@Birdie I bet if you asked Swedenborg, Russell Taze, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, John Calvin, John Wesley, Ellen White, a messianic, a pentacostle, a free will baptist, or any member of the thousands of denominations, they would all say the exact same thing..."We're returning the church to it's original form". I'm pretty sure only one man in that list has had a man put to death. What distinguishes Calvin from all the other "cult leaders" in the world?

@anonymouswho being right? :P The primary difference between theological leaders like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli etc. and cult leaders like Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, William Branham, Mohammad etc. is that cult leaders claim new revelation from God, typically contradicting existing Scripture, either by claiming the new revelation to have priority, or by claiming the old Scripture to be false.

Whereas theological leaders use existing Scripture, try to derive their doctrines from existing Scripture without any new revelation, typically refer to pre-existing theologians rather than coming up with new doctrine, and don't add to Scripture.

There are of course other differences: no typical Calvinist would suggest Calvin was infallible or right all the time, whereas Mormons/Muslims etc. would suggest that their prophet was right in everything he said. Calvin and Luther didn't advocate any personal following, but rather pointed their readers and parishes to Christ, whereas cult leaders advocate personal following of themselves, either in addition to or over Christ.

@TRiG For some reason, my favorite sentence is this:

> I like to think that Jack Chick will arrive in Heaven and be greeted by Ananias himself, who sits waiting with a crowbar and a can of WD40 to at long last tear the scales from his eyes.

Indeed, many Calvinists don't like the term because it suggests they follow Calvin, whereas it is far preferably to be known as a follower of Christ, with Calvin being just one of many people who have pointed others to Christ.

@Birdie You really don't know much about the history of Christian doctrine, do you? Luther and Calvin did teach new doctrines. Luther's signature doctrine was justification by faith alone. Before Luther, that doctrine didn't exist as a Christian doctrine. And Calvin pushed predestination farther than any previous theologian, and gave it a far more central place in his theology.

The Protestant reformers in general originated penal substitution, based on Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement developed 500 years earlier.

The key, distinguishing doctrines of Protestantism--justification by faith alone and penal substitution--were not part of Christian doctrine until Luther, Calvin, Melanchthon, and the other founding Protestant theologians formulated and promulgated them. And neither of these doctrines is actually stated in the Bible.

So the idea that Luther and Calvin "returned the church to its original form" is complete nonsense. And those who think that's what they did simply don't know the history of their own doctrines, let alone the overall history of Christian doctrine.

In fact, I've found Protestants generally to be blissfully unaware of the origins of their own beliefs.

It's a simple matter of history that the key, distinguishing doctrines of Protestant either did not exist at all prior to the Reformation, or they played no significant part in the doctrine of any Christian group or denomination. That means that for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, those doctrines were not part of Christian faith and practice.

@Birdie You are also woefully ignorant about Swedenborg.

"You don't know much" "complete nonsense" "you don't know" "blissfully unaware" "woefully ignorant" you're doing it again.

Justification by faith alone was taught by many of the church fathers, and of course Scripture itself. Substitutionary penal atonement was perhaps not the foremost position of the early church but was certainly a position of some. Predestination was not a new doctrine (and it being more written about by the Reformers than before is because it became more of an issue).

Calvin and Luther and the other Reformers had no new doctrines. Certainly they developed existing doctrines to better combat heresy, but this has always been the case in the church. A new heresy raises its head, and then men of God write more on said heresy than ever before because it was never as nuch of an issue before.

For example, in the early church, while other subjects were written about, most of the work was done on the Trinity, and the deity of Christ. This is because the preeminent heresies of the day were on those subjects. In the time of the Reformation, the prime heresies were to do with the authority of the church and the nature of salvation. So they didn't write much about the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but instead wrote about these other subjects.

