The Cambridge Declaration
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What does KJV onlyismhave to do with the Cambridge Declaration.
I posted two areas of concern-- the comment on scripture and pastoral oversight of worship.
I think pastoral oversight of worship (if by that they mean what you do in church as opposed to prostration) in evangelical churches has gone in an unbiblical direction and is too extreme.
Paul went into depth in a passage on assembling and behaving in a decent and orderly manner. The type of meeting he described allowed everyone of you to have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation-- unto edifying in line with other instructions in the passage. Many pastors do not allow that. He said let the prophets speak. Many pastors do not allow that.
Clearly things other that scripture can bind the conscience, unlike the statement in the declaration- weak conscience issues, commitments, oaths (nit recommending you take them), instructions from parents to children, civil laws, fiduciary responsibilities, etc.
And is scripture the only written revelation? It refers to the book of Iddo the seer. Ither prophecies written down do not need to be added to the canon. Direction from God to an individual might bind that person's conscience.
I posted two areas of concern-- the comment on scripture and pastoral oversight of worship.
I think pastoral oversight of worship (if by that they mean what you do in church as opposed to prostration) in evangelical churches has gone in an unbiblical direction and is too extreme.
Paul went into depth in a passage on assembling and behaving in a decent and orderly manner. The type of meeting he described allowed everyone of you to have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation-- unto edifying in line with other instructions in the passage. Many pastors do not allow that. He said let the prophets speak. Many pastors do not allow that.
Clearly things other that scripture can bind the conscience, unlike the statement in the declaration- weak conscience issues, commitments, oaths (nit recommending you take them), instructions from parents to children, civil laws, fiduciary responsibilities, etc.
And is scripture the only written revelation? It refers to the book of Iddo the seer. Ither prophecies written down do not need to be added to the canon. Direction from God to an individual might bind that person's conscience.
Actually..he was a priest, not a monk. The other guy was a monk, and he made it clear he wasn't interested in Erasmus and his "friendship". Part of the letters address this issue. Erasmus' feelings were hurt because his advances were rebuffed.
Erasmus quit being a priest at some point. He was ordained, but then left the priesthood if I understand correctly. It wasn't due to him becoming evangelical though. He remained a Roman Catholic.
Erasmus quit being a priest at some point. He was ordained, but then left the priesthood if I understand correctly. It wasn't due to him becoming evangelical though. He remained a Roman Catholic.
Historians would not agree with you in general, and he did in fact call a man his "spouse".
Of course, KJVers are going to deny it.
I posted pics of King James in his pink tights and bloomer-like clothing on the other thread that deals with this.
Here are the facts supporting the claims :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I
Of course, you know I didn't see the sexual acts between them, but the effeminate clothing and appearance plus the accounts of others would lead me to believe it's true. However, my main point has always been that KJV Onlyists use ad hominem attacks concerning the NIV participants regarding sexuality, and I think it's amusing that the same claims can be made regarding King James and Erasmus.
By the way, I acknowledge there were two homosexuals involved with the NIV but the translation was not affected in terms of sexual language softening. Some will claim "fornication" is more clear to modern readers than "sexual immorality" but I certainly do not agree..the archaic language obscures the meaning to modern readers.
Of course, KJVers are going to deny it.
I posted pics of King James in his pink tights and bloomer-like clothing on the other thread that deals with this.
Here are the facts supporting the claims :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I
Of course, you know I didn't see the sexual acts between them, but the effeminate clothing and appearance plus the accounts of others would lead me to believe it's true. However, my main point has always been that KJV Onlyists use ad hominem attacks concerning the NIV participants regarding sexuality, and I think it's amusing that the same claims can be made regarding King James and Erasmus.
By the way, I acknowledge there were two homosexuals involved with the NIV but the translation was not affected in terms of sexual language softening. Some will claim "fornication" is more clear to modern readers than "sexual immorality" but I certainly do not agree..the archaic language obscures the meaning to modern readers.
Morals are relative, very flexible; they vary from one person or nation to the next. Morals are not absolute and unchanging. The word fornication, on the other hand has a definite meaning describing a particular act, and this act is forbidden by God and called a sin.
If I ask, What is immorality? You will get many different definitions and your morality may not be the same as mine. See, what I mean? The absolute standard has disappeared.
Sexual immorality may mean one is being hurtful to their sex partner. I’ve heard sodomites claim they are not being immoral with their sex partner, but loving and caring.
If I ask, What is immorality? You will get many different definitions and your morality may not be the same as mine. See, what I mean? The absolute standard has disappeared.
Sexual immorality may mean one is being hurtful to their sex partner. I’ve heard sodomites claim they are not being immoral with their sex partner, but loving and caring.
