PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2007 5:07:51 AM
gwblt,
"The Anti mormon activists abound!"
--> Are you one of the conspiracy people? Do you feel that everyone is out to get you? I hardly think that ANYONE here is an "Anti-Mormon Activist" and I've been here for two years now. If anyone is an activist it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are the one slinging words and being rude to people without first getting to know them.
Since you've taken it upon yourself to start hating people, you might take head of Jesus words (Mt 5:22)
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
This isn't exactly a "Good Works" on your part is it?
|
gwblt
Rookie Author
Columbia
Posts:13
Points:200
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2007 7:49:38 PM
** Guitar Man ** I find the Title of this post to be slightly deceitful I hope it is not intentionally so! It might better be titled "A Former Mormon's Testimony"... just an observation...
BTW - I will do as you requested and pray for the young man... might even say one or two for you! ;-)
|
gwblt
Rookie Author
Columbia
Posts:13
Points:200
Joined:Oct 2007
|
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2007 7:10:04 PM
** Danotheboy ** The Anti mormon activists abound! Anyone who Honestly seeks guidence from the Holy Ghost can and will if sincere in their desire to know the truth, Find the true and living christ through prayer. It is promissed to all in the final chapter of the Book of Mormon. And anyone who spends the time to fast and pray will never be able to deny it!
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2007 4:34:31 AM
Dano.
I'm in 100% agreement with GG. Please print the post he made and go through the verses and comments he made and do your homework -- be a faithful steward of God's word and find out the real truth.
I think both GG and I could totally blast away at the LDS religion but you're not ready for all of that. I know my library and there are many others here too who can show you that they are not telling you everything. The LSD faith is pseudo-Christian; it's a fake that masquerades as being the real deal and leads you down a road to bondage, not the freedom that Christ promised.
You've experienced the feeling of "not being good enough". That's condemnation and not from God and this is all that you'll be left with in this religion. They may be good people by your estimation, they may be very friendly and helpful, but does that make it Godly?
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 25, 2007 12:32:41 AM
Danotheboy1 - the thing that the Mormons have not told you in full disclosure is that they don't teach you the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible. They teach you a Christ that:
- is the brother of Lucifer (Satan). This is horribly un-biblical. The Lord Jesus Christ made Lucifer, He is not the brother of Lucifer. "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)"
- has a beginning. This is also very non-Biblical "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)"
The Mormons have a God who is one of many gods, as in Mormon theology He is only god of this world. But God makes it very clear that He is the ONLY god:
Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. (Isaiah 41:4)
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. (Isaiah 42:8)
For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. (Isaiah 43:3)
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)
I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:11)
Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it? (Isaiah 43:13)
I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. (Isaiah 43:25)
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6)
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:8)
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (Isaiah 44:24)
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: (Isaiah 45:5)
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:6)
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:18)
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. (Isaiah 45:21)
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:22)
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, (Isaiah 46:9)
For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. (Isaiah 48:11)
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. (Isaiah 48:12)
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. (Isaiah 48:13)
Mormonism uses the same words as Biblical Christianity. But Mormonism has different definitions than the Bible for those terms.
Please, please prayerfully consider these and other verses and how they contrast to LDS teachings. Then come to the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible, He is waiting with open arms!
|
Danotheboy1
Champion Author
California
Posts:3,307
Points:78,440
Joined:Oct 2006
|
Message Posted: May 24, 2007 10:41:03 PM
I was boRN middle-class CalifoRNia raised on Assembly of God. ( Penacalstals ) I went to Church and thought I was walking right with God. I never once took a sacrament nor was I baptised be emersion. I left them at 17 and joined the Navy and was non-religus For 20 more years in that time I was a meth addict, smoked pot, , and drank both alcohol and coffee. I also never had a relationship last for more than 3 months. I was needless to say; a WRECK. I moved to Salt Lack City to find work and to escape my meth destroyed life. My father had recently converted to LDS (his life was more of a wreck than mine by 30 years). I met my wife in Salt Lake City. She was a boRN Mormon who had gone Prodigal Son on her family. We fell in love and have been married now for 6 years. I was boRN again by the blood of Jesus Christ and was properly baptised by emersion and given the gift of the holy spirit by the laying on of hands in 2001. I now am a full time student working on my RN and my wife is working in medical billing/coading. Becoming boRN again into the LDS faith and having a personal and wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ the lamb of God has made me a better man. This I say in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
==========================================================================
This is LDS members testimony
==========================================================================
When I was doing the discussions with the missoneries they made it VERY
clear in fact EXPRESSLY clear that there is only one way to gain forgivenesss that is by the GRACE of JESUS CHRIST. He who is the ONLY begotten of God the Father. In the old days you sacrificed grain and animals (your first boRN) to God for forgivenesss. Then Jesus Christ came to earth. To sacrifice himself for all of mans sins, in effect Gods son Jesus Christ is and was God's first boRN. And his sacrifice is all that is needed to gain forgiveness. My only sacrifice was a contrite spirit and a broken hart.
