Featured The Casual gospel

DHK,
If this was your first post in the thread it would have avoided most of the hate and discontent.

 

Is this an accusation or what?

What Judas felt is not known to me or to you. He certainly regretted what he had done (Matt. 27:3), just as Peter did (Matt. 26:75 etc.). What he did not do was make a biblical repentance and put his trust in Christ as Peter did (John 21:15ff).

The object of Biblical faith is certainly the Lord Jesus Christ. But if He is not one's Lord (that is, the One you obey), then one is not really believing in Him (cf. John 20:28; Rom. 10:9).

I think you'll find I'm not.

Those in Matt. 7:21-23 are those who claim Christ as their Lord, but their lives deny His Lordship. I think that is pretty clear. 'But why do you call Me Lord, Lord,' and not do the things that I say?' Simon Magus 'believed' and was convincing enough to persuade someone to baptize him (Acts 8:13), but Christ was not his Lord- power and money were.

I certainly teach that, and it's not works salvation. Repentance must come right up front with faith. Our Lord told people of whom there is no indication that they were disciples of any kind, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish' (Luke 13:3).

I think you'll find you are.

Not if people are not told that they need to repent. I won't comment on the USA, but in Britain there are bucket-loads of professing Christians whose lives are indistinguishable from those around them, and they are lost. 'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived' (1 Cor. 6:9). They are deceived by people telling them that they can believe now and repent later.

'I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God' (Gal. 5:21, NIV).

When someone who professes Christianity falls into serious sin, there are two possibilities. One is that as you say, he is a true Christian, in which case God will bring him to repentance. The other is that he is not a Christian at all and is on his way to hell with a pocket-full of false promises.

I think you'll find it is biblical- it's in the Bible, you see (Acts 2:38), and it's not for you or anyone else to take it out.

 

"agedman,

I am more familiar with DTS from the 70"s....I have not kept up with it. I have books and tapes by those men. I learned much, but also spotted error and have seen the fruit of the error.

my point is not that they are baptists, but rather baptists were not excluded.

Agedman.....I clash with DHK everyday. I confront him openly and very much so in the last few months.

My clashes with DHK are not always about ...what he believes.
For example...he is premill......so is Johnny Mac.
If J MAC were on here I would go at his teaching directly, but J mac would not twist my words ,and bear false witness with me.
DHK has every right to present and defend his views....they are easily answered and defeated. That however is not the issue.

If time permits look at what stirs up the wrath of many of the posters against him...it is not so much his views...no.
It is what i would describe as unethical behaviour.

You think IT THeo. is being harsh with him.....maybe so, but I understand why having been in that position before.
No one likes when something they post is slandered. This takes place.....the way it happens is...a person makes a post and aboutb 40 posts later the post is twisted, and not accurately quoted......most readers are not going to go back to another thread, or 5-6 pages back and re-read it all......so the misrepresentation stands.......people hate this....so they lash out.

If DHK is looking for the "red heifer", the anti Christ, the false prophet, the ten nation confederacy....no one cares that much...that is not why they attack him....
If we go back and document our charges against him by quoting him....he deletes the posts, lol.... That is what you are not seeing...
Pay attention when he posts....he drifts of when he says......I can infer this from what you said, or you believe the same teaching of the RCC church, or the JW..etc , when the person says no such thing.

The OP was general in nature...as it developed he mentioned three men from that school....I do not think it was intended to be specific......
.

I gave a link that mentioned some of the false ideas and their origins......I was not even trying that hard, a google search will show plenty. I have heard some of these errors preached on...it is not always easy to recall 40 plus years of listening to sermons and have them at your finger tips.....i do not store the bad information as much as I try for the positive.

This has been an ongoing problem but you are suggesting it is one sided and I can assure you it is not....look up such interactions between your friend DHK and
me, OR, Rippon, Con 1 , Archangel, Beasley, and many more...some who no longer even answer his posts....
we are not all guiltless either, but it is not a one way street. I think the other mods are reluctant to intervene hoping it works itself out.

 

NO, of course not. I was using the generic "you," as we were discussing "believing in Christ."
I should have said, "when one believes in Christ..." I am a preacher; I often use the word "you," without referring to you as a person. It is habit. Sorry.

He felt sorrow or remorse for sin. He regretted what he had done.

Mat 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
Mat 27:4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
Mat 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
A.T. Robertson says:
"Repented himself (metamelētheis). Probably Judas saw Jesus led away to Pilate and thus knew that the condemnation had taken place. This verb (first aorist passive participle of metamelomai) really means to be sorry afterwards like the English word repent from the Latin repoenitet, to have pain again or afterwards. See the same verb metamelētheis in Mat_21:30 of the boy who became sorry and changed to obedience. The word does not have an evil sense in itself. Paul uses it of his sorrow for his sharp letter to the Corinthians, a sorrow that ceased when good came of the letter (2Co_7:8). But mere sorrow avails nothing unless it leads to change of mind and life (metanoia), the sorrow according to God (2Co_7:9). This sorrow Peter had when he wept bitterly. It led Peter back to Christ. But Judas had only remorse that led to suicide."

