Featured Naming names

Sorry brother, you have your hands full and I should have read further down and not added to the obvious condition.

 

We are in agreement concerning every day being holy unto God. Isn't it strange, a concept of refusing to worship on a particular day?


God bless.

 

In reading through this thread I believe the OP, as stated, has an agenda. IT has twice referred to it.

In post #58 he said:
It is where I stand and make a stance. I believe you would too, especially if you agree with John MacArthurs stance.

Implied here is all that disagree with MacArthur are wrong, and should be called out.

Then in post #15, right on the first page he very clearly said:
Well, his errors are a take off of the false notions of innate faith and free will.

This takes straight aim at others posting on this board.

However, if such doctrine is stated in the SBC's "The Baptist Faith And Message," how could he consider it as "errors leading to false notions."?

Regeneration is the experience of being born again from above (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). It is an instantaneous work of God’s grace wrought by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus the believer becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus (2Cor.5:16). Note that to create is a work of God, not of man (Eph.2:10). The second one is born again, he is a child of God, a finished relationship which cannot be broken.

Regeneration is the result of conviction of sin, repentance from sin, faith in Jesus Christ, and the confession of that faith. Conviction is the state of mind and heart whereby lost persons recognize and admit their sinful states and practices. It is a work wrought by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). Under conviction one will either reject Christ and plunge deeper into sin, or else receive Christ as Savior. But conviction itself is not regeneration.

True repentance will be followed by faith. Indeed, repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Truly repentant persons will turn to Jesus Christ in faith as Savior. Faith means to believe. But in its truest sense it is more than intellectual. It involves an act of the will whereby one trusts in Christ and commits one’s self to him, to his will and way. It means to accept or receive Christ as both Lord and Savior. Thus one will be brought to confess him as such (Rom.10:9-10).
(Pages 51,52)

Under the topic of Election the book says:
Election is one of the greatest doctrines of the Bible. Yet the word itself does not appear in the Old Testament; it is found only in six verses in the New Testament (Rom.9:11; 11:5,7,28; 1Thes.1:4; 2Pet.1:10). But the word elect appears in the Old Testament and elect and chosen both appear in the New Testament.

There are certain pitfalls to be avoided in considering the doctrine of election. One should not magnify certain aspects of God’s nature (sovereignty, will, power, pleasure) to the neglect of others (righteousness, love). Neither should one forget the free will of man and his power of choice. Also, election should not be regarded as God’s purpose to save as few as possible rather than as many as possible. The tenor of the Bible is that God loves all men and wishes to save as many as possible. Again, it should not be viewed as relating to the saving of certain individuals to the neglect of all others. Such a position negates the abundant teachings of the Bible to the contrary. The pitfall resulting from these others is fatalism. If some are saved and others lost regardless of what they do r do not do, what incentive is there to seek the Lord or to preach the gospel? But the facts of the Scripture are that man is not a puppet on a string. Election never appears in the Bible as mechanical or as blind destiny. It has to do with a God of love and with man who is morally responsible. Election never appears as a violation of the human will (Mat.23:37-38). Note John 6:44. “No man can come to me, except the Father…draw him.” “Draw” is God’s initiative. “Come” is man’s response.

Two truths, therefore, must be recognized in regard to election: God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Both are abundantly taught in the Bible. (pages 55,56)

From "The Baptist Faith and Message," Herschel H. Hobbs, Sunday School Board of SBC Convention, Convention Press, 1996)

I believe IT's agenda is clear.

 

Not trying to be a wise guy (for once, lol), but just mention that the nit-picking is kind of an expected result on a topic such as this, because there is going to be disagreement concerning those who stand in what we might consider positions of leadership.

And that is actually a healthy debate, in my view. Consider those that follow "leaders" we might all here agree are false teachers. If that person and his/her doctrine is discussed, on a doctrinal level, then those who don't participate can benefit from the discussion, debate, and yes, sometimes even argument.