I am a MORMON and I will tell you with out doubt there is but ONE way to heaven and that is by the BLOOD of JESUS CHRIST.
"Yea behold I say unto you, that as these things are true, and as the Lord God liveth, there is none other name given under heaven, save it be JESUS CHRIST of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved."2Nephi11:39
|
CarSUVowner
Champion Author
Memphis
Posts:18,538
Points:1,249,080
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 10, 2007 12:26:49 AM
Howdy AdaBob! Glad to you see you back on the boards. Was beginning to wonder if you were ok.
|
AdaBob
Champion Author
Ohio
Posts:13,678
Points:2,603,515
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 8:56:35 PM
Q
So, since by your assertation, Southern Baptists (Rick Warren, trinuclear, myself, etc.) believe in a different "teaching" than you, we must fall into your definition of a cult and are doomed to hell to?
Sheeeezzzz
GM, You have my vote to ban Q also
I'm done reading this thread also,
Pastor Bob
[Edited by: AdaBob at 5/9/2007 11:57:29 PM EST]
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 1:23:20 PM
Tri, I did not misquote you. DocTrine simply means teaching. If you believe what Rick Warren did was appropriate in light of what the Word of God teaches regarding separation, then it is a docTrinal difference we hold. You believe a different "teaching" than me.
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 12:18:13 PM
William Burkitts Commentary on 2 Timothy 2:14
Observe here, 1. The excellent advice which St. Paul gives to Timothy, to all the ministers of the church, and to all the Christian churches far and near, that they spend not their time in disputes, that they contend not about words, which have no tendency to make men either wiser or better, but serve only to violate the laws of charity, and cause men to wrangle eternally, and persecute one another with hard names and characters of reproach.
Here note, 1. What those things are which ought not to be matters of contention among Christians; namely,
1. Such things in which we differ from each other, rather in words, than in sense; ofttimes opponents mean the same things, but differ only in the way and manner of expression.
2. Such things as tend to little or no profit, either as to edification in faith, in love, or in practical godliness.
Observe also, The apostle's argument, why we should not contend about these things; because they tend to beget strife and contention among Christians, by dividing them into factions and parties, and also tend to the subversion of the hearers, causing them to doubt of the truth of the faith, about which the contending parties cannot agree; "Charge them therefore, that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers."
Observe next, The solemn charge given to Timothy, as to the matter, manner, and method of his preaching; that the matter of it be the word of truth, the pure word of God, that it be divided rightly, to every one his portion, to every hearer his due, methodizing and distributing truth, as God would have it; terror to whom terror is due, comfort to whom comfort belongs.
The original word rendered rightly to divide, some think a sacrifical word, alluding to the right dividing of the sacrifice; which was laid upon the altar, separating the precious from the vile, and severing the parts which were not to be offered from them that were, and cutting out the sacrifice in such a manner as all had their share in them. As if St. Paul had said, "Study not for the applause of men, but for the approbation of God, as becometh a good workman, who needeth not to be ashamed of his work, whoever looks upon it; but let thy preaching and living be strait and conformable to the gospel, and thus study to shew thyself approved of God"
Hence learn, That although curious and unprofitable trifling with words in a pulpit be vain and sinful, yet it is the part of a skillful teacher, to order, methodize, and distribute truth in its proper place, and give every hearer his part and portion.
-----------------
Q, I have nothing more to say. Any item that I would choose to defend would only serve your purpose to continue in this questionable manner: I will not be part of it any longer.
