Naming names

[th1bill]

I have not, and do not, attribute infallibility to any mortal man.

I don't either, but I do believe the Holy Spirit Who inspired the words Paul wrote is infallible.

I know, but for me to type out 100 pages or so just didn't seem in keeping with the need for brevity on the forum.

Sorry brother, you have your hands full and I should have read further down and not added to the obvious condition.

 

[Darrell C]

Interesting that you mention the Sabbath... Have a friend of mine SDA who will only worship on Saturday as I have always worshipped on Sunday. Doesn't matter to me if he choses to worship on Saturday but to say there is certain day to worship the Lord are the scriptures implicit on that?... Since the Lords day is everyday the mandate is to worship God not chose or set a side a particular day to worship... Not to single out SDA's also heard there are SDB's... Brother Glen

We are in agreement concerning every day being holy unto God. Isn't it strange, a concept of refusing to worship on a particular day?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

In reading through this thread I believe the OP, as stated, has an agenda. IT has twice referred to it.

In post #58 he said:
It is where I stand and make a stance. I believe you would too, especially if you agree with John MacArthurs stance.

Implied here is all that disagree with MacArthur are wrong, and should be called out.

Then in post #15, right on the first page he very clearly said:
Well, his errors are a take off of the false notions of innate faith and free will.

This takes straight aim at others posting on this board.

However, if such doctrine is stated in the SBC's "The Baptist Faith And Message," how could he consider it as "errors leading to false notions."?

Regeneration is the experience of being born again from above (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). It is an instantaneous work of God’s grace wrought by the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus the believer becomes a new creation in Christ Jesus (2Cor.5:16). Note that to create is a work of God, not of man (Eph.2:10). The second one is born again, he is a child of God, a finished relationship which cannot be broken.

Regeneration is the result of conviction of sin, repentance from sin, faith in Jesus Christ, and the confession of that faith. Conviction is the state of mind and heart whereby lost persons recognize and admit their sinful states and practices. It is a work wrought by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8). Under conviction one will either reject Christ and plunge deeper into sin, or else receive Christ as Savior. But conviction itself is not regeneration.

True repentance will be followed by faith. Indeed, repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. Truly repentant persons will turn to Jesus Christ in faith as Savior. Faith means to believe. But in its truest sense it is more than intellectual. It involves an act of the will whereby one trusts in Christ and commits one’s self to him, to his will and way. It means to accept or receive Christ as both Lord and Savior. Thus one will be brought to confess him as such (Rom.10:9-10).
(Pages 51,52)

Under the topic of Election the book says:
Election is one of the greatest doctrines of the Bible. Yet the word itself does not appear in the Old Testament; it is found only in six verses in the New Testament (Rom.9:11; 11:5,7,28; 1Thes.1:4; 2Pet.1:10). But the word elect appears in the Old Testament and elect and chosen both appear in the New Testament.

There are certain pitfalls to be avoided in considering the doctrine of election. One should not magnify certain aspects of God’s nature (sovereignty, will, power, pleasure) to the neglect of others (righteousness, love). Neither should one forget the free will of man and his power of choice. Also, election should not be regarded as God’s purpose to save as few as possible rather than as many as possible. The tenor of the Bible is that God loves all men and wishes to save as many as possible. Again, it should not be viewed as relating to the saving of certain individuals to the neglect of all others. Such a position negates the abundant teachings of the Bible to the contrary. The pitfall resulting from these others is fatalism. If some are saved and others lost regardless of what they do r do not do, what incentive is there to seek the Lord or to preach the gospel? But the facts of the Scripture are that man is not a puppet on a string. Election never appears in the Bible as mechanical or as blind destiny. It has to do with a God of love and with man who is morally responsible. Election never appears as a violation of the human will (Mat.23:37-38). Note John 6:44. “No man can come to me, except the Father…draw him.” “Draw” is God’s initiative. “Come” is man’s response.

Two truths, therefore, must be recognized in regard to election: God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. Both are abundantly taught in the Bible. (pages 55,56)

From "The Baptist Faith and Message," Herschel H. Hobbs, Sunday School Board of SBC Convention, Convention Press, 1996)

I believe IT's agenda is clear.

 

[TCassidy]

Here's my agenda. Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement? Why not look for that which binds us together in the Love of Christ rather than searching for that which can be twisted into division?