According to this page, he was both. https://www.notablebiographies.com/Du-Fi/Erasmus-Desiderius.html
Luther was both, also.
-
1
- Show all
NIV condemns homosexuality. You can't get away from that.
In fact, the language of the KJV obscures it by phrases like "abusers of themselves with mankind".
Some people who read that don't know that it's talking about homosexuality..they could probably even come away with the idea that it's talking about masturbation or something.
In fact, the language of the KJV obscures it by phrases like "abusers of themselves with mankind".
Some people who read that don't know that it's talking about homosexuality..they could probably even come away with the idea that it's talking about masturbation or something.
I read that pink was seen as a boys color until the early 19th century, a dulled down version of a masculine red. I don't know that 17th century individuals considered pink tights to be feminine, but I would not care to wear them.
'Sexual immorality' is a bit vague. I read an argument once that one spouse who was constantly sexually refused by another was free to divorce and remarry because the other spouse had committed 'sexual immorality.' While I would agree that this could be sexual immorality, I would not agree that it is porneia. The downside of translating it as 'fornication' is that that is such an obscure term we do not hear much these days. You have to define it. 'Whoring' might be a closer translation in some ways, but that's a little too specific and a little crude sounding. The NASB translates this as 'immorality'-- the worse translation I know of. Fortunately, I have not heard of anyone using that translation to justify divorcing and remarrying if their spouse cheats on their taxes or steals a pen from the bank.
'Sexual immorality' is a bit vague. I read an argument once that one spouse who was constantly sexually refused by another was free to divorce and remarry because the other spouse had committed 'sexual immorality.' While I would agree that this could be sexual immorality, I would not agree that it is porneia. The downside of translating it as 'fornication' is that that is such an obscure term we do not hear much these days. You have to define it. 'Whoring' might be a closer translation in some ways, but that's a little too specific and a little crude sounding. The NASB translates this as 'immorality'-- the worse translation I know of. Fortunately, I have not heard of anyone using that translation to justify divorcing and remarrying if their spouse cheats on their taxes or steals a pen from the bank.
It is not the author I have issues with!
It is people who, for lack of a better way of explaining it, teach people there is no need to "move beyond", that which the author is stating in verse 1 here!
The fact that these very teachings of not "moving beyond", is the reason people never understand meat, that the author of Hebrews, as well as meat that other authors are describing.
And not only in the N.T., but also the O.T. as well!
It is people who, for lack of a better way of explaining it, teach people there is no need to "move beyond", that which the author is stating in verse 1 here!
The fact that these very teachings of not "moving beyond", is the reason people never understand meat, that the author of Hebrews, as well as meat that other authors are describing.
And not only in the N.T., but also the O.T. as well!
It's starting to sound like some people are opposed to diversity in worship or the role of evangelism to bring the word to the world and all who will listen. At the rescue mission they mainly sing old standards like 'Amazing Grace', 'The Old Rugged Cross' and preach Salvation thru faith. That once saved each person thru the empowerment of the Holy Spirit will grow in faith and start to change. That's true Evangelism! At another church they sing out loud, shake tambourine's and praise the Lord, making a joyful noise. The preacher reads the scripture from where he left off last Sunday or yesterday in some that have a service every day.
Some people prefer quiet adoration and perhaps a topical homily. Quakers can just sit in silence and occasionally someone will stand and share what they believe to be a word from the Lord. I believe there is a place for all of these differences and that's why non-denominational churches are taking root. People are starting to realize what Paul was talking about in 1 Timothy 6:3, 4 & 5 Reject False Doctrines 3) If anyone teaches another doctrine and disagrees with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with godly teaching, 4) he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions, 5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind who are devoid of the truth. These men regard godliness as a means of gain. (BSB)
Some people prefer quiet adoration and perhaps a topical homily. Quakers can just sit in silence and occasionally someone will stand and share what they believe to be a word from the Lord. I believe there is a place for all of these differences and that's why non-denominational churches are taking root. People are starting to realize what Paul was talking about in 1 Timothy 6:3, 4 & 5 Reject False Doctrines 3) If anyone teaches another doctrine and disagrees with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with godly teaching, 4) he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions, 5) and constant friction between men of depraved mind who are devoid of the truth. These men regard godliness as a means of gain. (BSB)
-
1
- Show all
"No sort of defense is needed for preaching outdoors, but it would take a very strong argument to prove that a man who has never preached beyond the walls of his meetinghouse has done his duty. A defense is required for services within buildings rather than for worship outside of them."
- William Booth; Co-founder of the Salvation Army.
- William Booth; Co-founder of the Salvation Army.
-
1
- Show all
