i agree it is not good for anyone to give God speed to a religion that says works and sacraments merit salvation along with Christ. i believe the apostle Paul warned those in this manner so i shall do the same and now i warn those who condone a religion that perverts the gospel listen to Paul>>>>Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
-
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!
not to keep picking at billy graham, however>>
- Thread starter massdak
- Start date
Charles Meadows
New Member
People have been people for thousands of years. It's human nature to persecute those who are different. We baptists do it as well. Anyone whose Christianity is a little different than our own is persecuted. Catholics, Methodists, Pentecostals etc.
The RCC teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for sins, rose bodily, and will return. To say that they believe a "false Christ" is to blaspheme God. They don't have it ALL right - but they have enough - such that it is well possible to be saved as a catholic.
The RCC teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin, died for sins, rose bodily, and will return. To say that they believe a "false Christ" is to blaspheme God. They don't have it ALL right - but they have enough - such that it is well possible to be saved as a catholic.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Oh, I think the "praying to Saints," and "confessing to the Pope," is silly, and a waste of good breath. However - they do not believe the Saints will solve their problems. They believe the saints will be intercessors for them.
In other words, they have really low self esteem, and figure if they ask God directly, they won't have enough faith to be taken seriously, but if the saint takes it to God, the saint will have enough faith to have a serious conversation with God.
I think they are wrong.
I don't think they are going to hell because they want someone "more important than they are" to ask God.
In other words, they have really low self esteem, and figure if they ask God directly, they won't have enough faith to be taken seriously, but if the saint takes it to God, the saint will have enough faith to have a serious conversation with God.
I think they are wrong.
I don't think they are going to hell because they want someone "more important than they are" to ask God.
I was born a Catholic, baptized(sprinkled)as an infant, first communion, confirmation, My mother was French Canadian and a devout Cathloic, for her that was the only religion. I rebelled, I didn't like all the rules. My mother was upset to say the least. When I joined the Navy all religion was off, I still believed in God.
Years later I chose Jesus as my Lord and savior and was baptised at my choosing. I'm a Southern Baptist by choice. My sisters still choose to be Catholic, after I've explained my reasons for my choice.
Years later I chose Jesus as my Lord and savior and was baptised at my choosing. I'm a Southern Baptist by choice. My sisters still choose to be Catholic, after I've explained my reasons for my choice.
If this was his only statement about the matter, then I could grant your position. But it isn't. This is a consistent statement that he has made that he has never clarified. You are reaching after straws to defend the indefensible. As I have said, this is not an isolated instance. It is an ongoing pattern of more than 30 years.
What he meant by this is very different from what we mean by this. Remember, words have meanings, and if someone attaches a different meaning to the same words, the whole thing means something different. When Catholics talk about living in "intimate union with Christ" and about "justification" they are talking about a works based justification. The RCC condemned people who believe that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is the issue. Let's not overlook it and pretend that after 1500 years of recognized differences, we now suddenly believe the same thing. We don't.
Common grace.
Here's the Catechism:
1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.[50] The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
They teach that infant baptism washes away the stain of original sin. They teach that the sacrament of Baptism is regenerative. They teach that the sacraments save. That is heresy.
If some priest told you it wasn't about Baptism, then he either lied, or doesn't know what his church teaches. There are myriads of problems in the RCC that demonstrate it to be a false church. Everyone in history has recognized that these differences exist. It is only in recent times that some have begun to pretend that the differences aren't real.
Does the Catholic church have the gospel? Sure, inasumuch as they have the Word of God. But they do not preach it as the official position of their church. And that is simply wrong.
I haven't seen anyone condemn Graham for "showing love" to JPII. That was never the issue here as far as I can remember.
Don't change the subject. This is about doctrine and truth.
Herein lies the difference. Paul was under the inspiration of the Spirit to confront Peter.
1-Are you comparing yourself to Paul???
