Naming names

[TCassidy]

Name it where the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC has been maligned or called error in this thread. Direct quote and evidence will do.

He didn't say that. He said "the error" was maligned, not the BFM.

You say so, get the proof of your accusations.

It has been called that. And worse.

Yep. I've shown you both how and why it is similar to his message and methodology. No different than being called an Augustinian.

Uh, I embrace the term Augustinian. It is much better than Calvinist.

You've been engaged in this 'all out war' haven't you? Wasn't this addressed by TCassidy? Did you not apologize for it?

He did. But did you accept the apology? I don't recall you having done so. Correct me if I am wrong.

Now, let's look at the OP and look at it biblically. Also, provide some proof of your accusations concerning the SBC BF.

I didn't see an accusations made against SBC BF.

 

[TCassidy]

On the contrary, you do not.

Oh, but I do.

 

[Internet Theologian]

He didn't say that. He said "the error" was maligned, not the BFM.

He said this:

'"The error" that is directly mentioned in this thread is part of the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC.'

I think you're amiss here brother. He is saying what I am calling error is part of the Baptist Faith and Message, or, at the least that it is taking place in this thread.

He went on to say:

'It is very similar to what I believe.'

So, again, nowhere in this thread has this been done.

It has been called that. And worse.

My point is the past has nothing to do with this thread. It doesn't need to be brought up ad nauseum and again now, imo.

Uh, I embrace the term Augustinian. It is much better than Calvinist.

I have no problem with it!

He did. But did you accept the apology? I don't recall you having done so. Correct me if I am wrong.

The thread was closed where he said it. I have my own opinion about the apology. I do forgive him for what he has done. The thing is I see it going right down the same road after the recent posts here. I hope I am wrong!

I didn't see an accusations made against SBC BF.

There are none. But he suggested there are.

 

[Darrell C]

Oh, but I do.

Sorry, no, just because you decide someone is in error does not mean they are because you say they are. You have to show from Scripture why they are.

And your position on the Staff brings a greater responsibility not to be biased as your post implies. There is no hypothetical "He has error which is in his head only," as I said, let's keep it real. When you engage in a debate which demands one side be right, the other be wrong, you do not decide who is right.

Scripture does.

And I will have to agree with the OP...we have a responsibility to point out error. This is typical of Church Discipline. That basic principle is founded in the Old Testament, Israel being a prime example. The purpose was to maintain purity among the People of God. If one despised the Law, they were put to death. In physical terms this principle was enforced to the letter. Now that we have been given a view into eternal truths and a greater knowledge, that responsibility becomes greater.

So again, I think you are confusing what your true authority actually is.

And that's about all I have to say on this particular subject.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Sorry, no, just because you decide someone is in error does not mean they are because you say they are. You have to show from Scripture why they are.

Once again you miss the entire point.Rolleyes

 

[TCassidy]

I hope I am wrong!

I hope so too.

And don't think I didn't notice you posted the "heart" icon on my posts. Trying to "kill me with kindness?" LOL!

 

[Internet Theologian]

I hope so too.

And don't think I didn't notice you posted the "heart" icon on my posts. Trying to "kill me with kindness?" LOL!

It's because there is no pitchfork icon to click! Roflmao

 

[JonC]

We’ve been discussing (or trying to discuss) whether it is appropriate to “name names” in regards to false teachers, and if so how would this be done biblically. I wonder if this also applies on the other end of the spectrum.

We all have certain people that we turn to for teaching. There are commentators that resonate with us, that we trust, and that we know God has put there for our benefit and our teaching. The issue, of course, is that we do not always agree on who these people are. Is there a sense where Christians take to “naming names” in regards to validating doctrine rather than dealing with the doctrine itself?

 

[TCassidy]

It's because there is no pitchfork icon to click! Roflmao

There you go!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Three pronged too! I knew it, '6,6,6'!!! BiggrinAlienGeek

 

[agedman]

Almost to the seventh page and the author of the OP has yet to address the following:

Why among those listed that are LIVING, who obviously embrace at least some element of the charismatic thinking .. would he include one long dead, who was a triple doctor of theology, who was and is highly regarded, was a prolific writer, and a person of stellar character?​

Pages have passed, and you have provided absolutely no Scripture showing violations as proof for your claim against Chafer. If your going to "name names" then doing such obliges documentation that is verifiable by the general readers of the BB.

However, I am not certain that you have either the authority or right. You are not part of the God head, you are not an apostle, nor are you an eye witness to the Christ. Therefore, you do not qualify by the list of people you claim to be in standing. It seems a Biblical stretch for one to post "95 thesis" of a church of which they have no association. Luther understood that, and he was a racist.

