And WHY do people reject truth and embrace a lie? Many reject truth because they are repulsed by the ones who claim to bear it.
You know better than that. You are too good a thinker in soteriology to accept such thinking.
No one rejects "because they are repulsed by the ones who claim to bear it."
They reject truth because folks love the security of darkness and shun light.
Besides if anyone was repulsive it was Paul who expresses that the Galatians accepted him despite his ugliness. (Gal 4:14)
It is moderated. The self-righteousness of these types and the incomparable damage they do to the Great Commission calls for the sharpest of condemnation. I softened it because I know how soft so many on BB are. They think Jesus was soft. They think softness is godliness. So for their sake I softened it more than I think it ought to be.
Like I said, if you have proof, documentation, of doctrinal error or moral failure of a preacher who is unrepentant and entrenched in ungodliness, then it needs to be published that other are warned.
However, each assembly has the right to embrace a preacher of its choosing. If they want to equate bearded women as sinful, that is their business.
Believers OUTSIDE the assembly are to judge on doctrine and moral behaviour grounds only.
You have no warrant to be critical and especially condemning.
If you disagree, then show me by Scriptures what right you have to judge a preacher of another assembly outside of moral and doctrinal grounds.
What really was so bad about Graham during Rice's days?
I suggest you go back to the thread in which John explained exactly why the separation took place.
Perhaps the thread will give you a bit better understanding of the heart of Dr. Rice, his ministry, and why so many of all races and types of Baptists were touched.
Yes, separate and separate and separate and separate and divide and divide and divide...
Certainly. If there is doctrinal error and/or moral failure that is covered over and unrepentant, then separate.
Would you actually engage in a preaching endeavor knowing that those on the platform did not hold firm to fundamental doctrines, or had ongoing moral failures?
Would you endorse a meeting in which you knew that folks of other faiths (Buddhists, Shinto...) sat on the platform as honored guests?
What if the honored guests were those that denied the virgin birth, did not hold to blood atonement, believed the sacrament was the actual body and blood, ... would you endorse such a meeting or preacher?
And still repudiates his narrow-mindedness.
Perhaps you should investigate a bit more before you call John R. Rice "narrow minded."
After all he graduated from Baylor, was an enormous help to W. A Criswell, worked and prayed more than any person I have ever met, and was held in high regard by many SBC pastors. The list could go on.
Precisely what I am calling for.
I have not seen you post one point on this thread that showed John R. Rice in doctrinal or moral failure.
Rather, some rant that you didn't like some of his views as far as what constitutes a believer living worldly compared to one shunning the worldly.
It is all a matter of the type of preaching that you don't like.
A matter of taste - not doctrine and not morals.
I don't know that you ever heard the man or heard him often, but he was not the kind of preacher you are characterizing him to be.
If you want to listen to him, there are Utube videos - look at him in the pulpit and then post real proof from factual documentation.