A Clarification Is Needed...

[Aaron]

...for Jon's broad brush. Surely pointing out the similarity of one's expressed notions to tenets distinctive of various cults and heresies, e.g, Mormonism, Socinianism, JWs, Nazism, etc. isn't being equated with calling one's salvation into question?

For instance, if someone postulates the other planets were created for colonization once the earth was full, if there were no Fall, are we banned from pointing out the similarity of that notion to a key aspect of Mormon doctrine?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Thanks for bringing this up.

I believe it is not only biblical but is our duty and responsibility to call one's salvation into question when appropriate to do so.

If your hope is in whatever you "do" to seek justification or earn favor with God, you are not saved.

If you believe you are saved because you got "dunked" into baptistry waters, you are likely not saved.

If you adamantly deny (note these two words here) the virgin birth, deity of Christ, or God's triune nature, you are in grievous error and I will not consider you to be "Christian."

If you take a pantheist or universalist position that "all roads lead to God," you are not a Christan.

Need I go on?

We should do so with humility and while giving the utmost respect to the person of which we are addressing. We should be heartbroken and pleading with them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved!"

If you are calling someone's salvation into question because they disagree with you over some petty or secondary issue, I can appreciate Jon's perspective here. We should not use it as a means to hurl insults or whatever. People have strong and differing opinions here and I believe it is good to have spirited debate and discussion but when things start to get nasty, it is probably good to take a time out!

One more thing though. If someone gets on here expressing certain views where it seems obvious the person is not saved, we should be careful not to gang up and "dog pile" on this person. Perhaps one or two could lovingly confront their error while others remain out of the conversation and just pray.

My two cents FWIW

 

[DaveXR650]

For instance, if someone postulates the other planets were created for colonization once the earth was full, if there were no Fall, are we banned from pointing out the similarity of that notion to a key aspect of Mormon doctrine?

Well. It's very frequent on here for non-Calvinists to say that Calvinism is a false doctrine. And that Calvin himself was an evil persecutor. To me, you would be definitely questioning the faith of those who use him namesake, "Calvinists". For their part Calvinists on here frequently claim that non Calvinists have a definition of saving faith that turns it into a work and therefore have a works based system of salvation. The logical conclusion of which is that this is unsound and the followers of such doctrine are not saved.

In the case of Socinianism, I will doing a thread on his views of the atonement and his method of argumentation against penal substitution. I will leave it to those who read it to determine if there are similarities with the positions some take on here as they attack the doctrine of penal substitution. This whole area of progressive apostacy or "downgrade" as Spurgeon would have put it is very important. I noticed this in my reading on Calvinism vs Arminianism and also Amyraldianism and some of Baxter's views on justification. I love Baxter but did notice how many were warning about his theology and how it progressed historically to Universalism and then on to Socinianism. This can happen to anyone, especially nowadays in our age of self-eteem.

 

[DaveXR650]

I love Baxter but did notice how many were warning about his theology and how it progressed historically to Universalism and then on to Socinianism.

Clarification. Not that Baxter himself ever went to Universalism or Socinianism, but that the theology itself later did so, after he was gone.

 

[Van]

Why do some Bible Study threads seem to focus not on understanding specific scripture, but rather on the conjecture of people? The issue, at least initially seemed to be conjecture about God's purpose, other than His stated purpose, in creating the planets and moons of our solar system.

But that is not bible study, that is conjecture study.

 

[JonC]

...for Jon's broad brush. Surely pointing out the similarity of one's expressed notions to tenets distinctive of various cults and heresies, e.g, Mormonism, Socinianism, JWs, Nazism, etc. isn't being equated with calling one's salvation into question?

For instance, if someone postulates the other planets were created for colonization once the earth was full, if there were no Fall, are we banned from pointing out the similarity of that notion to a key aspect of Mormon doctrine?

Asking for a friend.

Sure.

Say Steve says "Jesus Christ suffered for our sins, satisfying the demands of justice" (something we have heard often on the BB).

You could point out that Steve had stated, verbatim, Mormon doctrine.

But that would just be an insult essentually calling Steve's salvation into question as Mormons are not Christians.


In other words, while "Jesus suffering for our sins to satisfy justice" IS Mormon doctrine, one holding that belief is not necessarily a Mormon.

Mormonism is more than the belief that Christ suffered and died to satisfy divine justice.


The route you should take, instead of linking Steve's belief to Mormonism, is discuss what Steve believes as compared to Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for bringing this up.

I believe it is not only biblical but is our duty and responsibility to call one's salvation into question when appropriate to do so.

I certainly believe many I have spoken to on this board are not saved.

I cannot declare that as fact (people can believe wrongly, "He will make them stand") but there is also the possibility one "leans on their own understsnding", has been "carried away by philosophy" and will hear "I never knew you". I believe a lot depends on how one holds their understanstanding.

BUT it is against the rules for me to question their salvation on the forum (at least, without them asking my opinion). And when we joined this board we agreed to abide by its rules.


So what do you do? You report it so Staff can question them snd determine if they belong to the cult in question.


Example -

Say Steve says "Jesus died for our sins to satisfy the demands of God's justice".

