Considering it was listed first by Tcassidy and given an amen by Rolfe thought there was some middle ground but it appears that what is said depends on who says it!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Naming names
- Thread starter Internet Theologian
- Start date
TCassidy said:It would also behoove us to attack the false doctrine and not the man.
The problem is that the vast majority who are fooled don't recognize the false doctrine when it's fed to them.
When I was a new Christian, I got caught up in the Word of Faith movement. Because men like Kenneth Copeland, the Happy Hunters, Larry Lea, etc, cloaked the false inside the true, I was easily fooled.
It would have done you no good to warn me about the danger of Copeland's teaching about the insufficiency of Christ's atonement (commonly known as the "Born Again Jesus" theory) because I was a new Christian and had not been discipled.
Jesus told us to beware of both false doctrines and wolves. I see no problem with naming the wolves.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Nope. It doesn't depend upon who said it, it depends on its validity. I also stated something similar to TCassidy that I stated to you as well. You presented your list as 'As long as we agree on these:..." I wanted to show that your list is well short of a proven test.
That's where we need to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us to the truth. Where we must prove all things ! We prove it by digging deep, seeking out what others have said looking at all opinions, searching the original language interpretations and letting the Spirit guide to the truth. Many fail to do all this, many fail to be filled with the Spirit when they seek out the truth.
It is a starting point are their others you can be sure of that! But basic soteriology must be met before we can agree on anything after that. Eternal security must be seen as truth too.
I probably should have added "in what he wrote" but I thought the context of inscripturation made that obvious. I was obviously wrong.Well, I wanted to make certain no one got the impression Paul was infallible as you stated; 'He, too therefore was infallible'. It would be easy to take it that way as you worded it. I know you're doctrinally sound (most of the time)
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, good starting point.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
No, no, you should've simply typed in ex-cathedra mode.I probably should have added "in what he wrote" but I thought the context of inscripturation made that obvious. I was obviously wrong.
I am not certain the RCC believes in "The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures" - at least not how I intended. I probably should have, once again, avoided verbal shorthand and included the understood "and full authority of" the scriptures. As the RCC reserves for itself the right and ability to modify and interpret the scriptures via the Authoritative Magisterium my view of scripture and that of the RCC is miles apart.
Provided, of course, that our basic soteriology is stated simply as "all those who have faith in Christ as Lord and Savior are eternally saved" I will agree.
I agree. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone plus nothing. The great Reformata doctrines.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I was listening to James White debate Robert Sungenis and talk about it and he alluded to the verbal inspiration of Scriptures belief held in RC.I am not certain the RCC believes in "The verbal inspiration of the Scriptures" - at least not how I intended. I probably should have, once again, avoided verbal shorthand and included the understood "and full authority of" the scriptures. As the RCC reserves for itself the right and ability to modify and interpret the scriptures via the Authoritative Magisterium my view of scripture and that of the RCC is miles apart.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
The ex-cathedra comment? Sorry. It was for levity.
Well, I thought I was!!!No, no, you should've simply typed in ex-cathedra mode.
That's how I understood it. The smirking funny face sticking out his tongue was a dead give-away!The ex-cathedra comment? Sorry. It was for levity.
I have no idea what it even meant, so wasn't sure how it was meant!The ex-cathedra comment? Sorry. It was for levity.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
It has to do with his Pay Pull authority!
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I should've used this one instead: AlienThat's how I understood it. The smirking funny face sticking out his tongue was a dead give-away!
Whatever that means, see that is how naming names can be misconstrued when folks don't have the same terminology.It has to do with his Pay Pull authority!