I see you were almost banned. The words used by GM supports the 2 Tim. scripture I posted in how outsiders view this rhetoric. Perhaps you might reflect on this situation and the words that other Christians have been telling you. Be teachable.
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 11:37:35 AM
Q,
You misquoted me again. I said:
>>>We disagree on the APPLICATION of how/when/where we (as Christians) should be separate from the world. <<<
Since I don't agree with your interpertation of the Bible you want to silence me.
And you wonder why I made a distinction between small (f) fundamentalists and Capital (F) Fundamentalists?
This is my last post to you on this thread.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 8:40:21 AM
Tri, "agreeing to disagree" on docTrine is not Biblical, but if you do not want to dialogue any further, then that is fine. I would then, respectfully ask, that you not interfere with myself or any other born again believer on here that posts to unbelievers.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 8:35:08 AM
PGM, what I said was true, what I feel you are doing is dodging the questions. I am disheartened that you are leaving, again, the edification I feel you desire seems to be what YOU want, not what Scripture teaches. Nor do I feel you desire to seek the truth in this whole matter. I am open to discuss this, I would like to see this conversation be truly edifying, which would lead us to working along side of each other to reach out to the lost, not bashing me over the head, because you FEEL I am a too harsh.
I am not you, but I love the Lord Jesus with all my heart and I have a passion for the lost that I want to see grow. I really feel that you have been trying to pound me into your mold this whole time. You can continue to ridicule me and call me immature or you can do the truly mature thing and seek to resolve this to the glory of the Lord.
Truth is Truth, to speak it at all is more loving than not. I post here with one intention and that is to speak the Truth in love, whether YOU think so or not, it breaks my heart to see people that think they know God, but do not. "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:2-3)
I can not idly sit by and let Roman Catholics defend there mother "church" without letting them know their "church" is a false religion, that would be VERY unloving of me. Remember the Lord Jesus was ALWAYS speaking in love and I believe Paul most always was as well (Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:17) Dispute: discuss (in argument or exhortation): - dispute, preach (unto), reason (with), speak
Keep in mind the Words of God: "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
(Philippians 1:15-18)
I really do not think we are that far off doctrinally, we can not be if you are born again (and I believe you are), we have a lot of strife between us right now and I would like to see it go, ignoring it is not going to settle anything.
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 3:13:28 AM
While I'm generally in favor of "Iron Sharpens Iron' (Pr 27:17) this conversation has fallen in to this:
2 Tomothy 2:14-16 (NIV -- just because it read a little easier)
14 Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
15 Do your best to Present yourself to God as one apProved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.
Especially with a heart that spews out trash, "You have defended the beliefs of unbelievers, you are lying to them PGM!"
and to a person without patience and falsely accuses, "You seem to deliberately misquote me to puff yourself up,..."
----------------
May God be with you and open your eyes.
I'll be leaving; this in not edifying.
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 9, 2007 2:38:56 AM
Q,
You asked what the point to all this was. IMO, it has been a long drawn out answer to your question on 5/1:
--> Could you please explain the difference between believing the fundamentals and being a "Fundamentalist".
Of late, it has focused on one item, separation.
We disagree on the APPLICATION of how/when/where we (as Christians) should be separate from the world.
I think we should agree to disagree on this and let it drop, as I do not feel anything fruitful will come out of further discussions on the subject.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 9:20:45 PM
trinuclear, you claim that I am sinning by "gossiping" by asking why the HCSB was copyrighted, and assuming it was for money. Again you are way off base.
Look at dictionary.com for the definition of gossip: "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others".
Was that rumor? No. Was it idle talk? No. Was it about personal or private affairs? No.
Please cease and desist with the false accusations.
Then you asked "Are you so insecure in your faith, or do you have so little trust in the HS (not to let you be led astray) that you are afraid of reading something by a person that has a different view point than you do?"
The answer is "no". I am not insecure in my faith. And I do read things that disagree with me, what do you think being here is about? I agree with a lot of what Qadosh writes, a lot of what FaithAlone writes, and a bit of what a few others write. But there are far more people who disagree with me than agree here; if your question were valid, I wouldn't be here at all.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 4:08:24 PM
PGM, you said, "Example of this….
>>“I feel the Word of God clearly shows that Mormons, Catholics, JWs, SDA, and the like are not saved.”