AND
2-Are you under the inspiration of the Spirit, or under the inspiration of Pastor Larry??? </font>[/QUOTE]I think my point was clear. Don't distort it. Some here have charged that we should never address the sins of a "man of God" because it is judgmental and wrong. I was demonstrating from the authority of Scripture that it is right to address the sins and compromise of another man. For us to not address Graham's sins simply because "we shouldn't judge" flies in teh face of what God has said to us.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Pastor Larry,
If you are talking about me when you make the statement, "We should never address the sins" you are wrong about what I believe, and wrong about what I have stated.
I have said, numerous times, that we should correct, but we should do so in a way that enlightens rather than condemns. The bible says to be encouraging when you correct. There is a tremendous difference in loving correction and judgment.
Judgmental condemanation without correction is worthless. Correction without love is abusive.
God's word is clear on how correction should be done. That is what I stand on. Not, "don't correct," but rather, "don't judge."
If you are talking about me when you make the statement, "We should never address the sins" you are wrong about what I believe, and wrong about what I have stated.
I have said, numerous times, that we should correct, but we should do so in a way that enlightens rather than condemns. The bible says to be encouraging when you correct. There is a tremendous difference in loving correction and judgment.
Judgmental condemanation without correction is worthless. Correction without love is abusive.
God's word is clear on how correction should be done. That is what I stand on. Not, "don't correct," but rather, "don't judge."
I think the distinction between "correct" and "judge" is questionable. How do we "correct" someone if we have not made the "judgment" that they are unbiblical? The Bible commands us to judge. As I have often said, such correction should be done in love and grace, but we should not back down simply because it involves a great personality.
In my comments, I was referring to a general attitude that many hold.
In my comments, I was referring to a general attitude that many hold.
O
OCC
Guest
TS...maybe he committed slander??? Nawww...I don't think so.
T
TexasSky
Guest
Larry,
Context is the key. Judgment that seems to be condemned by Christis always the kind that points fingers and looks down. In context, the bible is very clear on the Christian way to correct someone who is sinning. They also are clear on the use of words like, "encouraging," and in doing everything in a loving manner.
Context is the key. Judgment that seems to be condemned by Christis always the kind that points fingers and looks down. In context, the bible is very clear on the Christian way to correct someone who is sinning. They also are clear on the use of words like, "encouraging," and in doing everything in a loving manner.
O
OCC
Guest
Me too
I agree.
Not always "encouraging." The Bible says that a divisive person is to be rejected after a 1st and 2nd warning. 2 John is equally clear about "having nothing to do with someone. 1 Tim 5 talks about public rebuke and discipline so that others may fear. There is nothign "encouraging" about these things. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Herein lies the difference. Paul was under the inspiration of the Spirit to confront Peter.
1-Are you comparing yourself to Paul???
AND
2-Are you under the inspiration of the Spirit, or under the inspiration of Pastor Larry??? </font>[/QUOTE]I think my point was clear. Don't distort it. Some here have charged that we should never address the sins of a "man of God" because it is judgmental and wrong. I was demonstrating from the authority of Scripture that it is right to address the sins and compromise of another man. For us to not address Graham's sins simply because "we shouldn't judge" flies in teh face of what God has said to us. </font>[/QUOTE]It is not a distortion to ask for clarification. I have asked it and you have dodged it.
Once again I restate my questions:
1-Are you comparing yourself to Paul???
AND
2-Are you under the inspiration of the Spirit, or under the inspiration of Pastor Larry???
And I think the answer to both question is clear. I said that. I didn't dodge it. I gave the answer and explained what I was addressing.
Earlier you admitted you did not follow scripture in confronting him on it either. You sinned and simply listened to the gossipers. You have trusted the words of those who claim to have confronted him. He calls those types in his book as liars. So it's there word agiainst his. But they have never disputed what he wrote about them and neither have you. Does that make you disobedient to scripture and a part of the liars group and causing dissension? It wasn't too many years ago that I wrote a letter to a major leader in the SBC wanting it straight from him. What I see now is a chameleon to fit the political agenda. I have other letters as well that show the same point. There are not too many leaders I believe any more. So many are pushing their political aganeda all in the name of truth.