You recognize that as a central Mormon doctrine.

Rather than linking Steve's belief to Mormonism just report the post. The Staff will ask Steve of his beliefs via pm. If he is a Mormon he will be banned.

The issue is, while Jesus dying to satisfy the demands of divine justice is a central Mormon belief, Mormonism is much more than that belief.

 

[DaveXR650]

Say Steve says "Jesus Christ suffered for our sins, satisfying the demands of justice" (something we have heard often on the BB).

You could point out that Steve had stated, verbatim, Mormon doctrine.

But that would just be an insult essentually calling Steve's salvation into question as Mormons are not Christians.

If true, that points out a similarity. What Steve says there happens to be what I believe, as does almost everyone on this site. The fact that it might also be a Mormon belief is a completely separate issue. But it might also be useful. I could possibly be an undercover Mormon. Now in the case of Socinianism, it is well known and documented over the years, whether it's fair or not, that teaching a universal atonement, teaching that belief is itself part of the requirement for salvation, or teaching that good works after initial justification are required for final justification, are things that do often lead to Socinianism is valid when discussing any of those items. The fact that full blown Socinians believe other things directly contradictory to orthodox Christianity is true, just like it is true that Mormons believe other things completely contradictory to orthodoxy Christianity. But pointing out a similarity as a point of argument or as a warning to a soul should be encouraged in fact. It's not a slander at all.

When the Puritans pointed out that allowing one sin to reign unchecked in your life was possibly the beginning of future apostacy, they were not calling those they were speaking to apostates. They were calling the folks to examine what they were doing.

 

[JonC]

If true, that points out a similarity. What Steve says there happens to be what I believe, as does almost everyone on this site. The fact that it might also be a Mormon belief is a completely separate issue. But it might also be useful. I could possibly be an undercover Mormon. Now in the case of Socinianism, it is well known and documented over the years, whether it's fair or not, that teaching a universal atonement, teaching that belief is itself part of the requirement for salvation, or teaching that good works after initial justification are required for final justification, are things that do often lead to Socinianism is valid when discussing any of those items. The fact that full blown Socinians believe other things directly contradictory to orthodox Christianity is true, just like it is true that Mormons believe other things completely contradictory to orthodoxy Christianity. But pointing out a similarity as a point of argument or as a warning to a soul should be encouraged in fact. It's not a slander at all.

When the Puritans pointed out that allowing one sin to reign unchecked in your life was possibly the beginning of future apostacy, they were not calling those they were speaking to apostates. They were calling the folks to examine what they were doing.

If that were the case then your belief, being a Mormon belief, could lead you to Mormonism.

There are many positiins within orthodox Christianity, to include my position, and to include your position.

Yes, heresies are often 90% truth. It is that 10% that makes them unchristian.

Take Socinianism. What is the core idea? The core idea is that Jesus was a human prophet, no more. Therefore He is not God. The "atonement" is Christ showing us by example how to live our lives to meet divine approval.

Socinianism is a complete rejection of my view. It is a complete rejection of your view.

Are there things in their faith that were true? Yes, obviously, as Socinianism is a "Christian" hesesy. Are there things the Mormons believe that are actually true? Yes, as their doctrine includes a lot of Christian belief.


Should we ignore truth because cults also acknowledge then in fear that acknowledging truth could lead one to a cult? No.

We cannot reject the 90% of what is true simply because we fear that truth will lead to accepting the 10% that is false.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Example -

Say Steve says "Jesus died for our sins to satisfy the demands of God's justice".

You recognize that as a central Mormon doctrine.

Rather than linking Steve's belief to Mormonism just report the post. The Staff will ask Steve of his beliefs via pm. If he is a Mormon he will be banned.

The issue is, while Jesus dying to satisfy the demands of divine justice is a central Mormon belief, Mormonism is much more than that belief.

It is one thing to be a Mormon. It would be another matter altogether to be a "Mormon Missionary" looking to spread their false doctrine all over the BB forums! In other words, is someone here with the intent of causing trouble?

I would hope that the staff here will take such things into consideration rather than just banning someone because they are "Mormon!" I know that this is a forum for Baptists and that one is screened regarding these "Baptist Credentials." According to my understanding, non-Baptists have their access restricted to more general discussion forums right? I guess if someone came under false pretenses, this would justify being banned or perhaps just have their access restricted?

I personally would hope the hypothetical Mormon would stick around, perhaps learn a few things and maybe God would use this forum to his glory to see such a person saved!

I do understand the rules here though and have agreed to abide by them. This is not an issue.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Well. It's very frequent on here for non-Calvinists to say that Calvinism is a false doctrine. And that Calvin himself was an evil persecutor. To me, you would be definitely questioning the faith of those who use him namesake, "Calvinists". For their part Calvinists on here frequently claim that non Calvinists have a definition of saving faith that turns it into a work and therefore have a works based system of salvation. The logical conclusion of which is that this is unsound and the followers of such doctrine are not saved.