(But earlier you said)
“Likewise, it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved, but they will not stay in the RC.”<<
PGM, there is no contradiction there. A "Roman Catholic", is a person that believes the teachings of the RC. You seem to deliberately misquote me to puff yourself up, because I *just* explained that to you!
Please read this:" My friend, please listen, you can not be a Catholic and NOT believe the teachings of the church! If a person becomes born again they are disqualified from being a Roman Catholic. "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato [by the act itself], but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema [eternally damned].” Can it be any clearer? Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia if you think I am wrong, that IS what they teach!"
You are trying to play semantics with me, I have offered you my email address before so we could discuss this privately, but you refused. I will not play games with you. To be a Roman Catholic, you must believe their teachings, or do you disagree with that? If you do then I guess everyone born in Saudi Arabia is a Muslim. If I make up my own club, then "I" decide who is a member. A born again believer does NOT meet the criteria established by the RCI, why don't you understand that?
You have defended the beliefs of unbelievers, you are lying to them PGM! My MOTIVE is that Catholics be saved, but you try to undermine that by telling them they are already saved! On the Mary thread, the unsaved were consistently defended by you, you did not care one iota that they could go to hell today if they do not repent, instead you focused your rage at me and reassured their false beliefs. Shame on you!
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 3:37:31 PM
TRI, OPEN your eyes! Look what you quoted from me: ">>nor should the "church" be joining worldly causes like he hosted>>>"
And look at your response: "Are you really saying that the church should NOT minister to or help those with AIDS (or help those groups who help people with AIDS)? Q where is your compassion? Are you so concerned about "separation" that you, by your actions, reject what Jesus teaches in Matt 25?"
-->TRI, where is your MIND! You are 100% off base! I said, "worldly causes", like the AIDS summit, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH MATTHEW 25? You need to take a deep breath and stop jumping to false conclusions, you really have no idea what you are falsely accusing me of.
I support the church reaching out, AS THE CHURCH, not the church JOINING the world to do so, that is 100% unBiblical. Rick Warren was not hosting that summit so he could preach the Gospel to them!
You still have not answered my questions, especially this: What is your point, what is your purpose in all of this?
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 3:22:13 PM
Tri, you said, "Without realizing it, you both have made my point regarding separation and secondary separation. Lest I get accused again of lying, here is the proof: (This is what I said in my original post regarding Capital (F) Fundamentalists on 5/3)
You separate yourself from those who you do not agree with"
--> NO, my illustration regards those God would have us separate from, not my idea. It is not me they disagree with, but God.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this docTrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:10-11)
--> This is not talking about having the heathen into our home, it is referring to allowing them to teach in our fellowships. Would you think it is okay to have a man that is under satan's control speak in your fellowship and have your Pastor's blessing on it? That is *exactly* what Rick Warrren did.
When the number one mission of the Christian church is to preach the Gospel, do you think it is okay to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on ideas that are completely unBiblical, like the AIDS summit was?
What does the Lord mean when He says, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." (1 John 2:15-17)
The AIDS summit is the Pride of men; it is about how to deal with AIDS without God, without His laws, without His blessing, and allowing the sin that causes AIDS to continue! Even if they Tried to encourage people to abstain from fornication, what good is that if the Gospel is not presented?
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 4:02:51 AM
“it is interesting that you are so critical of me, however you are quite condescending in your approach to "try" to correct me.”
That’s because you make so many cracks against the Catholic ChuRCh which are out of place, unsolicited, and unwarranted. You feel the need to elaborate on it wherever you go and why I know you have a problem. You started it in this thread, not me. Did you notice that I left your other threads? And what about the many other GB people?
Personally, I don’t care to defend Catholicism and I don’t think I defended that chuRCh even once (That I remember) – I defend its body of believers that happens to sit in mass not understanding that religion is not the answer.
I stay away from you and your arguments because you also contradict yourself in order to expound on your personal resentment of Catholicism.
Example of this….
“I feel the Word of God clearly shows that Mormons, Catholics, JWs, SDA, and the like are not saved.”
(But earlier you said)
“Likewise, it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved, but they will not stay in the RC.”