 

[Darrell C]

Here's my agenda. Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement? Why not look for that which binds us together in the Love of Christ rather than searching for that which can be twisted into division?

Not trying to be a wise guy (for once, lol), but just mention that the nit-picking is kind of an expected result on a topic such as this, because there is going to be disagreement concerning those who stand in what we might consider positions of leadership.

And that is actually a healthy debate, in my view. Consider those that follow "leaders" we might all here agree are false teachers. If that person and his/her doctrine is discussed, on a doctrinal level, then those who don't participate can benefit from the discussion, debate, and yes, sometimes even argument.

If nothing else, when we shut down the computer for the night, if we have not only brought false doctrine into focus, but shown why it should be considered false, then the chances that someone is going to benefit from that is very high.

Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement

Isn't this a point asked in the OP? Is there a place for it in the Body? And I stand by what I said, we have to keep it real, and distinguish between forum fellowship and the "real world," but, this is one of the reasons I started going to forums and continue to go: both to challenge my own views (by presenting them in public) and challenging the views of others. I have learned a lot in these discussions over the years, and owe a great debt to all the posters that took the time to take Scripture serious enough, and took error serious enough, which then goes on to conveyance of the Gospel itself.

All of us should have the preaching of the Gospel as our foremost goal, and all of us should want our brothers to be preaching it as soundly as all of us think we do ourselves, lol.

It's fun, it's educational, it's edifying. But, if we are not concerned that the Body be of one mind from a doctrinal perspective, we might resemble how a lot of fellowship Sunday School classes have become: instead of having a sound teacher instructing, a verse is passed around and everybody shares what they think it means.

So naming names will involve doing just that, naming names.


God bless.

 

[TCassidy]

Not trying to be a wise guy (for once, lol), but just mention that the nit-picking is kind of an expected result on a topic such as this, because there is going to be disagreement concerning those who stand in what we might consider positions of leadership.

Not the point.

 

[Darrell C]

Not the point.

From one perspective, maybe not, but, those who broadcast the teachings of others are linked to those teachers. And the same is true concerning those who vilify teachers.


God bless.

 

[Internet Theologian]

FTR the only agenda I have is standing for the truth while opposing error for the sake of the sheep.

No need to come in here and make that agenda into something negative in order to slander me. THAT is the agenda that needs to be dropped. Don't like my stance, me? I don't care. I'm here to debate and sharpen my sword in order to become a better minister of the Gospel.

The OP is still there and needs to be discussed. In it there is some ground work from Scripture as to the validity of naming names. It's not to be a full time job, but it is part of the man of God's 'job description'

I've also provided solid biblical evidence that doing so is not 'gossiping' and presented it to counter that stance. Instead of discussing the actual Scriptures it was time to team up on me, call names, tell of your hunches about my person, and other callow drama. Then of course there were no Scriptures provided since I was the main course. It's probable that John 3:7 was desired to use on me.

If anyone cares to actually address the Scriptures used, go for it. I'm not interested in ones opinion, but Scripture at this point. Now, you can dismantle the below provided Scriptures, or you can actually find reason to agree with it. Would be nice for those who are on here to actually make a Scriptural case to support the OP and stance of Paul, others. Wouldn't it?

Here's the post I offered. Must've been like chumming for sharks:

I'm not one to believe that because a person is not there when being 'called out' that it is 'gossip'. Gossip is so overused and accusatory. It's also being misused here in this thread.

Hymenaeus, was not there when called out. Nor Philetus; 1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Timothy 2:17. Nor Alexander the coppersmith, 2 Timothy 4:14. Nor the list mentioned in 2 Timothy 4 of those who deserted Paul. Certainly Paul wasn't gossiping, and of a certainty none he mentioned were there to defend themselves. Let's be 2 Timothy 2:15 people and lose the common presuppositional erroneous views held by many.

 

[Darrell C]

FTR the only agenda I have is standing for the truth while opposing error for the sake of the sheep.

Could you show me from Catholic Doctrine where the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Co-Redemptrixt?

You have named a name, considered it your calling, and the obvious responsibility is to be valid when you charge false doctrines.

So let's start with that.


God bless.

