The catholic church recants!

[Thinkingstuff]

Moderator...... Don't you think you should close this down considering what just happened? Enough is Enough.

[personal attack edited] I'm not offended but having lived in other places in the world. I remember in one Islamic country where I was sharing the Gospel a Muslim told me a passage from his Koran

Say to the unbeliever, I do not believe as you believe, nor do you believe as I believe, I will never believe as you believe nor will you believe as I believe. You have your faith and I have mine

[personal attack edited] At least he was saying we'll just have to disagree. [personal attack edited] So much for mercy heh?

 

[Dr. Walter]

yes I do. You're confusing yourself.

PROVE IT or stop asserting it. Give a basis for your charge or stop charging. Without proof it is an EMPTY accusation! I said, "You admit that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone period - without works - but where? At the point of salvation or AFTER the point of salvation????? " You are the one that distinguished between "the point" and "after the point" and you are the one that said you beleived in justification by faith alone without works and all I have asked you to do is place it within your own timetable, whether it occurs in your "point" of salvation or "after the point of salvation"?????? Show me where I am confusing myself by asking this simple straight forward question in keeping with your definitions and time terms?

Big whoop! I say things as I understand them I don't redefine biblical words into modern meanings and say its biblical. And yes I did. Because you did.

Oh, I see! You just accomodate the theology of others by PRETENDING you agree with what they said????? When you use unbiblical terms to define what you believe it is nothing but a "Big whoop" but when I use Biblical termonolgy to define what I believe I am "confusing myself." What a childish response!

Good, just insult me won't you, you white washed sepluchar.

Didn't you just lecture me that such inflamatory languague is evidence that the person using such terms are like the crusaders and the ungodly who have no love?????????? Oh, your the exception to that rule - Oh, I get it now!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

PROVE IT or stop asserting it. Give a basis for your charge or stop charging. Without proof it is an EMPTY accusation! I said, "You admit that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone period - without works - but where? At the point of salvation or AFTER the point of salvation????? " You are the one that distinguished between "the point" and "after the point" and you are the one that said you beleived in justification by faith alone without works and all I have asked you to do is place it within your own timetable, whether it occurs in your "point" of salvation or "after the point of salvation"?????? Show me where I am confusing myself by asking this simple straight forward question in keeping with your definitions and time terms?



Oh, I see! You just accomodate the theology of others by PRETENDING you agree with what they said????? When you use unbiblical terms to define what you believe it is nothing but a "Big whoop" but when I use Biblical termonolgy to define what I believe I am "confusing myself." What a childish response!




Didn't you just lecture me that such inflamatory languague is evidence that the person using such terms are like the crusaders and the ungodly who have no love?????????? Oh, your the exception to that rule - Oh, I get it now!

The point is what is good for the goose is good for gander. And I use modern understandable terms I don't dress up bible words to change their meanings.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr Walter will always call me a heretic even though he misrepresents what I believe. I'm not offended but having lived in other places in the world. I remember in one Islamic country where I was sharing the Gospel a Muslim told me a passage from his Koran In some ways this muslim was more merciful than Dr. Walter. At least he was saying we'll just have to disagree. However, they both labled me an unbeliever. So much for mercy heh?

It is one thing to have a genuine difference of opinion where credible evidence can be offered to substantiate that difference. However, if you cannot provide credible or reasonable evidence to back an argument up, then why not be either honest enough to admit it or simply drop out and let others who can offer such continue?????

For example - the silly and ridiculous argument that the term "great" used for a lost man and a saved man is a credible response to a combination of terms ("just" "righteous soul" "rightous man" "godly") ascribed to one man, that God only uses for saved persons.

For example - Claiming I am confusing myself by asking you to place what you claim to believe in your own time scheme you claim to be representative of your position.

I could go on and on presenting rediculous responses, obvious attempts to avoid serious objections.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First of all Paul wasn't dealing with people that believed exactly as I do when he used those words and the very fact that you think so shows you how little you understand the time period. That is what happens when you make up a history from a fantasy and apply to your reality. He was speaking of the Judiazers. I am not one. However, based how easily you judge maybe you should look in the mirror. I think you place your view of theology and make yourself into a god believing God himself must believe as you do. That is idolatry my friend. And finally you know nothing of me. So sa'tan (Accusor) go accuse someone else.