Q, it’s about Jesus, all we can do is point people in the right direction. If you think I’m condescending then you misread the spirit of the thoughts being presented. Obviously I have maturity issues in some aspects of my Christian walk as well.
-------------------
“I see you as being willingly ignorant to the Truth concerning Catholicism; I would rather be a teenager in Christ.”
And I pray for you that you might be healed and grow.
-------------------
Regarding Benny Hinn,
His ministry is a perfect comparison to the RC.
False teachings
Many willing/unlearned followers
Worldwide institution/teaching/following – you need to do your reseaRCh.
If you think a person can be saved here, then you can also believe a person can be saved in the RC (Which you already said you thought was possible.)
--------------------
I think I’m done with this thread once again. it’s not an issue about Catholicism. it’s an issue about Christians being in a bad place. it’s about Christians who are stagnant or being taught false doctrines. it’s about the treatment of these people by the “so-called” knowledgeable and mature Christians.
I don’t fight the RC organization, I speak to the one or two souls that God gives me on rare occasion and address the issues that present themselves as they occur and as God allows me to witness to. I don’t need to Catholic bash and drive them away from hearing from a caring person the truth that the bible says (Which they don’t read for the most part).
“I also have never said that any individual was not saved”
----Yes, you did, and I quoted it above. And I’ve seen this numerous times from you.
“…you can not be a Catholic and NOT believe the teachings of the chuRCh! “
----Then you don’t know as much as you would have people to believe. Can a child be Catholic? Can a person who attends chuRCh faithfully but isn’t a priest be Catholic? – you’re speaking irrationally.
“If a person becomes born again they are disqualified from being a Roman Catholic.”
----Brother, you don’t know what you’re saying.
Once again regarding O.S.A.S –
The only thing I was trying to label was your belief. I never brought up Calvinism or Arminianism b ecause that is a big-big-big package. They both have their issues but some people are inclined to favor one or the other even though the bible doesn’t clearly support either view. By your last post, you seem to favor one view just as I favor another. But I won’t argue – it’s not an issue for me because your proof will be no better than mine – it’s been argued to the point of dividing the chuRCh and I’ll not be part of YET another division between the two of us.
don’t you understand what Satan is using this kind of discussion to accomplish in our lives? Creating division, creating strife, creating anger, driving away people who are seeking. – This is my objection in your speeches Q. This is why I call you immature and I’m sorry that seems offensive to you but a more mature person would have acknowledged this the first time, even if they had problems controlling it. At least self control can be dealt with.
--------------------------------
“Please answer this question, "Do you think it is possible for a person to be saved by any other means than faith in Jesus the Christ alone?" “
I think it’s pretty insulting that you would even need to ask this -- Of course not. Perhaps you weren’t listening when I was asking about how much Jesus did a person need to know to be saved. Did you think I was talking about Buddah?
Like I said, I do my best to speak to you. It just seems to always come back to Catholicism instead of SOULS and about Christ. I don’t think I have the need to go on with this any longer. I’ve said this several times and was foRCed into this personal discussion about you to some degree. Is it possible for you to move beyond the RC? There are many other aspects that don't involve using the chuRCh name exclusively.
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 3:07:47 AM
Q,
Do you really believe what you said on Message Posted: 5/7/2007 11:57:38 PM:
>>nor should the "church" be joining worldly causes like he hosted>>>
Are you really saying that the church should NOT minister to or help those with AIDS (or help those groups who help people with AIDS)?
Q where is your compassion? Are you so concerned about "separation" that you, by your actions, reject what Jesus teaches in Matt 25?
Matt 25:34-40
34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' 40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
NKJV
Did you see Jesus separating.......
Jesus even said to "take them in"......There was no spiritual qualifier to that statement.......
Jesus had compassion for people. Where is your compassion. Do you even care for people?
Matt 20:34-21:1
34 So Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him. NKJV
Luke 17:11-16
Now it happened as He went to Jerusalem that He passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. 12 Then as He entered a certain village, there met Him ten men who were lepers, who stood afar off. 13 And they lifted up their voices and said, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!"
14 So when He saw them, He said to them, "Go, show yourselves to the priests." And so it was that as they went, they were cleansed.
15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, returned, and with a loud voice glorified God, 16 and fell down on his face at His feet, giving Him thanks. And he was a Samaritan.