I differ with that theology (called L.S.). Christ is Lord of all creation, all mankind, saved or unsaved, whether we like it or not. He was Lord of my life before I was saved. The monarch of England has complete rule (theoretically) over the land whether you like it or not. She is lord. You can choose to obey or disobey. Your disobedience does not make her any less lord. Your disobedience to Christ does not dethrone him or make him any less Lord. How could it?
Thus the object of our faith in salvation is Christ, as Savior. In this day and age he is our Savior; there is coming a day when the age of grace will be over, and then judgment will start. After that period, he will reign as King.
However, I understand where you are coming from. When one accepts or trusts Christ we must have the understanding he is master and we are his servants. Faith is not just head knowledge.
"You believe in God, you do well; the devils also believe and tremble."

Nevertheless, neither one of these passages deal with true believers. They are just red herrings.
They have as much bearing on this subject as James 2:19 does, which I just quoted.
The devils or demons believe. But they are not saved either.
The context of Matthew 7 makes it clear that these are false teachers whether or not they call him "Lord." We see them on TV all the time begging for money having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Again, repentance is the other side of faith. If one has biblical faith in Christ then his life will change and show repentance. The scripture that both John the Baptist and Jesus used are pre-cross, and give a different message of repentance. John's message of repentance was that they needed to show fruits of repentance before they could be baptized. The verse you used was not used in the context of salvation either.

Repent from what?

If their belief is in Christ as Lord, then repentance takes place at the same time and change will follow.
The verse you quoted. What is the context?

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
--That is who they were. They believed. Now they are washed, sanctified and justified.
The verse shouldn't be quoted without its context. Paul was drawing a contrast.

Again not the contrast:
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Agreed.

 

It is not just agedman or myself, it has been others as well that you have been ignoring. This is dishonesty on your part. The OP has remained without any substantive evidence, documentation, etc. Therefore it is based on hearsay.
For example, when someone challenged my comments about the RCC in the thread about Catholicism, I went to the Catechism approved by the Vatican and gave a direct quote from it. That put to silence any question about what the Catholic church believes on that particular doctrine. You won't do that. You won't provide evidence on what you have claimed. It is hearsay.

Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
Proverbs 6:19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
--The last is an abomination to the Lord, and the last two are the ones that you are committing by not providing solid evidence of those things which you have asserted in your OP.

 

First - about truthfulness - or lack thereof.

When the first "attack" of DTS was made, I admittedly went to the DTS website, posted from that website, and therefore, made defence from the statements of that website. I did consider the posted of the assessment of the teaching of DTS was wrong, because of my own personal contact with folks both from the past and also the present of the school, and from the published documents of the school. I also looked through the course catalog, and found nothing to support the claims made on the topic.

HOWEVER, because of the insistence, there was a willingness to give the benefit of doubt, and abstain from judgment. I thought that would be evident by my encouraging a new thread to deal specifically with that school and that topic.

To THAT challenge you have failed to bring any substance.

So, I have posted - NOT in support of the school, but in support of YOU producing the evidence necessary that ALL of the BB may know the truth.

I have NOT argued that it is "ALL WRONG." Such an assignment is a fabrication or a misguided extrapolation which was never intended. That you make such an assignment, shows a lack of communication skill on my part.

But, you must surly understand that from the beginning that the statements you were making were inconsistent with the written statements from DTS. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to point out that the statements you were making were not factual because they were not documented as being a part of the teaching of the school.

So, WHO is being truthful?

Second - there is a larger issue on this thread.

No argument of any side on any topic matters when it comes to what words one chooses when posting on a public forum. A place were anyone can read and see the temperament of the posters. A place were outsiders draw conclusions on not just topics, but on poster's wisdom, but more on a poster's character.

James 3 (imo) should be a personal standard for posting on the BB - especially the "Bible and Theology" forum.

Certainly, there are times when I was neglectful of that standard, and I am most ashamed that my fleshly need of self righteousness was and is ever displayed inappropriately. I have no grand claim of superiority, nor do I deserve any.

Perhaps what all members should do on this thread is back off for a while. Examine their own understanding of James 3 as it applies to what they have contributed in their posts.
Then restart the topic with the objective of James 3 being considered before any reply button is punched.

"Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." (emphasis added by me)​

A LOT more would be accomplished on the BB by keeping this standard.

Wouldn't you agree?