You are sorely mistaken! The reason the Judiazers embraced what they did was based upon the very same foundation of your position - exactly. They beleived in justification by faith in the gospel. They did not deny Jesus was the Christ. They simply added works to the equation as any study of Acts 15 and Romans with Galatians will easily verify. They believed just faith in the provision of Christ was not sufficient but the element of "works" must continue past that initial belief in Christ. They defined those works one way you define them another way but the bottom line is "works" is included somehow or one cannot be saved.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The point is what is good for the goose is good for gander. And I use modern understandable terms I don't dress up bible words to change their meanings.

Another empty unverifiable accusation without a shed of evidence to support it - that seems to be your MO

 

[Dr. Walter]

The point is what is good for the goose is good for gander.

I never complained about defining your points. I never complained about stating your position on justification by faith without works. I simply asked you to place where it happens within your own chosen words you used to describe your position!

How am I confusing myself by simply asking you to explain your own words, your own statements, your own time terms????

I will tell you what I think is your problem. You don't really beleive there is a point in time when a person is COMPLETELY justified by faith without works. You believe in a PROGRESSIVE justification by faith without works inseparably manifested by continuous works. Right or wrong? If I am wrong then place where it happened?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why don't both you guys give it a rest.....your like horses chomping at your bits.

 

[DHK]

Thinkingstuff,
I have spent a bit of time editing much of your posts (as well as some others). As I have requested, I want you to provide evidence for this false accusation. I consider it serious. Don't go off on tangents and red herrings saying, look what you did here, or look what this person did there. That is being a child. Provide evidence for this post or retract it:

After all it was you who broke down the reason for the meassage board which was to discuss in a forum theology. Yet you and others tend to drop the discussion aspect and turn it into sanctimonious soap box preaching.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1571991&postcount=56

How and when did I "break down the message board which was to discuss in a forum theology?"

Prove your allegations.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I never complained about defining your points. I never complained about stating your position on justification by faith without works. I simply asked you to place where it happens within your own chosen words you used to describe your position!

How am I confusing myself by simply asking you to explain your own words, your own statements, your own time terms????

I will tell you what I think is your problem. You don't really beleive there is a point in time when a person is COMPLETELY justified by faith without works. You believe in a PROGRESSIVE justification by faith without works inseparably manifested by continuous works. Right or wrong? If I am wrong then place where it happened?

This will be the last I say on this Matter. I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds. I don't know how many times I've said this you keep going back to the coversion point (and I mean the word point in the modern context you can call it at the moment of regeneration) either way its what I mean. Jesus says he will abide in us if we abide in him. Whether or not we abide in him determines the extent of our faith. If we do not abide I will not say the person is necissarily unsaved (its a good bet btw) it is not for me to judge but certainly if we abide our salvation is evident. Now that is it that is my soteriology. Take it however you want at this point. (and again I mean it in the context that I used it because its the message I want to convey.) And stop the witch hunt trying to accertain every little detail of what I say. I'm not the president, nor am I a great theologian. It seems that if I or anyone who disagree with you on any point you instead of conceding that we disagree with you attempt more effort at to proving they are not "saved" or a "christian" by your terms and set little"traps" by defining terms as you mean them not necissarily as scripture intended them. It is the same thing the Pharisees did to Jesus when they couldn't argue against him. Such as "by who's authority do you do these things?" I'm not as wise as Jesus and I can't read your mind. But I do know this yelling heretic because of disagreements because you purpose to see it your way is you mode of debate rather than debate on the subjects merit alone. In short you conduct witch hunts. Not only for me but anyone who disagrees with you. You are not the sole conveyer of truth. Scriptures stand on their own. And we disagree with how it is interpreted. Selah.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff,
I have spent a bit of time editing much of your posts (as well as some others). As I have requested, I want you to provide evidence for this false accusation. I consider it serious. Don't go off on tangents and red herrings saying, look what you did here, or look what this person did there. That is being a child. Provide evidence for this post or retract it:

I explained it clearly on post 76 I will post it here clearly for your review Here In that Post I clearly showed you what it was you said and how I viewed it. It is clear.

How and when did I "break down the message board which was to discuss in a forum theology?"

Prove your allegations

I will post this by you from the "Why universalism is wrong" thread post 186 Bolded mine.

But this board is not for evangelism. The average person that comes here is not seeking how to be saved. Either they are fellow Baptists or they are apologists for their respective religions and well-versed in their own religion. Thus when they do bring up error, it must be confronted. Hundreds will see it on this board. Error cannot be left unchecked. Not here. This is a debate forum. All things are passed through the eyes of the Bible, and through the Bible looked at and analyzed. If it doesn't measure up to the standard of the Bible it is to be discarded. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That is why I don't put much faith in the ECF, though the RCC might.