NKJV
James, (Jesus brother) even said:
James 2:15-17
15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
NKJV
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 2:53:11 AM
GG,
I'd be open to the NIV issues -- I agree with you about it. it's an O.K. translation, not great, just OK. I've seen doctrinal issues that were stressed as a result of the translators thought. I don't push the text and joke about it as the "Nearly Inspired Version".
But like yourself, there are some good things that come from it. The NIV study bible is a really good study partner for those who don't know a lot. Again, it's not great in some areas but it's generally better than most I've read. For my bible study I actually like the Tindale NKJ study bible. It actively questions the reader about their walk with God by asking pointed questions about your spirituality/carnality/heart/etc...
------------
I haven't read Tri's response, but regarding the f/F thing, I understood Tri's comments as being generalized in the qualification/definition of these kinds of people and I would agree with him. I've seen it on this web site and if I put my mind to it I could start labeling people like this (I probably do anyway as we all do to some degree). There are people on the extremes of Christianity and sometimes I feel they're imbalances. Ever hear the phrase "They are so heavenly minded they have no earthly good", that's how I see the "F" person. They are pretty self centered and attempt to impose their view on others in a very aggressive manner -- that can take many forms.
For the most part these days I try to keep my opinions to myself about what I think of some. Being open about it just causes trouble and hard feelings -- most of the time.
[Edited by: PGM at 5/8/2007 5:54:44 AM EST]
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 2:44:31 AM
GG,
During my time at seminary (Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary), I read many books by those who do not have a high regard for scripture (IMO). Just because a seminary has a book on its reading list does NOT mean that it endorsed that particular viewpoint of the author.
Are you so insecure in your faith, or do you have so little trust in the HS (not to let you be led astray) that you are afraid of reading something by a person that has a different view point than you do?
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 2:38:28 AM
GG & Q,
I am not going to try and defend any and all actions of the SBC or what its churches do (or don't do).
I'm sure if I looked closely into your churches I could come up with stuff I did not like either.
Without realizing it, you both have made my point regarding separation and secondary separation. Lest I get accused again of lying, here is the proof:
(This is what I said in my original post regarding Capital (F) Fundamentalists on 5/3)
You separate yourself from those who you do not agree with
o You do not associate with others because they do not separate from someone else on matters
GG Your post on Message Posted: 5/7/2007 11:21:59 PM you said:
>>>But the SBC welcomed someone that Paul tells us is accursed.
The SBC school Golden Gate Seminary has on its required reading list:
- Spiritual Exercises by Ignatius Loyola
- New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton (a convert to Catholicism)<<<
Q Your post on Message Posted: 5/7/2007 11:57:38 PM:
>>>Another great example of separation, that should have been, was when Rick Warren let Barack Obama speak in his fellowship, that should NEVER have happened, nor should the "church" be joining worldly causes like he hosted, which was an "AIDS summit".<<<
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 8, 2007 2:25:55 AM
GG,
You said:
<<<then why is the HCSB copyrighted? Why not make it free to anyone who wanted to publish it? I can't see a reason other than the desire to make money from it.>>>
I do not know, but I think you want to see what you want to concerning the HCSB. Have you written the publisher and asked them? They are the ones who could answer you. Before you go on gossiping about what you perceive are the motives of the people behind the HCSB, Please ask them. If you do not, then you are engaging in gossip, which is a sin.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 9:51:47 PM
jillstewart, The Qur'an (Koran) can not be compared to the Bible (God's Word), because it is NOT inspired, therefore it is the teachings of men, actually just one man, Muhammad.
The Word of God (the Bible) can be proven to be Divinely inspired by thousands of accurately fulfilled Prophecy. The Qur'an can not.
The Word of God is also Historically accurate, Scientifically accurate, and "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
No other book on earth can claim that!
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 9:25:26 PM
jillstewart, the Koran is nothing like the Bible. The Koran and Islam teach a "god" who is unknowable, who is capricious, who had no son, and who hates the Jews.
The Bible teaches a God of love, who gave His only begotten Son to redeem lost sinners, who does not change, and whose chosen people are the Jews.
