Featured What would qualify as being heretical doctrines?

But you are not doing that...you simply hurl derisive statements at people.

No Scripture, thus no authority whatsoever.

That is the only authority we have.


God bless.

 

That is the point, lol.

And again, I appreciate the humor of the post, but I also see it as encouraging a mocking tone towards the people, not the doctrine...of other faiths.

This is true, but that does not mean we need to belittle those who have been indoctrinated into them. Many of these people will have grown up under leadership they have trusted their entire lives to teach them what God's will is, and what His Word teaches. In some respects we have to have compassion for them, knowing their teachers will suffer the greater judgment. Not that they receive a pass, because they should be reading the Word for themselves, but, again, the point is how we come across to them. Does anybody really think we are going to reach them with mockery and derision?

Secondly, I personally have a problem with people going around stating what others' believe. There is no one-size-fits-all Catholicism, they are as diverse as Baptists. Not all of them embrace the teachings you list here...

The very fact that some Catholics do not view official Catholic doctrine to be as perceived by those their antagonists is something I have seen in numerous conversations with Catholics.

Correct. And as long as it is the doctrine that is addressed it is my view we will get further with our witness.

Again...that is the point.


God bless.

 

No, because you have listed what you think their errors are...without quoting from their actual official doctrine. And what that encourages are people from that group, who like you, just want to argue with other people from different groups...without even using Scripture as the measure of truth.

For being part of the Reformation? No. Were they wrong about things...without question. In Luther's case, it was not his intention to begin a revolution, because he was...a Catholic. As far as his teaching concerning Justification I think there is a little to be desired, and the influence both he and Calvin had had on the Church as a whole is not all entirely good.

In Calvin's case his understanding of Regeneration is lacking. And based on that I would call his teaching into question, and go so far as to say it is unbiblical without flinching. And it could be viewed as heretical as far as I am concerned. I would not chastise anyone for saying it was. My own opinion is that it is just more poor teaching in a world full of poor teaching.

Yeshua1...it is okay for them to post their theology, as far as I know. That's the whole point of Other Denominations. If they are not allowed then that is a shame. I myself welcome the chance to discuss doctrine with them. What's the point of this forum if you cannot preach to those engaged in false doctrine?

Charismatics have "modern day apostles and prophets," and as far as I am concerned, a number of them have a different gospel, but they come here, don't they?

Lastly, there is very little difference between many Protestant teachings and Catholic teachings. Both can be seen to embrace the heresy of amillennialism, a false view of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, Regeneration, and quite a few more issues that could certainly be described as heresy.

But its okay for them to teach nonsense, right?


God bless.

 

So they would have "thundered down," eh?


Luke 9:51-56
King James Version (KJV)

51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.


God bless.

 

Jon, what I haven't quoted you can view as our being in agreement on. Just trying to keep the response down a little, because I'd much rather be having a doctrinal discussion, lol.

And keep in mind that is just my opinion, and I don't mean to imply you are being malicious, but humorous, which is something I can appreciate greatly.

It's probably more a matter of not seeing discouragement of attitudes which do nothing but make it harder to witness to those involved in false doctrine.

There is no reason we cannot keep an open, friendly, and beneficial dialogue with people we believe engaged in false doctrine, and it is discouraging to see often those who have come here (or any forum) who are likely here because God has brought them here...treated like family.

I don't see that. We can't "solidify" doctrine if Scripture is never brought into the equation. And I am speaking about this thread primarily. Let's be honest, this thread is nothing more than a Catholic and SDA bashing thread. It serves no purpose.I think only two people have offered Scripture. Reformed did a post which was dead on concerning the OP and all he got in return was another exclamatory outburst.

And that is the exact point I tried to make. While the Doctrine is in error, we do not assume to condemn everyone involved in those groups.

Not all Catholics embrace everything Catholicism teaches. I agree, they have doctrines which depart from Scripture (as well as practice), but how often doe a congregation actually know what it is their group actually teaches? Probably about the same as your typical Baptist congregation, lol. Not very many.

I do as well, but, being ignorant doesn't disqualify one from being saved. Lucky for me, lol. I could retire if I had a nickel for everything I have been wrong about in my walk with the Lord.

It was a CoC forum that is the first forum I ever left before doing my usual 1,000 posts or so in my visit. They could not defend Baptismal Regeneration so the Moderator told me I couldn't debate it any more. I told them it was an abuse of power and that if they were so confident in their doctrine they should be able to defend it, and that I would not waste time on a forum that didn't have the fortitude to do so, and simply shut down anyone presenting opposition to their doctrine. Moderation later recanted, but I don't think I returned. Besides, my thread is still there, so that was good enough for me.

