Featured Exposing False Dectrine

First, let me thank you for your Godly reply. I appreciate it.

Now allow me to say I didn't say he wouldn't address false doctrines, I believe I said he wouldn't condemn false doctrines. The issue came up in a SS class he was teaching. He said it wasn't our place to condemn false doctrines.

There isn't such an issue in the church, although some of his friends were JWs and had just accepted Christ. The discussion wasn't about JWs, but about FALSE DOCTRINES.

Pray tell what else you should know? I submit that one need not know anything about a pastor who will not condemn false doctrines PERIOD.

Brother, I'm not a baby Christian. I'm a student of God's word. While I don't consider myself to have arrived by no stretch of the imagination, I've been blessed to have had the privilege of teaching God's word for many years.

So, of course, I went to him. I considered him a friend, and I still do. I agreed with him on almost all issues, but I considered this a MAJOR issue and I knew it was not good for him and I, leaders in the church, to be at odds on such an issue. It would NOT be edifying for the Church, for the both of us, and, most of all, it would not be honoring God.

I outlined my position, using God's word. His reply was simply, "I disagree" and we parted company....on good terms.

We disagreed on the version issue, but while I certainly prefer the KJV, I didn't make that an issue, nor did I make an issue of him taking the church we started to the SBC, although I did mention my preference to stay out of it.

He was very critical of the pastor of the church he had left where he was the associate pastor. Although I agreed, I felt that he had no good reason to condemn anything the other pastor had said when he himself was as much ecumenical as the other pastor PLUS he would NOT condemn false teachers. Thankfully, it only took me a year to determine just where he was coming from.

This pastor had already compromised his true belief by allowing a non-member to teach SS. It's a long story, but suffice it to say that the teacher was a friend and we were renting his building until we could get one of our own. I let my objection be know, again in a Godly manner, and the pastor started his own SS class which I attended. And that is the class where ultimately the issue of false doctrines came up.

I mentioned that I had left another church over the same such issue. The pastor, from the pulpit, was telling the congregation how he had been organizing the RCCs and Anglicans in a joint effort. Enough said?

I'm a die-hard conservative, fundamentalist, who believes the Bible is the word of God and that it is the only source for my faith and practice.

I thought I was getting involved here with like-minded folks. Apparently, I was wrong, and will be leaving the list shortly. Just didn't want a couple jokers to run me off............just in case the core of this group is as advertised .

I do know full well that God will lead us through a lot of hard roads to get us where he wants us......including my trip to this group. And my road has been tough for a while, but it appears to be lightening up, thankfully.

God Bless!

 

Sorry, Hank, you missed the entire nail :laugh:.

While "doctrine" is "teaching", I believe that "False Doctrine" involves the teaching on salvation. Just goes to show how we can fail to communicate doesn't it? False teaching could be that you must worship on Saturday, but that isn't a salvation issue. Usually, where you find false teachings like that, you will also find doctrinal error on salvation, tho. We can split hairs here, I suppose, where these terms are concerned. I consider teachings on things other than a salvation issue as "practices", but I suppose, technically, they could be considered "doctrines".

That women should dress modestly isn't a doctrinal issue where I am concerned, but it certainly is an issue of "practice", and if one wants, he can toss it into "doctrine".

So................no, the issue had nothing to do with long dresses and separation, although I believe one can make a Biblical case for both, for sure.

God Bless

 

No need to apologize to me, Hank. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

Are you asking about a particular SBC church?

Most SBC churches will have a liberal leaning because it comes from the top down, even though the churches are autonomous. The pastor would be the main issue. An IFB pastor in an SBC church will make a huge difference in a short time.......if he doesn't get blown out of the pulpit. And, if not, he will loose a lot of hard-core liberals, but the church will be better off, IMHO, in the long run. The SBC convention itself is up and down where liberalism is concerned.

I grew up in the south where about all churches were fundamental, but few of you are old enough to remember those days....even if you were raised down in the south.

But about this list: there may be two or three FUNDAMENTALISTS on this list, but from what I have seen, the rest ARE NOT. That surprised me. And I don't like hypocrites. Now, let me give you my definition of a hypocrite: "It is someone who pretends to be something he doesn't intend to be."

I think there should be special forum for "poop stirrers" so the jokers who are totally insinsere can go there and stir to their hearts content.