 

[tyndale1946]

Here's my agenda. Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement? Why not look for that which binds us together in the Love of Christ rather than searching for that which can be twisted into division?

I agree and as some us mature and get older in our walk with the Lord some of us tend to mellow with age... And others!... Oh Well!... Been there done that!... How sweet and how pleasant tis for brethren to dwell together in unity... Brother Glen

 

[Internet Theologian]

Could you show me from Catholic Doctrine where the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the Co-Redemptrixt?

You have named a name, considered it your calling, and the obvious responsibility is to be valid when you charge false doctrines.

So let's start with that.


God bless.

Go Google it? With all due respect I seriously doubt if any evidence were shown it would matter. That has been my experience here with antagonists. Unfortunately it is a waste of time.

I'm not going to spend much time with persons who not even a minute after my post have already snipped it and responded to it. I think I can reserve that as a right.

My best interest isn't in mind obviously, nor is the post I've taken time to think through taken thoughtfully or in a brotherly manner even. It's disrespectful behavior, honestly, and I want to use my time more wisely.

Thank you.

 

[TCassidy]

From one perspective, maybe not, but, those who broadcast the teachings of others are linked to those teachers. And the same is true concerning those who vilify teachers.

Still not the point and his nothing at all to do with my comment.

 

[TCassidy]

From one perspective, maybe not, but, those who broadcast the teachings of others are linked to those teachers. And the same is true concerning those who vilify teachers.

Again, you missed the point. Go back and read my post then read the post directly above it. I know what the point was. I wrote it.

You remind me of a fellow student when I was in Seminary. We were discussing a statement made by the author of one of the books which was required reading for the course. The Professor made a statement regarding the intent of the author.

A cocky young student told the Professor, "Professor, you missed the author's point!"

To which the Professor replied, "I am the author."

 

[Darrell C]

Again, you missed the point. Go back and read my post then read the post directly above it. I know what the point was. I wrote it.

You remind me of a fellow student when I was in Seminary. We were discussing a statement made by the author of one of the books which was required reading for the course. The Professor made a statement regarding the intent of the author.

A cocky young student told the Professor, "Professor, you missed the author's point!"

To which the Professor replied, "I am the author."

Well, Professor, your point is quite clear, and I was trying to be polite in my disagreement with it.

You said...

Here's my agenda. Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement? Why not look for that which binds us together in the Love of Christ rather than searching for that which can be twisted into division?

Points (and you correct me where I fail to understand your point):

1. You assert your agenda;

2. This is to address the charge of agenda;

3. You charge others with nit-picking;

4. You are not pleased with nit-picking;

5. You charge the nit-picker with error which is only in their minds;

6. You assume authority to state this as fact;

7. You exhort the nit-picker/s to only agree with the subject/s of this nit-picking;

8. You exhort said nit-pickers/s to join your agenda;

9. You exhort nit-picker/s to only identify what is good in said subject of nit-picking/s (and the implication resulting in what is essentially endorsing overlooking error, which would actually bring this to 15 points rather than 14);

10. You imply pointing out error leads to the twisting of what is true;

11. You assume authority to decide what truth is;

12. You have judged that division is the result of this twisting of your perceived truth;

13. You show bias in judging;

14. You are in fact against the very intent of the OP.


Did I miss anything?

Now what I expect, if this forum remains consistent with past conversations, for the OP to now charge me with missing the intent of the OP...again. Who knows, maybe I might be surprised and see I actually agree with him, lol.

Now, would like a fuller response to your point?

Or can I leave the ones already given?

And I'll let you be the judge of whether I am trying to be a wise guy in this one...




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Go Google it? With all due respect I seriously doubt if any evidence were shown it would matter. That has been my experience here with antagonists. Unfortunately it is a waste of time.

I'm not going to spend much time with persons who not even a minute after my post have already snipped it and responded to it. I think I can reserve that as a right.

My best interest isn't in mind obviously, nor is the post I've taken time to think through taken thoughtfully or in a brotherly manner even. It's disrespectful behavior, honestly, and I want to use my time more wisely.

Thank you.

From Catholic Doctrine, IT.

God bless.

 

[DHK]

Here's my agenda. Instead of nit-picking each other's posts apart and finding things that exist only in the mind of the nit-picker, why not try to find places of agreement? Why not look for that which binds us together in the Love of Christ rather than searching for that which can be twisted into division?