@Birdie We don't have to defend the Reformation by saying that everything had been there before. The Reformation was a return from the Catholic distortions of the gospel to the fundamentals of the faith. Things like the perspicuity of scripture and a complete repudiation of works based righteousness are definitely "reformed" beliefs in that they were there before. But that doesn't mean that every Protestant belief was there before, even things like PSA.

Just as our understanding of the trinity developed over several centuries through the consideration of various proposals, the Protestant Reformation was an era when various models of soteriology were proposed, considered, and judged as to their faithfulness to scripture and logical consistency. And there were definitely precursors to Protestant soteriology, such as Anselm's satisfaction theory. But if the precise details of PSA were new, that shouldn't phase us.

@Birdie Some things are definitely new in the Reformation, such as Covenant Theology.

The times of disagreement (or even conflict) within the church have also been the times when our understanding of the scriptures and our convictions to make it shape our lives have been the sharpest. The early church, the Reformation period, the arrival of Pentecostalism, these have all been times when the global church has benefited, and Christians on all sides of these issues have sharpened each other, if they have been willing to critically evaluate their own positions

@curiousdannii If I could (+1) this, I would =)

@Birdie Oh, I didn't know Calvin was right. I should have considered that before I replied ;-) Russell Taze also didn't confess any "new revelations", he just liked reading the bible. Yet this man practically started the Jehovah Witness movement. You know... those "strange people" that believe they consist of a few, "elected" souls that have been chosen to go to heaven.

They refuse to believe that God is the triune, three person-homoousios "just like the bible says he is", so they believe strange things like "Jesus is Michael the Archangel (Leader of the messangers-Who is like God)".

Or John Wesley, whose teachings have spawned modern evangelicalism and pentecostalism. We can't blame these men that their followers believed "they were right" and were possessed by some "holy" spirit guy, so that they honor their words as truth.

However, Calvinism has also changed a lot since Calvin's time. I bet if I tell the pastor of the local baptist church that I don't believe in the trinity, he won't have me arrested and sent off to have my flesh burned on a stake to immediately die and be sent to have my flesh burn for eternity.

@Birdie Only when it's actually true. Later Protestant theologians have labored long and hard to try to show that Luther and Calvin didn't actually make up their new doctrines. And though they can point to some passages in the early church fathers that seem to say some of those things, they can do so only by pulling those passage out of context.

The simple fact of the matter is that justification by faith alone and penal substitution were not part of Christian doctrine until Luther, Calvin, and the other early Protestant theologians formulated and promulgated them.

Even the reigning Catholic soteriology based on the satisfaction theory of atonement did not exist for the first millennium of Christianity, until Anselm formulated it in the eleventh century. Penal Substitution depends upon satisfaction theory, and is a development of it.

To try to claim that reigning Protestant doctrines are a restoration of early Christian doctrines shows simple ignorance of the facts of the history of Christian doctrine.

I agree with @curiousdannii that it's perfectly legitimate for later theologians to develop further understanding of Christian doctrine based on earlier foundations. Jesus himself said:

> I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:12-13)

Clearly it is part of God's plan for us to continue to learn new and deeper spiritual truth as the centuries go by.

However, that new truth must be built on the original foundation. Current Catholic and especially Protestant doctrine of salvation and redemption have instead torn up the old foundations, replaced them with new ones built by human minds, and built their doctrines upon those human-built foundations.

Protestantism did not return to the original foundations of Christianity. It built its own new foundation based on justification by faith alone and penal substitution--doctrines that were never taught by Christ or any of his apostles, and that were not part of Christian belief for 1,500 years after the Bible was written.

I have continuously challenged the Protestants here to produce a single verse in the Bible that says that we are justified by faith alone or that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. The fact that they have so far been unable to do so, but fall back on complex "interpretations" of the Bible text, should be conclusive. The fact that it is not shows that Protestants trust Luther and Calvin far more than they trust the Bible.