You claim you have no agenda, but want discussion; however, that isn't the temperament of the OP. Rather, you want folks to join you in trash talking, maligning the character of others, those who are not even a part of the BB.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I've read this whole thread and I've not seen where Bro. IT slammed and/or maligned the SBC BFM. He has taken a stance against free will and innate faith and Finneyism, but that's not even in the same solar system of slamming and/or maligning.

 

[Darrell C]

We’ve been discussing (or trying to discuss) whether it is appropriate to “name names” in regards to false teachers, and if so how would this be done biblically. I wonder if this also applies on the other end of the spectrum.

We see naming names in Scripture, including both Old and New Testament, so I would think this would be a given. Of curse, there is no question for most of us that those naming names (the Prophets, Christ, Paul, Peter, et cetera) had an authority that was unquestionably from God. So I think if we examine when they did this, we will find that one primary factor is going to be seen: false doctrine. It wasn't just a matter of personal dislike, those named were violating the revealed will of God.

If by the other end of the spectrum you mean false teachers naming names, sure. But generally it is not a direct and specific naming, but more general (can't attest to what takes place in every fellowship). An example might be Dr. Michael Brown's address of MacArthur's Strange Fire. A direct address naming names. I wouldn't exactly call Brown a "false teacher," because I am confident he is a sincere believer. But he is definitely on the "other side" (not the Dark Side, lol), doctrinally speaking.

Many of the fellowships that take a name like "Bible Believing Baptist" are naming names in their very name. Go into one of these fellowships and the mentality is "We actually believe what the Bible teaches (as opposed to regular Baptist folk)."

We all have certain people that we turn to for teaching. There are commentators that resonate with us, that we trust, and that we know God has put there for our benefit and our teaching. The issue, of course, is that we do not always agree on who these people are. Is there a sense where Christians take to “naming names” in regards to validating doctrine rather than dealing with the doctrine itself?

Sure. It works both ways. For me, my advice to new believers is "Get yourself a MacArthur Study Bible." Not because MacArthur is to be thought of as flawless in doctrine, but because the cross-referencing in this study Bible is phenomenal. If MacArthur presents his view of a passage, he backs it up with a cross reference to a similar teaching or event in Scripture, and this is one of the best ways to conclude on a doctrine, to look at what the entire Bible has to say on that subject. Most people are self willed to the point where despite who it is they sit under, they are going to formulate a personal Theology. While many will adopt the views of their teachers, there is still going to be issues where disagreement arises.

Secondly, I think an important issue to consider, one I think we can all relate to, is that certain teachers will minister to believers according to the stage of development. A newer believer might here Sproul, for example, and not understand what he is talking about. They might better understand someone like MacArthur.

Third, consider that there are two types of believers in regards to Eternal Security (which I think is a primary Doctrine most will have an opinion on, and early on will not have a resolved position), we have those who without any doubt embrace Eternal Security, then those who, for a number of reasons, question this. For the former, MacArthur may "resonate," for the latter, Alistair Begg might resonate. Both are similar in views, but, if we listen to their teachings we will see that in regards to Eternal Security, the doctrine is approached differently. For those new in faith that are confused about how works impact our salvation, a teacher who teaches stronger in regards to our daily conduct might suit better. This doesn't mean I think MacArthur teaches a hyper grace message, he doesn't, but, I think he is far more clearer on this topic than most. In other words, he does not confuse the student like some do.

So now I have just submitted a few comments and I have named names. I have commented on a few and presented my understanding of them.

I see nothing wrong with that.


God bless.

 

[Internet Theologian]

We’ve been discussing (or trying to discuss) whether it is appropriate to “name names” in regards to false teachers, and if so how would this be done biblically. I wonder if this also applies on the other end of the spectrum.

We all have certain people that we turn to for teaching. There are commentators that resonate with us, that we trust, and that we know God has put there for our benefit and our teaching. The issue, of course, is that we do not always agree on who these people are. Is there a sense where Christians take to “naming names” in regards to validating doctrine rather than dealing with the doctrine itself?

You should make a thread on that and line out your thoughts. Might be interesting to discuss.

 

[JonC]

We see naming names in Scripture, including both Old and New Testament, so I would think this would be a given. Of curse, there is no question for most of us that those naming names (the Prophets, Christ, Paul, Peter, et cetera) had an authority that was unquestionably from God. So I think if we examine when they did this, we will find that one primary factor is going to be seen: false doctrine. It wasn't just a matter of personal dislike, those named were violating the revealed will of God.