In the case of Socinianism, I will doing a thread on his views of the atonement and his method of argumentation against penal substitution. I will leave it to those who read it to determine if there are similarities with the positions some take on here as they attack the doctrine of penal substitution. This whole area of progressive apostacy or "downgrade" as Spurgeon would have put it is very important. I noticed this in my reading on Calvinism vs Arminianism and also Amyraldianism and some of Baxter's views on justification. I love Baxter but did notice how many were warning about his theology and how it progressed historically to Universalism and then on to Socinianism. This can happen to anyone, especially nowadays in our age of self-eteem.

I would hope that the BB would not ban someone for saying that Calvinism is "evil" or a "false doctrine" even though I identify as being "Calvinist" myself even though some "Real Calvinist" here may consider me an imposter because I refuse to "toe the line" on all counts? Same goes for any Calvinist referring to non-Calvinists as being Semi-Pelagian heretics right? If they started banning people for such things, this place would become quite sterile and quite frankly, of little use!

 

[JonC]

It is one thing to be a Mormon. It would be another matter altogether to be a "Mormon Missionary" looking to spread their false doctrine all over the BB forums! In other words, is someone here with the intent of causing trouble?

That is a different point. But to answer your question, this is a Christian forum. Mormons are not Christians. They are not qualified to be members of this board.

The "Other Denominations" section is for non-Baptist Christians. This includes Presbyterian, Catholic, Methodists, Pentecostals (who accept Jesus as God).

The criteria is that the denomination be Christian (not Mormon, not Jehovah Witness, not Islamic, not Jewissh for example).

Could we have good conversations with those people? Probably. But that is not the intent of this board.

 

[JonC]

I would hope that the BB would not ban someone for saying that Calvinism is "evil" or a "false doctrine" even though I identify as being "Calvinist" myself even though some "Real Calvinist" here may consider me an imposter because I refuse to "toe the line" on all counts? Same goes for any Calvinist referring to non-Calvinists as being Semi-Pelagian heretics right? If they started banning people for such things, this place would become quite sterile and quite frankly, of little use!

If this helps -

We would not ban somebody for saying Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, PSA, Christus Victor, Recapitulation, etc. is wrong. Probably not even "evil".

But we would ban somebody for linking a belief in PSA to Mormonism or my view (Christis Victor) to Socinianism.

The reason is such claims are obviously false and the reason for using them is to associate differences in belief, which are within orthodox Christianity, to heresies outside orthodox Christianity. These are used merely to insult those who hold different views.

 

[JonC]

Well. It's very frequent on here for non-Calvinists to say that Calvinism is a false doctrine. And that Calvin himself was an evil persecutor.

Most Calvinists today distance themselves from John Calvin. But saying Calvinism, Arminianism, Christus Victor, Recapitulation, etc are "false doctrines" is not a violation. They all cannot be true (although they can hold some truths).

John Calvin was evil in his persecutions. John Whitefield was evil in his support of slavery. Karl Barth was in his distain for his wife. Martin Luther was towards baptistic Christians.

We are all human beings and capable of committing evil even though we may be Christians. We are not yet perfected, not yet completely in Christ's image, not yet glorified.

 

[Aaron]

The route you should take, instead of linking Steve's belief to Mormonism, is discuss what Steve believes as compared to Scripture.

I'll take the route Jesus took.

Rev 2:14-15. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold ... the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Hey, Steve, that sure sounds like 'Nicolaitan' (Mormon, JW, name your poison. ) doctrine to me.

Your new rule is so broad, that you've essentially defined "calling into question" as anything you think it is. This smacks of butthurt. Clearly, by the examples you've offered, you're losing the Atonement arguments, so you're trying to outlaw the eminently Christian and biblical rhetorical device you find so grievous.

Go stack marbles.

 

[JonC]

I'll take the route Jesus took.

Rev 2:14-15. But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold ... the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Hey, Steve, that sure sounds like 'Nicolaitan' (Mormon, JW, name your poison. ) doctrine to me.

Your new rule is so broad, that you've essentially defined "calling into question" as anything you think it is.

But you are assuming Jesus was lying to make a point.

There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

The passage indicates there were some who actually hold to the teachings of Balaam and the Nicolatians.


My point is if I say you hold the teachings of Mormonism because you believe that justice had to be satisfied that is a false equation.

It is true that the doctrine is common to you and Mormonism, but the doctrine is not unique to Mormonism.

If you actually held doctrines unique to Mormonism then it would be different.


BUT by your standard you hold Mormon doctrine.


The appropriate thing to do (the adult thing to do) is address the actual belief rather than reaching to connect it to a non-Christian cult or a heresy.

You are no longer a child, @Aaron . You need to put away childish things. Behave as a Christian and an adult (act your age and the faith you profess).

 

[JonC]

Clarification has been given.

It is not up for debate.

When discussing another's view, discuss that view rather than reaching to try and connect it to a heresy or cult.

Islam holds that Jesus was born. There is no reason to connect Christians to Islam because that belief is shared.

A central Mormon doctrine concerning the Atonement is that divine justice has to be satisfied. This does not mean we should claim Christians who hold PSA believe Mormon doctrine.

The connection is merely an attempt to dismiss a belief by association.

Thread is closed.