@Birdie Your woeful ignorance of Swedenborg shows in your assumption that he gave his own writing precedence over Scripture, which he did not, and that he advocated a personal following, which he did not--and certainly not over Christ. On the title page of his final published work, True Christianity, he signed himself Emanuel Swedenborg, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Swedenborg never sought a following, and never started a church or other organization devoted to his teachings. No such organization was formed until fifteen years after his death. Swedenborg simply published his theological writings, anonymously at first, and later, when he became known as their author, responded to various questions from some of the early accepters of his Christian theology.

He was very far from wanting a personal following. And though the various Swedenborgian churches and organization do honor him as a seer and revelator, they do not even consider him a prophet, let alone some sort of substitute for Jesus Christ. And though some Swedenborgians do (mistakenly, I believe) give Swedenborg's writings near-infallible authority, most recognize that both his writings are fallible and do contain scientific and historical errors, even if the theology itself is sound.

For more on this, please see: "Do the Teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg take Precedence over the Bible?"

@LeeWoofenden Typo fix: "his writings," not "both his writings."

@LeeWoofenden I know Swedenborg wasn't alive at this time, but what do you think he would have thought about John Wesley Hanson's Aion-Aionios, written in 1875? Have you ever read it?

@LeeWoofenden "Woeful ignorance" you're doing it again. Stop calling people ignorant.

I'm not going to address your statements about justification of faith because they have been adequately covered before and you refuse to consider a change in position. However, I will address Swedenborg.

Please read again what I said about cult leaders: "cult leaders claim new revelation from God, typically contradicting existing Scripture, either by claiming the new revelation to have priority, or by claiming the old Scripture to be false."

Did Swedenborg claim new revelation from God? Yes. He had some spiritual experiences which presumably were not of the devil, according to him. Did he contradict existing Scripture by claiming his new revelation had priority? According to you, no, according to some, yes.

Did he claim old Scripture was false? Yes. Swedenborgians now discard vast swathes of Scripture.

@anonymouswho I have not read it, and it looks fairly long. Are here any particular points within it that you are interested in what Swedenborg's perspective might have been?

@Birdie If people are ignorant while claiming to have knowledge, I will call them ignorant. And based on your statements and implications about Swedenborg, you are clearly woefully ignorant about him.

Did he have a cult of personality? He does now. Perhaps he didn't in his life, so I will grant that to you. Either way he and his cult fit the description of all the other cults in the world, same as Mormonism, JWs, Islam, Oneness Pentecostals, etc.

@Birdie You are so ignorant it's not even funny. Swedenborg does not have a cult following. No Swedenborgian organization or individual views Swedenborg as anything other than an enlightened, but still fallible, human being.

@LeeWoofenden Show me what I have said that is false about Swedenborg. So far the only thing you seem to actually disagree with me on is that he lead a cult, which is down to definition rather than knowledge.

@LeeWoofenden Did he receive special revelation from God, and does he have followers?

@Birdie He does not have "followers" any more than Luther or Calvin have "followers." Are there people who accept his theology? Yes. Are there people who accept Luther's theology? Yes. Are there people who accept Calvin's theology? Yes. He has "followers" in the very same sense that Luther and Calvin have "followers."

I should clarify. Did he have special revelation from God and are there people who consider that special revelation from God to be the truth, a true revelation?

@Birdie Did he have special revelation from the Lord? According to his statement in True Christianity [#779](), yes. But if having a special revelation from God means something is by definition false, then you'll have to throw out the entire Bible.

@Birdie Did Moses have a true revelation from God, and are here people who consider that special revelation from God to be the truth, a true revelation?

@LeeWoofenden Then he is a cult leader according to previous definitions I have given, and I am not ignorant of Swedenborg in the amount that I have discussed him.

If that is your definition of why something must be false, then once again, you must throw away the entire Bible.

@Birdie Anyone who calls Swedenborg a "cult leader" is woefully ignorant. Either they don't even know what the basic definition of a cult is, or they know nothing about Swedenborg.