Very willing to try. In fact on many things one can agree to disagree.
However IT just responded:

FTR the only agenda I have is standing for the truth while opposing error for the sake of the sheep.

"The error" that is directly mentioned in this thread is part of the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC. It is very similar to what I believe. And yet for that belief it has elicited such responses as:

doctrines of demons, Finneyism, a questioning of my salvation, heretical views, etc.
If I edit the name-calling or the derogatory language out, I am an unfair mod. But it should be done.
This "nit-picking" in many cases, to some, seems to be waged as an all out war. And yet it is simply "standing for the truth while opposing error..." NOT!

 

[TCassidy]

Points (and you correct me where I fail to understand your point):

1. You assert your agenda;

I state my agenda in response to the agenda of the previous poster.

2. This is to address the charge of agenda;

His charge that another has an agenda other than the obvious debate in the thread.

3. You charge others with nit-picking;

I observe others nit-picking.

4. You are not pleased with nit-picking;

I'm tired of cleaning up the mess.

5. You charge the nit-picker with error which is only in their minds;

The error of nit-picking.

6. You assume authority to state this as fact;

I don't assume it. I have it.

7. You exhort the nit-picker/s to only agree with the subject/s of this nit-picking;

Uh, no.

8. You exhort said nit-pickers/s to join your agenda;

Uh, no.

9. You exhort nit-picker/s to only identify what is good in said subject of nit-picking/s (and the implication resulting in what is essentially endorsing overlooking error, which would actually bring this to 15 points rather than 14);

Not even close.

10. You imply pointing out error leads to the twisting of what is true;

Nope. Not the point.

11. You assume authority to decide what truth is;

Still missing the point.

12. You have judged that division is the result of this twisting of your perceived truth;

Still missing the point.

13. You show bias in judging;

Didn't you just show your bias in judging me for judging? LOL!

14. You are in fact against the very intent of the OP.

My post had nothing to do with the OP. You're still missing the point.

Did I miss anything?

Yes. Once again you managed to miss the entire point of the post!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Very willing to try. In fact on many things one can agree to disagree.
However IT just responded:

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

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.

It is very similar to what I believe. And yet for that belief it has elicited such responses as:

You say so, get the proof of your accusations.

doctrines of demons,

Quote please.

Finneyism,

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

a questioning of my salvation,

Where? got proof?

heretical views, etc.

Where did another say this to you?

If I edit the name-calling or the derogatory language out, I am an unfair mod. But it should be done. This "nit-picking" in many cases, to some, seems to be waged as an all out war. And yet it is simply "standing for the truth while opposing error..." NOT!

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

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

 

[TCassidy]

Very willing to try. In fact on many things one can agree to disagree.

I agree.

However IT just responded: FTR the only agenda I have is standing for the truth while opposing error for the sake of the sheep.

Yes, and I am sure you can honestly make the same claim. However, uninvolved third parties may see it differently.

"The error" that is directly mentioned in this thread is part of the Baptist Faith and Message of the SBC. It is very similar to what I believe. And yet for that belief it has elicited such responses as:

doctrines of demons, Finneyism, a questioning of my salvation, heretical views, etc.
If I edit the name-calling or the derogatory language out, I am an unfair mod. But it should be done.

Do you edit out the same type of derogatory remarks from your own posts?

This "nit-picking" in many cases, to some, seems to be waged as an all out war. And yet it is simply "standing for the truth while opposing error..." NOT!

No, it is a petty personality conflict between two otherwise Godly men who refuse to accept the fact that others can disagree with them without their being enemies.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm tired of cleaning up the mess.

That's going to be a problem, you being on the staff and all...lol.

Didn't you just show your bias in judging me for judging? LOL!

That's the point.

Yes. Once again you managed to miss the entire point of the post!

Okay, you're right, I'm wrong. I'm okay with that.

I don't assume it. I have it.

On the contrary, you do not.

Scripture has the authority to declare truth...you have a responsibility to draw out that truth and convey it to others.

Don't confuse authority as an administrator with the point being made.

And if you still need help understanding that let me know...



Now, what has just happened and how is it relevant to the OP and "the point" (beside your inclination to consider me a wise guy, lol)?


God bless.