If by the other end of the spectrum you mean false teachers naming names, sure. But generally it is not a direct and specific naming, but more general (can't attest to what takes place in every fellowship). An example might be Dr. Michael Brown's address of MacArthur's Strange Fire. A direct address naming names. I wouldn't exactly call Brown a "false teacher," because I am confident he is a sincere believer. But he is definitely on the "other side" (not the Dark Side, lol), doctrinally speaking.

Many of the fellowships that take a name like "Bible Believing Baptist" are naming names in their very name. Go into one of these fellowships and the mentality is "We actually believe what the Bible teaches (as opposed to regular Baptist folk)."




Sure. It works both ways. For me, my advice to new believers is "Get yourself a MacArthur Study Bible." Not because MacArthur is to be thought of as flawless in doctrine, but because the cross-referencing in this study Bible is phenomenal. If MacArthur presents his view of a passage, he backs it up with a cross reference to a similar teaching or event in Scripture, and this is one of the best ways to conclude on a doctrine, to look at what the entire Bible has to say on that subject. Most people are self willed to the point where despite who it is they sit under, they are going to formulate a personal Theology. While many will adopt the views of their teachers, there is still going to be issues where disagreement arises.

Secondly, I think an important issue to consider, one I think we can all relate to, is that certain teachers will minister to believers according to the stage of development. A newer believer might here Sproul, for example, and not understand what he is talking about. They might better understand someone like MacArthur.

Third, consider that there are two types of believers in regards to Eternal Security (which I think is a primary Doctrine most will have an opinion on, and early on will not have a resolved position), we have those who without any doubt embrace Eternal Security, then those who, for a number of reasons, question this. For the former, MacArthur may "resonate," for the latter, Alistair Begg might resonate. Both are similar in views, but, if we listen to their teachings we will see that in regards to Eternal Security, the doctrine is approached differently. For those new in faith that are confused about how works impact our salvation, a teacher who teaches stronger in regards to our daily conduct might suit better. This doesn't mean I think MacArthur teaches a hyper grace message, he doesn't, but, I think he is far more clearer on this topic than most. In other words, he does not confuse the student like some do.

So now I have just submitted a few comments and I have named names. I have commented on a few and presented my understanding of them.

I see nothing wrong with that.


God bless.

I disagree on the primary factor being "false doctrine" but it being of God. That, (divine revelation) was the primary factor and the reason I believe the example not applicable. So while I see this as inherently linked to the topic of the OP, I understand why others may not. In respect of Internet Theologian's request, we can take this up on another thread.

 

[Darrell C]

I disagree on the primary factor being "false doctrine" but it being of God. That, (divine revelation) was the primary factor and the reason I believe the example not applicable. So while I see this as inherently linked to the topic of the OP, I understand why others may not. In respect of Internet Theologian's request, we can take this up on another thread.

If you mean the primary Motivator was God, I would agree, but, the OP has a central focus on naming names concerning false teachers. When we look at the naming of names in Scripture, what is characteristic of those who are named?

We don't ascribe the doctrine of the False teacher to God, that is the reason for naming names, because we see that they have violated what God has revealed.

And haven't see a request you speak of, and not sure why this wouldn't be relevant to the OP. But, I think I have said as much as I want to on this topic, so will bow out, and perhaps look for a thread (if it is created) which makes whatever it is you refer to the central focus.

Hope all have a blessed day.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

If you mean the primary Motivator was God, I would agree, but, the OP has a central focus on naming names concerning false teachers. When we look at the naming of names in Scripture, what is characteristic of those who are named?

We don't ascribe the doctrine of the False teacher to God, that is the reason for naming names, because we see that they have violated what God has revealed.

And haven't see a request you speak of, and not sure why this wouldn't be relevant to the OP. But, I think I have said as much as I want to on this topic, so will bow out, and perhaps look for a thread (if it is created) which makes whatever it is you refer to the central focus.

Hope all have a blessed day.


God bless.

The request is a couple of posts up. I do disagree and will start the thread when I get to a real computer. While I agree it is a related issue (in fact, the same issue) the OP here is specifically examining false witnesses.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[th1bill]

From Catholic Doctrine, IT.

God bless.

He said you and by inference, none of us matter...

 

[Darrell C]

He said you and by inference, none of us matter...

I don't have anything to do with what the post was in reference to. You can look back to find the context if you like.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The request is a couple of posts up. I do disagree and will start the thread when I get to a real computer. While I agree it is a related issue (in fact, the same issue) the OP here is specifically examining false witnesses.

Sent from my TARDIS

I had replied to an alert and saw it after posting.

I thought it was a general question, so that is how I addressed it.


God bless.