Featured Naming names

So I ask, and this has nothing to do with fabrications in other threads. I am certain that will come up again all on its own.

Naming names and calling out apostasy and apostate leaders:

Jesus called out religious leaders in His day. He used descriptive language of them as well; note Matthew 23 and also Luke 11:37ff. He didn't 'avoid direct attacks of religious leaders' or 'sects', something we may call 'denominations' today.

Paul did the same, and used names; 1 Timothy 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:8; 2 Timothy 4:14. He called out those who left him. By name. 2 Timothy 4.

We are called to mark those who cause division and offenses contrary to sound doctrine; Romans 16:17ff. If we are to avoid them, then they are named and known. We are not called to pander to them, leave them alone, but are called to mark them, or literally to take aim.

Jude alluded to them not in a kind manner. Note Jude 1:3 as the exhortation to contend for the faith, and the balance of this short epistle. Peter described false apostates vividly as well, note 2 Peter.

The cry today is do it in Christian love, and that doing this (naming names) is not expressing Christian love. That 'attacks' (naming them for their false beliefs, practices, teachings) are maligned is unfortunate. That is a wrong and incomplete view of 'Christian love'.

It is not Biblically accurate to renounce this practice. It is a compromise and a cop out. The above are examples of this love and exemplify it as it is for the sheep and their protection. Note Paul's warning in Acts 20:18 ff.

I love the stand those men of God took, and love the same yet today. It is a biblical practice.

Recently a thread was locked because religious leaders were called out. Seems this biblical practice is frowned upon here.

Now, are we allowed to call out Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? Zane Hodges? Charles Finney? Rob Bell? Brian McClaren? Herbert Armstrong? Kenneth Copeland? Lewis Sperry Chafer? Joseph Prince? Other false teachers and direct our aim at them?

Yes? No?

Name who is excluded and why.

Who is not to be called out? What false religious leader gets a free ride? Which denomination? Do we label an apostate Church a denomination because it may have someone saved within her, when she is apostate and not true? Got Scripture that states these are not to be called out, nor her leaders due to this, and that it is not nice or Christian?

Let's apply this unbiblical standard to the Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, SDA, Restored Church of God, New Apostolic Reformation churches, PCUSA churches et al.

What sets the precedent? Scripture? Our own polity? Our wallet?

 

Correct, but we are to examine beliefs via Scripture and still follow His example. No one here believes that because we are not Omniscient or infallible as only He is that we are excluded from doing as He had done.

By the way, only Christ is infallible. But you attribute this to others and believe you have misspoken.

The inerrant Scriptures are what we use to determine false teachings, not whether or not comparatively we are 'infallible' as Paul. By the way, I don't believe apostles were 'infallible'. Not Peter, as mentioned in Galatians, he certainly was not infallible. However, the writings the Holy Spirit breathed them to write were infallible, but not the men who wrote them.

Therefore Paul was not infallible as a person, only in the teachings/writings supplied to him, not his person. Be careful here to notate this.

As were they.

True, but this isn't only addressing being 'apostate'. Let's not rewrite the OP and only attack what we've rewritten.

Who is doing this? This isn't part of the OP at all.

There is way more to it than just the enumerated things you've mentioned. It is way deeper than that brother.

 

Those who have ears to hear will hear. Those who are otherwise and are bamboozled by false doctrine, political correctness, pragmatism, compromise, and rejection of the truths of Scripture presented in the OP will go on their merry way of self deception and will fall short of standing for truth. They will see their path as 'positive' and their message and method as 'positive' yet this is no indication of being of the truth or of being Scriptural.

 

Well, I wanted to make certain no one got the impression Paul was infallible as you stated; 'He, too therefore was infallible'. It would be easy to take it that way as you worded it. I know you're doctrinally sound (most of the time) and thought it needed clarity.

 

I haven't studied out this passage in depth. It should be buffered with didactic NT epistles though.

 

Well, his errors are a take off of the false notions of innate faith and free will. Too many people in churches read the popular works of the Osteen and Myer types. It tells me they simply don't heed or listen to any sound doctrine they've been taught.

 

That's major immaturity on their part. There are times it may be of value to someone and it should be spoken prudently if at all. Whether or not the person is deemed as only gossiping is to be determined case by case I suppose. Anyhow all of this needs to be handled prudently. Many Christians are very easily offended, another indicator of immaturity.

 

By the way, I appreciate the stance that everyone here is taking in this particular thread. We certainly could use more men and women of God who unashamedly stand for truth and expose error.

 

The RCC believes in all that and teaches all outside her are apostate. She also teaches Mary is co- Redemptrix and co-Mediatrix.

That said I think your good list falls well short of a standard test.