Featured Naming names

I'm not sure I understand this part of your post. Could you explain?

I agree with the rest of the post, though, just to mention.


God bless.

 

You brethren promise not to beat me up to bad here but I have a question... What is the difference between Apostacy, Heresy and Unsound Doctrine?... Brother Glen

 

Okay, now I get it. lol

Thanks.

Not sure I would agree with seeing naming the names of those whose doctrine is heresy as being unbiblical, Paul on at least a few occasions named names when they weren't present.

But, I will reiterate that I think that if we are going to "name names," we should back that up so that at least someone who might think we ourselves are in error have the chance to defend them or their doctrine.

So I will inquire before I start a thread which I think is a great debate: Lordship Salvation. Either of you see a problem in discussing this debate? Names are named, primarily John MacArthur, as well as a number of historical men well known, and some well loved.

I was surprised when Jerome posted an article about a guy that knew Ryrie, who actually sided with MacArthur on the issue.


God bless.

 

Apostasy is basically a "stepping away from," which in a Biblical context (particularly a New Testament context) gives a picture of a stepping away from Christ. We see this in 2 Thessalonians 2, which I think gives not only the clearest and easiest illustration, but makes it clear who it is that becomes apostate.

Heresy would be generally described as false doctrine, though I would say, and this is just an opinion, mind you, that in view is a "choosing" which I think we can, if we pay attention, see in the approach of Bible Students more often than not. In other words, I view heresy as describing something that has been chosen, rather than received. All knowledge of God which is valid is provided to men by God, and the understanding as well. Heresy, on the other hand, carries a connotation which could be defined as self indoctrinated knowledge. Perhaps it is easiest just to define it as false doctrine, lol.

We could look to what Paul states in relation to the "heretick:"


Titus 3:9-10

King James Version (KJV)

9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.


This would, I think broaden our definition.

And unsound doctrine?

That's an interesting point.

This is just my own opinion, but I might argue a difference between heresy and unsound doctrine. For example, the popular view that Sunday is the "Christian Sabbath" could be argued as unsound doctrine, because we do not have Scripture that commands this as we do in regards to the Sabbath/s of the Law. Could we then say, "That is a false doctrine or practice," personally, I don't think so, because we do see disciples meeting on the first day of the Week, so there is nothing sinful in it. But when it's taught as a command for Christians, then I take issue with it.


God bless.

 

Or is there no difference and they are all three the same?... Brother Glen

 

Just wanted to clarify my confusion, because my point was in regards to a denial of being related to the forum itself.

I thought you might be speaking about the "leaders" (staff) and saying "We aren't leaders."

All is clear now, that is, since we understand you don't consider yourselves to be leaders, but wizards...




God bless.

 

Interesting that you mention the Sabbath... Have a friend of mine SDA who will only worship on Saturday as I have always worshipped on Sunday. Doesn't matter to me if he choses to worship on Saturday but to say there is certain day to worship the Lord are the scriptures implicit on that?... Since the Lords day is everyday the mandate is to worship God not chose or set a side a particular day to worship... Not to single out SDA's also heard there are SDB's... Brother Glen

 

Is it not clear that the OP agenda is to lump those contemporary folks who are of the charismatic - name it claim it, faith healing, healthy-wealthy, extra Biblical inspired word from God for others, - with one who was a prolific writer, scholar, theologian, well respected by theological peers of his day, and now long dead?

If that isn't obvious to those of the BB, then it should have been. That the moderators and administrators would rather discuss other issues rather than seeing the OP for what it is, and "calling out" the author, is puzzling.

Sure, now I will be called as defender of Lewis Sperry Chafer, but frankly I don't need to defend him.

I did not defend Darby, but ask for those who had documentations that he was a heretic or spent time teaching heresy to help me find such statements. I did so because I had not read from his work(s) and wanted documentation to show clearly and plainly to others. Not a single person on the BB made any public or private communication presenting such documentation. I didn't finish reading, and frankly have given up reading from Darby, merely because I am too old and he is not an easy read. And, I have found others have already done the work and found nothing chargeable.

I do not now defend Louis Sperry Chaffer, but again ask for those who have documents that he was in any manner associated with those in which the OP listed with him, to please share such documentation. Not that YOU disagree with what he said, but that he was a charismatic and could well associate with that group listed in the OP, and that what he taught was not Scriptural. That the Scriptures be found to true and every man a liar.

Frankly, it is beyond me why some of the BB think that they can "call out" someone when they have shown absolutely no Biblical proof of error that the person was not Scriptural. The only proof is what the writer of the OP would deem as error because it doesn't conform to the view of prophecy or that grace is not free but must in some manner be earned (if it isn't one, it must be the other). Or, perhaps, there is some yet undisclosed information that the writer of the OP will share. But it should have been done at the opening remarks.

PROOF of apostasy and other error must accompany calling one out with the actual Scriptures violated. It is called documentation.

All the others on the list are well known as abiding in or have exhibited erroneous teaching. Not a single one on that list is a triple doctorate scholar, prolific writer, author of systematic theological studies, and highly regarded commonly among biblical scholars of many different backgrounds both in his day and continues to be a resource.

So, what is the agenda, IT?

You don't like "free grace" teaching, yet you would claim that grace is without merit and therefore free. Is that the error you want to attack?

You don't like dispensation teaching, yet it can be said that your own scheme is actually no better, just different. One is not lesser or more noble. There is Scriptures available to align with the noted schemes: Pre-wrath, Dispensation, Pre-Mil, Post-Mil, A-mil. Is there some error you wish to attack?

So, IT, YOU are "called out."

Did you not place within the OP an agenda of miss-characterization and misrepresentation by listing a group of well - known still living charismatics and insert one long dead that would be absolutely repulsed by such an association?

In doing so, are you not bringing disrepute to one that does not deserve that association?

Is that not deceitful, and playing the part of one who gossips?

Besides, IT, didn't you know that "name calling" is not an admired trait of the BB rules?

All I am asking for is the documentation to go along with the association, or if not the association, at least the documentation of error taken from first hand evidence.

 

I like where you went, but! Those darn, monster size, three and two letter words.

In my heart I do not believe you meant to elevate Paul, in any manor, to the level of out Giod, but with him being saidf toi be infallible, there he is.

This is niot for you, youy know it but for the Seeker that might read and the Spiritually Young. The Father in Heaven, Jesus the Son of God and the Holy spirit of God are infallible and there are none, absolutely none, like our Triune God.

In 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 we find; To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.—NIV

Except for the truth found in Gal. 1:11-12, Paul, lije every oine of the rest of us is a sinner saved through and by the limitless grace of our God.

May God bless the reading and the teaching of His Word.