Where's the sin? You have openly admitted to not doing what scripture admonishes you to do in Gal. 6:1. I sure wouldn't be so quick to believe someone's word until I checked it out first for myself. It's clear you know how to do research. That being the case, why are you so gullible to believe religious leaders without any proof from the original source. All your sources are second hand.
I could give you many examples of gossip and bad talk about others. What I find in almost every case is that the one speaking is the bad person who cannot be trusted. Doesn't Romans 2 teach that.
I admitted no such thing. I have followed the biblical pattern and the biblical commands. I listened to no gossip. The letters written by Graham and these men are a matter of public record. I have done what Scripture commands me to do, and it is wrong for you to say otherwise. My sources are the same that everyone else uses. They are first hand accounts, news reports, words from Graham himself.
If you read the NT carefully (something far out of style), you find that not everyone has to go. Look at Matt 18 for example. A person goes one on one (that was done with Graham, many many many times). Then he goes with two or three (that was done with Graham many many many times). Then they take it before the church. Notice how the each individual member of the church is not required to go to the person one on one, but can rather take the account of the witnesses, combined with the non-repentance of the offending person and make a judgment based on that. Clearly, you are incorrect on your assertion about how this "must" be handled. The truth is that men Graham highly respected and from whom Graham solicited advice confronted Graham on his disobedience in a loving way and they stuck with him for many years in an effort to bring him back to repentance. Graham refused. In the pattern of Matt 18, these men took their story to the church at large, and the church at large should be making a decision. I have, based on the record of numerous sources who all agree about what Graham has said and done. To put it simply, you just made false accusations.
The fact that you do not know these things shows perhaps that you cannot be trusted. You are speaking falsely against me, and against Graham. That should not be acceptable to you. Why is it that we are so biblically illiterate that we defend clear and open disobedience and make false accusations againt those who handle it biblically?
If you read the NT carefully (something far out of style), you find that not everyone has to go. Look at Matt 18 for example. A person goes one on one (that was done with Graham, many many many times). Then he goes with two or three (that was done with Graham many many many times). Then they take it before the church. Notice how the each individual member of the church is not required to go to the person one on one, but can rather take the account of the witnesses, combined with the non-repentance of the offending person and make a judgment based on that. Clearly, you are incorrect on your assertion about how this "must" be handled. The truth is that men Graham highly respected and from whom Graham solicited advice confronted Graham on his disobedience in a loving way and they stuck with him for many years in an effort to bring him back to repentance. Graham refused. In the pattern of Matt 18, these men took their story to the church at large, and the church at large should be making a decision. I have, based on the record of numerous sources who all agree about what Graham has said and done. To put it simply, you just made false accusations.
The fact that you do not know these things shows perhaps that you cannot be trusted. You are speaking falsely against me, and against Graham. That should not be acceptable to you. Why is it that we are so biblically illiterate that we defend clear and open disobedience and make false accusations againt those who handle it biblically?
O
OCC
Guest
"The Bible says that a divisive person is to be rejected after a 1st and 2nd warning."
Now all that needs to be done is define "divisive". In the Church that tends to be the one who is not popular but still opens his/her mouth. Same as on this site. I've experienced first hand, warnings from moderator while much worse has been tolerated without a word being said. Divisive is highly subjective when it comes to the Church and this should not be.
"Then they take it before the church. Notice how the each individual member of the church is not required to go to the person one on one, but can rather take the account of the witnesses, combined with the non-repentance of the offending person and make a judgment based on that."
That is if the witness's account are valid. We all know how even in the Church there are some corrupt people who want to destroy innocent people's lives.
Now all that needs to be done is define "divisive". In the Church that tends to be the one who is not popular but still opens his/her mouth. Same as on this site. I've experienced first hand, warnings from moderator while much worse has been tolerated without a word being said. Divisive is highly subjective when it comes to the Church and this should not be.
"Then they take it before the church. Notice how the each individual member of the church is not required to go to the person one on one, but can rather take the account of the witnesses, combined with the non-repentance of the offending person and make a judgment based on that."
That is if the witness's account are valid. We all know how even in the Church there are some corrupt people who want to destroy innocent people's lives.