If nothing else, when we shut down the computer for the night, if we have not only brought false doctrine into focus, but shown why it should be considered false, then the chances that someone is going to benefit from that is very high.

Isn't this a point asked in the OP? Is there a place for it in the Body? And I stand by what I said, we have to keep it real, and distinguish between forum fellowship and the "real world," but, this is one of the reasons I started going to forums and continue to go: both to challenge my own views (by presenting them in public) and challenging the views of others. I have learned a lot in these discussions over the years, and owe a great debt to all the posters that took the time to take Scripture serious enough, and took error serious enough, which then goes on to conveyance of the Gospel itself.

All of us should have the preaching of the Gospel as our foremost goal, and all of us should want our brothers to be preaching it as soundly as all of us think we do ourselves, lol.

It's fun, it's educational, it's edifying. But, if we are not concerned that the Body be of one mind from a doctrinal perspective, we might resemble how a lot of fellowship Sunday School classes have become: instead of having a sound teacher instructing, a verse is passed around and everybody shares what they think it means.

So naming names will involve doing just that, naming names.


God bless.

 

From one perspective, maybe not, but, those who broadcast the teachings of others are linked to those teachers. And the same is true concerning those who vilify teachers.


God bless.

 

Could you show me from Catholic Doctrine where the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Co-Redemptrixt?

You have named a name, considered it your calling, and the obvious responsibility is to be valid when you charge false doctrines.

So let's start with that.


God bless.

 

I agree and as some us mature and get older in our walk with the Lord some of us tend to mellow with age... And others!... Oh Well!... Been there done that!... How sweet and how pleasant tis for brethren to dwell together in unity... Brother Glen

 

Well, Professor, your point is quite clear, and I was trying to be polite in my disagreement with it.

You said...

Points (and you correct me where I fail to understand your point):

1. You assert your agenda;

2. This is to address the charge of agenda;

3. You charge others with nit-picking;

4. You are not pleased with nit-picking;

5. You charge the nit-picker with error which is only in their minds;

6. You assume authority to state this as fact;

7. You exhort the nit-picker/s to only agree with the subject/s of this nit-picking;

8. You exhort said nit-pickers/s to join your agenda;

9. You exhort nit-picker/s to only identify what is good in said subject of nit-picking/s (and the implication resulting in what is essentially endorsing overlooking error, which would actually bring this to 15 points rather than 14);

10. You imply pointing out error leads to the twisting of what is true;

11. You assume authority to decide what truth is;

12. You have judged that division is the result of this twisting of your perceived truth;

13. You show bias in judging;

14. You are in fact against the very intent of the OP.


Did I miss anything?

Now what I expect, if this forum remains consistent with past conversations, for the OP to now charge me with missing the intent of the OP...again. Who knows, maybe I might be surprised and see I actually agree with him, lol.

Now, would like a fuller response to your point?

Or can I leave the ones already given?

And I'll let you be the judge of whether I am trying to be a wise guy in this one...




God bless.

 

From Catholic Doctrine, IT.

God bless.

 

Very willing to try. In fact on many things one can agree to disagree.
However IT just responded:

"The error" that is directly mentioned in this thread is part of the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC. It is very similar to what I believe. And yet for that belief it has elicited such responses as:

doctrines of demons, Finneyism, a questioning of my salvation, heretical views, etc.
If I edit the name-calling or the derogatory language out, I am an unfair mod. But it should be done.
This "nit-picking" in many cases, to some, seems to be waged as an all out war. And yet it is simply "standing for the truth while opposing error..." NOT!

 

That's going to be a problem, you being on the staff and all...lol.

That's the point.

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. I'm okay with that.

On the contrary, you do not.

Scripture has the authority to declare truth...you have a responsibility to draw out that truth and convey it to others.

Don't confuse authority as an administrator with the point being made.

And if you still need help understanding that let me know...



Now, what has just happened and how is it relevant to the OP and "the point" (beside your inclination to consider me a wise guy, lol)?


God bless.