@LeeWoofenden The exact same thing could be said about you and Protestantism/trinitarianism by any Protestant/trinitarian. Are you trying to create a chat room of people yelling "you're ignorant" at each other? If you have no ability to respect your debate opponent, it's time to move on.

Honestly, fundamentalist churches fit the definition of a cult far better than Swedenborg or any of the Swedenborgian organizations do. Fundamentalist churches commonly hold their followers based on fear of damnation if they were to fall away from the "correct" belief as promulgated by their preachers. No Swedenborgian organization ever does that. And that is a prime characteristic of a cult.

@Nathaniel I don't have to respect my debate opponent if he claims knowledge on a subject and then makes ridiculously ignorant statements about it.

@Nathaniel Some people are just plain wrong. I don't have a problem pointing that out.

@LeeWoofenden Yet you are afforded respect by people who strongly believe you are doing the exact same thing.

@Nathaniel Not really. I've been called far worse names here than "woefully ignorant."

Please look at the entirety of what I said, not just one part. Did Swedenborg discard large swathes of Scripture? Yes. Did he claim to have special revelation from God? Yes. Does his teaching contradict the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes. Are there people who agree his revelation is true? Yes. Then he fits the definition of a cult which I have previously given, and my statements about Swedenborg are not false, and therefore not ignorant. You may want a different definition of a cult, but

in as much as I have given my definition of a cult and described Swedenborg, I have not shown ignorance nor falsehood.

@Birdie According to the Catholic Church, Protestantism "discarded large swathes of Scripture." Please educate yourself on the varying biblical canons of Christianity. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start: "Biblical canon."

Protestantism does not enjoy special status as the final arbiter of what books should and shouldn't be in Scripture. Luther himself tried to get several books, including James, removed from scripture because he saw that they contradicted his new doctrine of justification by faith alone.

See:

Martin Luther was wrong about James :) I never claimed he was right in trying to do that.

I am also aware of the varying biblical canons of Christianity. Don't assume what I do and do not know.

@LeeWoofenden The fact that you are shown disrespect in one instance (or many instances) does not indicate that you are not shown respect in others. I doubt even Swedenborgian theology indicates that whatever is done to me by one I may do to all others.

@Birdie The doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible. It was first formulated as Christian doctrine by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and refined into its definitive form a century or two later in the Athanasian Creed. This is a matter of history.

The very fact that you are using his contradiction of the Trinity of Persons as evidence that he is wrong shows that you place more credence in creeds and theologians than in the Bible. Swedenborg skipped over all of the human creeds and councils, and formulated his theology based entirely on Scripture itself.

@Birdie So you are providing your own definition of "cult" and saying that Swedenborg fits into it. Very nice. Unfortunately, your definition of a cult is not the accepted definition of a cult. Unless you're talking about the general definition of "a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies," which, of course, applies to all religions.

@Nathaniel I was responding to your statement that others here give me respect. I didn't say anything about their disrespect justifying any disrespect I may show to others.

@Nathaniel Every human being should be shown basic human respect. But people who spout obvious falsehoods while claiming to have knowledge of the subject are not, in my view, deserving of respect for their ridiculously ignorant and false statements.

Not my own definition of cults, plenty of other people have the same definition. gotquestions.org/cult-definition.html equip.org/perspectives/what-is-a-religious-cult apologeticsindex.org/2765-cult-of-christianity first three links in google for "define christian cult", I'm sure the rest are much the same.

"But people who spout obvious falsehoods while claiming to have knowledge of the subject " where did I say any statement about Swedenborg that was false, other than him being a cult leader (which is a matter of definition not knowledge)?

@Birdie Gotquestions is a fundamentalist/evangelical site. And those sites typically call anyone a "cult" if they don't agree with their particular doctrines. Some of them even call the Roman Catholic Church a "cult."

The only reason the RCC isn't a cult is that they don't deny the Trinity, but they're borderline for sure.