This is how you broke it down for debating. Thus I have given you verification of your request. Twice for one item and once for your last item. Again I wonder how serious the accusation is since its common on this board. But you have your evidence.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds.

You want your cake and eat to! From your past posts you have said that a person is justified WITHOUT works but by faith ALONE. I assume that is what you still mean by the first three sentences above??? Is it?

However, in your last sentence above you do a SHIFT from "without works" for salvation to a COOPERATIVE position WITH works that in your words is "necessary" to be ultimately saved. So within four sentences you deny that works can save anyone but then shift to a position you deny anyone can be utlimately saved without works. Obviously the kind of faith you begin with is not the kind of faith you end with as the former saves you WITHOUT works but the latter saves you WITH works as a "COOPERATIVE" effort with God.

Another glaring problem is that you actually state that a person can be genuinely justified by faith alone without works but then potentially end up lost due to works. In other words you claim the very possibility of a true child of God that Jesus Christ claims is impossible (Jn. 6:39).

I believe you simply do not understand the biblical nature or application of faith. Please explain to me how justification by faith is WITHOUT works but then transforms into a faith inseparable WITH works in regard to justification?

Now, you may just come back at me and charge me with perverting your position but I think if anyone on this forum reads what you have said above and reads my response it is pretty obvious that I have correctly defined your position. If not, then, tell me where I misinterpreted your language, your definitions, your descriptions?

This will be the last I say on this Matter. I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds. I don't know how many times I've said this you keep going back to the coversion point (and I mean the word point in the modern context you can call it at the moment of regeneration) either way its what I mean. Jesus says he will abide in us if we abide in him. Whether or not we abide in him determines the extent of our faith. If we do not abide I will not say the person is necissarily unsaved (its a good bet btw) it is not for me to judge but certainly if we abide our salvation is evident. Now that is it that is my soteriology. Take it however you want at this point. (and again I mean it in the context that I used it because its the message I want to convey.) And stop the witch hunt trying to accertain every little detail of what I say. I'm not the president, nor am I a great theologian. It seems that if I or anyone who disagree with you on any point you instead of conceding that we disagree with you attempt more effort at to proving they are not "saved" or a "christian" by your terms and set little"traps" by defining terms as you mean them not necissarily as scripture intended them. It is the same thing the Pharisees did to Jesus when they couldn't argue against him. Such as "by who's authority do you do these things?" I'm not as wise as Jesus and I can't read your mind. But I do know this yelling heretic because of disagreements because you purpose to see it your way is you mode of debate rather than debate on the subjects merit alone. In short you conduct witch hunts. Not only for me but anyone who disagrees with you. You are not the sole conveyer of truth. Scriptures stand on their own. And we disagree with how it is interpreted. Selah.

 

[DHK]

After all it was you who broke down the reason for the meassage board which was to discuss in a forum theology. Yet you and others tend to drop the discussion aspect and turn it into sanctimonious soap box preaching.

All right I originally misunderstood the first part of what you said, overlooking the words "the reason."

Now you have quoted me here:

But this board is not for evangelism. The average person that comes here is not seeking how to be saved. Either they are fellow Baptists or they are apologists for their respective religions and well-versed in their own religion. Thus when they do bring up error, it must be confronted. Hundreds will see it on this board. Error cannot be left unchecked. Not here. This is a debate forum. All things are passed through the eyes of the Bible, and through the Bible looked at and analyzed. If it doesn't measure up to the standard of the Bible it is to be discarded. The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. That is why I don't put much faith in the ECF, though the RCC might.

This is a simple explanation of how the board works. It is an explanation of who comes and why? It is an explanation of why error is confronted and exposed. It is also a statement of the Baptist belief of why the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. And if I remember, the entire post was an answer to a question (complaint) you had. So what is the problem?

Yet you still have the gall to say:

Yet you and others tend to drop the discussion aspect and turn it into sanctimonious soap box preaching.