I could go on and on...
|
jillstewart
Rookie Author
Seattle
Posts:28
Points:1,370
Joined:May 2007
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 9:16:03 PM
geekguy,you said:
That church even then was filled with unsaved people I fear, and now, well, they have several copies of the Koran featured in their library. Not a place to go for good teaching!!
just curious, does the Koran scare you or unsaved people? While the Koran is not the bible, it may shock you to know how similar it is....
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 8:57:38 PM
GG said, "In 1988, the SBC of SC welcomed the Pope."
--> Tri, I would submit that example as one that should have been kept separate.
Another great example of separation, that should have been, was when Rick Warren let Barack Obama speak in his fellowship, that should NEVER have happened, nor should the "church" be joining worldly causes like he hosted, which was an "AIDS summit". Not that Rick doing that was a shocker.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 8:40:07 PM
GG, quick, make another post, eeeek!
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 8:21:59 PM
Thanks trinuclear, that's behind us.
And I apologize for creating the impression that you reject separation, I was wrong on that.
So let's go to a different point. You mention a reason the SBC came out with the HCSB, so they wouldn't have to pay royalties on the NIV. Fine, if that was the only reason, then why is the HCSB copyrighted? Why not make it free to anyone who wanted to publish it? I can't see a reason other than the desire to make money from it.
About the SBC: In 1996, the President of the SBC school Mercer University (biggest SBC institution in Georgia), R. Kirby Godsey, published a book entitled "When We Talk about God ... Let's Be Honest", which denies that the Bible is infallible. Godsey says that "the notion that God is the all powerful, the high and mighty principal of heaven and earth should be laid aside." He also said in that book "Accepting Jesus is not the basis of salvation."
This is the head of a major SBC school. Tell me - was he thrown out, or did he retract and repent? Not until 2005 did the SBC take action, and that was not for his heretical rubbish in that book, it was for something unrelated.
In 1988, the SBC of SC welcomed the Pope. Hello? The Pope teaches a works salvation gospel, and Paul tells us "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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)". But the SBC welcomed someone that Paul tells us is accursed.
The SBC school Golden Gate Seminary has on its required reading list:
- Spiritual Exercises by Ignatius Loyola
- New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton (a convert to Catholicism)
So no, the SBC is not a wonderful institution that follows the Word of God.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 8:06:37 PM
PGM, it is interesting that you are so critical of me, however you are quite condescending in your approach to "try" to correct me. You really act like you have it all together by saying things like, "I see you as being immature, a teenager in Christ." Well, I see you as being willingly ignorant to the Truth concerning Catholicism, I would rather be a teenager in Christ. I have much to say regarding your last post (7:19am), but will limit it to this for now.
Revelation 17 & 18 specifically define Roman Catholicism as the "great whore". I believe there are at least 14 specific statements to identify her and ONLY Roman Catholicism fits them perfectly. Would you like to contest that, please feel free to do so?
You compare Benny Hinn to the RC, but there are at least three huge differences:
1) Benny Hinn (I am not condoning him) teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone, The RC teaches that salvation is through her and her sacraments, to believe otherwise is to be cursed to hell.
2) Benny Hinn is an individual, the RC is a huge world wide institution that has existed for over 1700 years and teaches that they are the only true church and that salvation is ONLY found in her and her sacraments.
3) Benny Hinn and his type are certainly listed in Scripture and we are commanded "from such withdraw thyself", but they are just men, false teachers. Roman Catholicism is a complete system of theology, it is its own religion and a false one, she has two chapters specifically addressed to her with the command, "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Can you see the difference? You can not "come out" of Benny Hinn, but you most certainly can "come out" of the RC.
Do you know what the teachings of the RC are? Have you taken the time to investigate it? Or are you just going to shoot from the hip and say, "I know people who were saved in the Catholic church." Does this tradition of yours outweigh Scripture? We are not talking about a system that has some flaws, like could be said of most, if not all denominations, we are speaking of rank heresy.
I also have never said that any individual was not saved, I HAVE said, that if a person believes the teachings of the RC, they can NOT be saved, because that is true. Would you like me to prove that again from Scripture?
My friend, please listen, you can not be a Catholic and NOT believe the teachings of the church! If a person becomes born again they are disqualified from being a Roman Catholic. "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato [by the act itself], but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema [eternally damned].” Can it be any clearer? Go to the Catholic Encyclopedia if you think I am wrong, that IS what they teach!