@Birdie Your whole opening salvo about "cult leaders" attribute numerous things to Swedenborg that are factually false.

@Birdie I rest my case. It's purely a matter of doctrinal disagreement. And that is not what defines something as a cult.

@LeeWoofenden Which things did I attribute specifically to Swedenborg that are false? Quote them please.

@Birdie You talked about "cult leaders like Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, William Branham, Mohammad etc.," and then you made a whole series of statements about what these "cult leaders" do. Almost all of those statements were false with regard to Swedenborg.

Shall I quote it for you? "The primary difference between theological leaders like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli etc. and cult leaders like Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, William Branham, Mohammad etc. is that cult leaders claim new revelation from God, typically contradicting existing Scripture, either by claiming the new revelation to have priority, or by claiming the old Scripture to be false."

Did Swedenborg claim new revelation from God? By your own admission, yes!

Does it contradict existing Scripture, either by claiming the new revelation to have priority, or by claiming the old Scripture to be false? By your own admission, yes!

So I have not made any ignorant or false statements there about Swedenborg.

@Birdie Swedenborg did not contradict existing scripture, he did not claim that his revelation had priority, and he did not claim that the old Scripture was false. In fact, even though he didn't accept the Protestant canon, he still quoted from it in support of his doctrines.

Most of what you said was false.

"He didn't accept the Protestant canon" there we have it. He denied large parts of Scripture as inspired, aka discarded large parts of Scripture, allowing it to be false.

As a matter of fact, the Protestant doctrines of justification by faith alone and penal substitution flatly contradict the plain teachings of Scripture, as I have shown here many times before.

"Faith alone" is mentioned once and only once in the entire Scriptures, and in that one place it is *specifically denied:"

> You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)

@LeeWoofenden "Most" your definition of false is quite interesting. I made two statements there about cult leaders, both of which are true regarding Swedenborg, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, and yet it's false?

That's why Luther tried to remove James from the canon. Because it flatly contradicted his new doctrine of justification and salvation.

Stop changing the subject, we're talking about you calling me ignorant because of what I said about Swedenborg.

@Birdie The only thing you said that's true is that he claimed a revelation from the Lord. The rest of it is false.

@Birdie And I'm pointing out that your own belief actually fits your definitions of "cult" than Swedenborg does. The Protestant reformers formulated new doctrines that flatly contradict their own canon of Scripture.

@LeeWoofenden Let me quote the rest again "cult leaders claim new revelation from God, typically contradicting existing Scripture, either by claiming the new revelation to have priority, or by claiming the old Scripture to be false." I have two statements there, more or less. Did Swedenborg claim new revelation? Yes. Did he claim that old Scripture was false? Yes.

So I made two statements and both are true. But "most" of what I said is false and ignorant?

Previous definitions of cults I have made include denying the doctrine of the Trinity, so we can add that there as another statement. Did Swedenborg deny the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes! Still no ignorant, nor false statements about Swedenborg.

The Bible never says that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins. In fact, it rejects the entire principle, stating that "it is only the person who sins that shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4) and, "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and those in the right, for I will not acquit the guilty" (Exodus 23:7).

@LeeWoofenden Nice pivot. Please address my ignorant and false statements please.

> Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the Lord detests them both. (Proverbs 17:15)

And yet, this is precisely what penal substitution does.

You're still not addressing what we're actually talking about. Did I show any ignorance in my statements about Swedenborg?

@Birdie I have already addressed them. You just won't admit that you're ignorant and wrong about Swedenborg.

ROFL

Not my problem.

Alright we're done then, have a nice life :)

@Birdie Incidentally, I have already addressed all these "cult" charges in detail many years ago. If you actually want to educate yourself about Swedenborg, the Swedenborgian Church, and the "cult" charges against us instead of remaining abysmally ignorant, you're welcome to read the archived discussion on the subject here: "Thoughts on your web site."