So when you don't agree with someone else's explanation you call it "sanctimonious soap box preaching." As I look at the wording of that statement I should have gone back and edited that out as well as a personal attack, for that is what it is. Look, if you can't take the heat, get out of the fire. Go and discuss the weather in the Other Christians Forum, and stay there, or go to another board completely. But stop the name calling and demeaning of others. There is no need for it, and no need for me having to go through an entire thread editing your posts for your personal attacks and things that ought not to be said on a family message board.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So when you don't agree with someone else's explanation you call it "sanctimonious soap box preaching." As I look at the wording of that statement I should have gone back and edited that out as well as a personal attack, for that is what it is. Look, if you can't take the heat, get out of the fire. Go and discuss the weather in the Other Christians Forum, and stay there, or go to another board completely. But stop the name calling and demeaning of others. There is no need for it, and no need for me having to go through an entire thread editing your posts for your personal attacks and things that ought not to be said on a family message board.

No, I think I explained it very clear in Post 76 to which I referred you again. I explain exactly what it was you said. The context of the discussion and why I thought it was sanctimoniou soap box preaching. I did not say it was because I disagreed with you. I'm ok with disagreements. This is however not the issue of why I said what I did. Again I was very clear in post 76.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I said I do not believe works saves people. You keep insisting that I do. I do not. I believe at conversion you are given faith by almighty God. After which your faith necissarily leads you into a cooperative with God doing his will which are expressed in deeds.

You want your cake and eat to!

Amen! Thank the Lord Jesus Christ who allows me to have my cake and to eat it as well.

However, in your last sentence above you do a SHIFT from "without works" for salvation to a COOPERATIVE position WITH works that in your words is "necessary" to be ultimately saved.

You need to read again to gain understanding. I'm saying nothing different than Blackaby point number 3 as I've said for the umpteenth time.
Unfortunately, I let you drag me back into the discussion but I've made my point clear. I will stop now as you will no doubt continue in your endevour to brand me a heretic by finding any flaw or statement by which you can accuse.

 

[DHK]

No, I think I explained it very clear in Post 76 to which I referred you again. I explain exactly what it was you said. The context of the discussion and why I thought it was sanctimoniou soap box preaching. I did not say it was because I disagreed with you. I'm ok with disagreements. This is however not the issue of why I said what I did. Again I was very clear in post 76.

Post 76 was not clear at all. It was one of the worst posts you have ever made. It was vague and did not answer directly any of the statements that clearly addressed your previous statements.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Post 76 was not clear at all. It was one of the worst posts you have ever made. It was vague and did not answer directly any of the statements that clearly addressed your previous statements.

Post 76 posted here I will bold relevant parts so you get it:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
I answered every statement you made. You either simply didn't like my answer or couldn't refute it. For example: Concerning Lot, God called him just or righteous whether or not he had visible works. You had no answer. You lamely called it "non sequitor." That is not debate. It did answer to your statement. Your post was one of the most lame that I have seen.

Sigh. If you read the thread you would see that I said I wasn't sure of Lots salvation 2 peter said he was just I'm just not sure it means just in salvation or not having taken part of the evil of Sodom. You will find I answer this way because both Moab and Ammonites come from him. It was already said. and its a non sequitur because I have already said works do not save which leads me to this next very important point.

Quote:
Something obviously touched a nerve here when you laid this false allegation which you better have some evidence. It is slander:

Unless you have proof I will personally report it to the administration.
Understood?

Since I have already made it clear I do not believe works save when you post (post 47 btw) this statement
Quote:

Thinkinstuff?
Was Lot saved? By whose standard of works? Yours? If so he would be in Hell today. But the Bible declares him a just man.
Was the thief on the cross saved? Why whose standard? Yours? If so he would be in Hell today? But Jesus said that he would be in paradise with him that very day. I would rather believe Jesus than you.

What saves? Works? Faith? Faith alone? Faith plus works?
If you pick the latter you have picked wrong. It is by faith alone. There have been many that have lived wanton lives of sin, but come to the end of their lives (like the thief on the cross) have turned to Christ. They have no works to show for it. They are saved by faith alone.

For a long time Nicodemus had no works to show for his faith. We can describe him a "secret believer." He would not speak up for Christ in the Sanhedrin. He kept quiet "for fear of the Jews." That is the reason he came to see Jesus "by night." What works? There were none. Not until much later, after the death of Christ, do we see him helping Joseph of Arimathea take the body of Jesus and wrap it in burial clothes. Secret believers don't have works. I am prone to think that there are many such believers in Islamic nations and in Communist nations.

Works do not save, nor do they have a part in salvation. If they did neither Lot or the thief on the cross were saved. But the testimony of Christ say that they were.

