Doctrines out of context

another doctrine that is taught because of Scripture taken out of context is the one that teaches a Child of God will spend 1000 years in hell or outer darkness.

This doctrine cannot be found in Scripture anywhere.

 

Actually, I would only be guilty of agreeing with some one in prayer over the salvation of some one we both agreed is lost. Unless you include the Lord being in the midst of two, or three worshippers of Him, I'm guilty of that also.

 

No "low blow" as your incite, ridiculously at that.

Can you really convince yourself of that?

I believe we have departed from the closeness/holiness of those who truly followed the Lord in 150 A.D., the reason the LORD inspired to "retrun unto the old paths". it has to do with striving to be more like Him/holy as He is holy.

If that's a low blow, then blame it on the Lord!

 

No, actually, the verses explain each other quite well. "Godly man" is singular while "them" is plural. Now if you want to use context as the rule of thumb, then may I suggest not confusing the reader with disagreeing pronouns?

 

Whether v. 1 or v. 5 determines the context, the Psalm is about people - and God promises to preserve people in v. 7.

 

Nope. Just a bias against legalists.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here Sal. Of course the Lord is in the midst of two or three people worshiping Him. He is with us always. The thing about being in agreement in pray for the lost.... well thats always good. It does not change the fact that the two verses of scripture I referenced is contextually speaking of church discipline.

 

Let's see now, passages out of context is what we were discussing....

Then there's the one about being baptized for the dead. Problem is, I don't think too many know what that one means IN context.

 

Here is a good one, by their fruits you shall know them. Relating to another thread going on now, some people use this verse to justify their knowledge as to whether someone is saved or not, which only God knows. In context, it is talking about false teachers.

 

By their fruits you shall know them can apply to anyone, not just false prophets.

 

I was beginning to worry. Salamander had not taken a pot shot at my faith in a couple of weeks. I was beginning to worry he was going to be civil.

Guess there's no need to worry about that.

 

You mean this verse?

What is bolded is the key. Here is the context:

Paul is making an assertion of absurdity about "being baptized for the dead." There were Corinthians who were teaching that no one (including Christ) ever rose from the dead, yet they still taught the ordinance of baptism. Since the whole point of baptism is that it signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, the act of baptism would be an absurdity if Christ did not rise.

For those who believed that Christ did not rise from the dead, they truly were being "baptized for the dead" because they were being baptized for a dead savior, and not One Who rose from the dead.

 

How about Malachi 3:8-12 be used as a command for Christians to bring monetary tithes of a paycheck to a local church "storehouse"?
You can't get much more out of context than that.

 

Is JESUS GOD the FATHER?....

This is the thread that I started called: "Oneness Pentecostal cult" and it gives a brief statments of thier beliefs.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37411

It is very interesting in talking to the OPs (Oneness Pentecosatls) about thier veiw points of the Godhead. They deny the Trinity and believe it to be a polytheistic veiw of pagan tritheism. They say that their is not One being (compound unity) existing in three persons, but ONE (solitary unity) PERSON in the godhead.....

Known as "MODOLISM" (year: 100-200 AD).
This "person" is JESUS Christ and he is the ONE GOD.
Jesus is existing as the FATHER, and the HOLY GHOST.
The FATHER (who is also the same as the Holy Ghost) indwells the "SON".
The term SON is never used in their theolgy without the concept of the incarnation.
The term SON is in reference to the fleshly body of JESUS CHRIST and NOT to HIS DEITY.....

The also deny the pre-existence of JESUS christ.....

Modolism is a false doctrine that is built upon versus taken out of context....

I am so sorry that I can not give you the ref. pioints chapter and verse, but I do believe that you will know the versus that I am talking about.....

1. Jesus said that "I and the FATHER are one (compound unity).

Show the OPS that the verse says: "are one", NOT "am one"....

2. In Is. 9:6.. it calles JESUS the "everlasting father" ...

"Everlasting father" does NOT mean the same thing as "GOD the Father", it means that JESUS is the originater of eternity....Which goes well with the other versus in the NT that says that "all things were created by HIM and through HIM". This also proves that JESUS Christ existed as the "word apart from God the Father...JN ch. 1.

3. In Is. 9:6... it call Jesus the "wounderful Counselor" just a it calls the Holy Spirit in the NT by the term "counselor"...Could JESUS be the HOLY SPIRIT?....NO!

Jesus said: I (JESUS-SON of GOD) will send you (disipleS) ANOTHER (Someone other then myself JESUS) comforter...In the hebrew, greek and english preprositions(spelling LOL) work the same way: Denoting someone else "another person or individual", NOT the same person...

4. Theres many more that I will like to talk about, but I don't have the time to type anything more.....

READ: "Jesus only churches" by E. CALVIN Biesner...
"Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinty" by Gregory Boyd (former Oneness Pentecostal)..

Both of these books expose how the OPS take verses out of context....

I hope this is the examples that you wanted to see.....

May GOD bless you.....

:godisgood: