement in murder and execution which proved that IT WAS CAUVIN WHO �SUBVERTED� AND CAUVIN WHO �SINNETH�, AND CAUVIN WHO WAS THE HERETICK.
Here, since you did not catch this EVIDENCE OF A HERETIC in his warped writings, the Holy Spirit desires for me to show you where Cauvin was WRONG!
Cauvin was a religious man, but not a g-dly man, and whereas he knew some scripture, he obviously did not know enough, for he certainly MISSED THIS ONE.
Here is the scripture which proves the previous statements of Cauvin to have been much of a subversion:
�For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:� [Ma'asey/Acts 24:5]
Yes! Paul was �OF A SECT�, and it was because he was declared to be of a �SECT�, too, that he was found strange, declared to be worthy of death, and was ultimately executed.
I want to congratulate you, for you have just agreed with the Pharisees, and enjoined yourselves against the very name of the followers of Jesus, Whom you declare to LOVE SO MUCH, and have agreed that His followers are worthy to be put to death.
It is heresy to state, in light of the scripture, that the believers and followers of Jesus the Messiah, from Natzrat, who are referred to by the designation of �A SECT�, are the very heretics who should be put to death.
In these words of Cauvin, and in his very behavior, we see this scripture fulfilled:
�They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.� [Yohanan/John 16:2]
All true believers everywhere, know that we are "the remnant", "the little flock", and are glad to be of "the sect of the Natzarim":
"But we desire to hear of thee [Paul, again] what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. Acts 28:22]
"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." [Lukos/Luke 12:32]