I find it peachy and sanctimonious. Because I had already said works do not save! And the topic I was on with Dr. Walter was about Israel in eschetology which had very little to do with this statement after I already Identified works do not save.
BTW you haven't touched a nerve with me. However, you've slandered me on several occassions. You called me a liar and a catholic. I've given you my church and if you like to come for a visit you are welcome. I on the other hand present an opinion of how you post. So tell me which is slander?

let the administration judge.

Ok so lets review important words. 1)I had already said Works do not save. Your post goes on about works not saving (REDUNDANT? NO NEED ETC...) Purpose of you doing it then? In my mind "TO PREACH" an already conceded point. If preaching rather than debate then its sanctimonioius or

affecting piety or making a display of holiness

. 2) I was currently on a different Topic of Eschatology which had nothing to do with your post since it was geared at fortifying your position on works do not save by using Lot as an example. Again the purpose of it? In my mind "TO PREACH" which in the context I find it sanctimonious or

affecting piety or making a dispaly of holiness.

. I thought I clarified that perfectly in post 76. If it wasn't clear I am sorry. Hopefully this clears it up. I have in no way made this post vague but to the point of why I thought the way I did.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I taught through Blackby several years ago. In the past year I moved to Ohio and then moved back so I still have his books boxed up somewhere among several other boxes. So if you will do me the kindness of quoting all three points for me I will appreciate it greatly since it is his third point you seem to rest your case upon.

Amen! Thank the Lord Jesus Christ who allows me to have my cake and to eat it as well.
You need to read again to gain understanding. I'm saying nothing different than Blackaby point number 3 as I've said for the umpteenth time.
Unfortunately, I let you drag me back into the discussion but I've made my point clear. I will stop now as you will no doubt continue in your endevour to brand me a heretic by finding any flaw or statement by which you can accuse.

 

[DHK]

Post 76 posted here I will bold relevant parts so you get it:



Ok so lets review important words. 1)I had already said Works do not save. Your post goes on about works not saving (REDUNDANT? NO NEED ETC...) Purpose of you doing it then? In my mind "TO PREACH" an already conceded point.

It was not conceded. There is not one post in this entire thread where either Dr. Walter or I have been convinced by you (whether you simply say it), that you believe "works do not save." By subsequent posts you go on to say that works are necessary to salvation. You have done this over and over again. Thus the emphasis.
I gave you clear examples of people that you would consider not saved, because in your own words (not an exact quote) they had no verifiable works that anyone could see), and therefore would not be saved. Your view is that salvation is by faith, faith that produces works. But what if the works cannot be seen. Then, by your standard, you don't really believe that person is saved, correct? Thus I give you those examples.

If preaching rather than debate then its sanctimonioius or . 2) I was currently on a different Topic of Eschatology which had nothing to do with your post since it was geared at fortifying your position on works do not save by using Lot as an example. Again the purpose of it? In my mind "TO PREACH" which in the context I find it sanctimonious or . I thought I clarified that perfectly in post 76.

As I read the posts I saw no sustained discussion on eschatology. Perhaps you will have to direct me to some links. Post 76 was more like a tirade than any thought out answer. I did not preach, I answered. I was not being sanctimonious. That is a personal attack which should have been edited.

If it wasn't clear I am sorry. Hopefully this clears it up. I have in no way made this post vague but to the point of why I thought the way I did.

Thanks for trying to do so.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Amen! Thank the Lord Jesus Christ who allows me to have my cake and to eat it as well.
You need to read again to gain understanding. I'm saying nothing different than Blackaby point number 3 as I've said for the umpteenth time.
Unfortunately, I let you drag me back into the discussion but I've made my point clear. I will stop now as you will no doubt continue in your endevour to brand me a heretic by finding any flaw or statement by which you can accuse.

For the sake of argument, lets suppose I completely misunderstand your position entirely. There is one point that I do not misunderstand at all and that is you believe that a truely justified born again person can potentially lose their salvation due to works. You have made that crystal clear.

Hence, your view of justification and salvation is completely at odds with the clear and explicit and unambigous words of Christ "OF ALL that the father hath given me I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING but should raise IT up again at the last day."

There is no necessity to interpret his language as "OF ALL" means "OF ALL" and the words "I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" means "nothing" but your view of justification and salvation forces a contradictory interpretation on these words of Christ to mean "OF ALL that the Father hath given me I MIGHT LOSE SOME".

I intepret the unclear by the clear and Jesus could not be any clearer in his choice of terms here.