Right, its a little different when we are face to face with those we witness to. Not true on forums, anonymity seems to bring out the beast in some (myself included at times, lol, I've been guilty of losing my cool a time or two).

But again, you are making my point for me. Its not a matter of getting more flies with honey, because I don't think I would be accused of sugar-coating my responses to people. But, I try very hard not to belittle people, though that might seem to be the case sometimes, because no-one likes to be told their doctrine is wrong, and they definitely do not like seeing Scripture that proves it, lol.

Amen. Let Scripture do that, lol. Scripture shows all of us our error.

Well, you know what they say, "You can pick your nose..."

Amen.

And again, it is quite probable God has brought some of these people for the purpose that their doctrine be placed in light of what Scripture states. The question is, are we up to the task.

That's part of it. The other part is the lack of showing them why their doctrine is wrong in light of a Scriptural presentation. And I don't mean everyone. One forum I used to be a part of (when I first found forums) had a Moderator that would come on a thread and say one thing...

Address the Post and not the Poster!

It was kind of irritating but he was right, lol. In other words, address the content of the post rather than who wrote it. That meant not making things personal or specific to the poster, but addressing the issue being discussed.

So, don't think my comment meant to imply you always encourage a mocking or belittling tone, it was more because of irritation with someone who has a habit of interjecting exclamatory and derogatory statements into discussions, and telling you "Don't encourage the peanut gallery!" All this doe is inflame the one who receives that type of treatment and it is hard enough trying to get people to focus on the Scriptures being presented as it is. I would say your the best Moderator this forum has, but I don't want to swell your ego or give the impression I am a respecter of persons.




God bless.

 

I’m not certain that I agree that there is a limit of confronting doctrinal error to just the church in which a person is a member.

For example, a local Baptist church flaunts unscriptural Doctrines by publishing the endorsement of the gay lifestyle and diminishing hell to the point of nearly non-existence.

Should not this evil be confronted, and because of the public and published views of that church such confrontation not be publicized?

 

I understand this thinking.

Yet, is the church not to warn even the strangers?

For example, a family moves into the area and sees the plush advertising and all the wonderful and exciting adventures for the children advertised with all manner of good works for both the members and the outreach to the community in which entice the family to become involved.

Are this family not to be warned of the dangers and the doctrinal issues? Should not doctrinally sound churches bond together working together to show the true underbidding evil of the denial of Scriptures involved by that church?

Or are that family left to find out for themselves.

Now, "us" in your statement may be as individual members confronting individual members of another congregation or even attempting to individually protest that assembly without the support of their own assembly. In that view I would agree.

But, I do think that churches are responsible when an associating church grouping (be it IFB, GARB, SBC, NBC, ...) presents that which is not Scriptural as Scriptural.

For example: No SBC, IFB, GARB, NBC... church should remain in fellowship with a church that denies the Scriptures by allowing women to speak in a worship service. Yet, this is becoming a matter of preference and not doctrine. Other issues such as modernism, life style, immorality, ... are becoming less divisive in attempts to be ecumenical. Such should not be left without some response from the believing assemblies. How are we as a church to judge angels if we have no standard in which is well practiced among us and coming from us as an assembly.

Baptist used to stand for something.

Now, it is as if folks take Baptist as just another grouping.

 

Aw, You were doing good, until that line.

It is good to pick on the moderators. That is because they aren't supposed to fight back, but moderate discussions.

If anyone should be picked on, irritated, messed with, it should be a moderator. Their supposed to be able to see all sides and make some agreement with all extreme views.



Actually, I am friends with the man who wrote, "Enlightened Dissent: A Leadership Methodology for Peace Building." (https://www.amazon.com/Enlightened-Dissent-Leadership-Methodology-Building/dp/1595942270). He is one of the most honorable and gracious men that I have the honor being able to call a friend.

Although he is not saved, he has a powerful voice of influence around the world.

But, I wouldn't invite him to the BB.

 

The error of Pentecostalism is in placing emotionalism and trickery along side the Scriptures as valid.

For example, claiming that some sign, wonder, capturing of demons, ... is validation of the work of God is not dissimilar to that of the IFB churches who allowed immorality and excess because someone or group were good soul winners.

The sin resides is placing the purity of the gospel, the veracity of the walk, the vitality of the Holy Spirit in changing lives in a mixture of excess and self gratification.

John Calvin was a person of the age in which he lived. And I do think that he would have stood against some of the Dutch reformation thinking as either excessive, or down right anti-christ.

Sda, Rome, Mormons, Jw all have a single problem. That is the relegation of the Scriptures to second in favor of some other teaching, tradition, and assumed authority. Therefore, it is not a single doctrine, but the whole system of which they embrace that is heretical.