As for "once saved always saved". I do not like being labeled, I am not a Calvinist, nor an Arminianism, nor any other "ist" or "ism", I am a follower of the Lord Jesus. The Word of God teaches that when a person is born again, they are saved, not being saved, not going to one day be saved, but saved. So I do not believe a person could "lose" their salvation, if that was true, then how could this also be true, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."(John 10:26-29)
I believe it may be possible to reject one's salvation, but that is another issue and one that can easily be precluded by, "Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.
Please answer this question, "Do you think it is possible for a person to be saved by any other means than faith in Jesus the Christ alone?"
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 7:52:03 PM
GG,
I apologize for saying "You may reject it, but by your own postings here, you have filled them to the tee." earlier today.
You are right, you have not said many of the things I said capital (F) Fundamentalists do/believe.
The list I had posted earlier was not meant as an all inclusive/exclusive/definitive list. They are my personal observations from over the years from interacting with capital (F) Fundamentalists.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 6:54:56 PM
PGM - the problems with the NIV are not trivial. I was saved from one so I'm not saying it's worthless. But I see people, for example, doing word by word analysis of what it says. Yet it's a thought for thought translation (self-described), so doing word parsing or analysis in the NIV is just plain wrong.
I tried doing what you suggest, working from multiple versions. I found it confused me mightily. Maybe smarter people can keep all the doctrinal differences between the translations straight, but it just muddled me and stunted my growth.
My original church I quit when I was 7, since no one could answer my questions (yes I was probably an obnoxious little snot!). The people in that church did not study their Bibles or they could have answered me in a heartbeat. That church even then was filled with unsaved people I fear, and now, well, they have several copies of the Koran featured in their library. Not a place to go for good teaching!!
Just to summarize, I think our difference on this might come from the time I've chosen to devote to studying the versions issue. I was so confused by the multiplicity of versions I was reading (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, WEB, ALT) that I just had to dive in deep enough to find if there was one right answer. Kind of like back in quantum Chem, the reason I liked that class so much is that the answers were right to a lot of decimal places. That precision and accuracy appeals to me.
If you'd be open I'd love to show some reasons I see the NIV as being dangerous, but I'll not burden this discussion if it's not interesting.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 6:44:06 PM
trinuclear, you accuse me of fitting your definition of a group of people, so having done so it's only fair that you provide proof or retract.
For example: you claim that I "filled them to the tee". Your list that you assert I filled includes:
From your post 5/4/2007 05:37:41 EDT:
- must go to church 3x wk (Sunday morning/night/wed) PROVE IT - or you're a liar
- must have a pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensational view of eschatology PROVE IT - or you're a liar
- must wear coat & tie to church (men) PROVE IT - or you're a liar
- must wear a LONG dress to church (ladies) PROVE IT - or you're a liar
- absolute prohibition on drinking PROVE IT - or you're a liar
From your post 5/2/2007 06:02:21 EDT:
o Must obey the “thou shall not” commands PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o Drinking PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o Dancing PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o Dress Codes (both inside and outside church) PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o Church attendance PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o You separate yourself from those who you do not agree with PROVE IT - or you're a liar
o You do not associate with others because they do not separate from someone else on matters PROVE IT - or you're a liar
So there are an even dozen of the points you assert I "filled to the tee". I challenge you to prove every one of them since you assert I fill every one of them.
Hint: to the best of my recollection I've never written about any of those points.
Assignment for you: prove every point is something I've said or written here, since that's the only way you interact with me.
Alternate assignment: admit you made a mistake and overstated your case.
Default if you don't do either one: you are a proven, unrepentant liar.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 4:36:49 PM
GG, sorry about the "RC" thing. If I use RC in a post (referring to Roman Catholicism) and then spell check it, the spell checker turns every combination of rc to CAPS. I forgot that it did that.
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 4:19:28 AM
Q,
Regarding O.S.A.S –
Did I stereotype you or ask a question? I’m basing my question on a few comments I’ve seen you make about the general topic of predestination. Sorry if I offended you. The thought in that post was that I feel we need to work at our relationship with God and that many don’t – a stagnant relationship may still be a saving one and not necessarily evidence of not being saved. I think this is a principle that Peter and Paul both talk about.
You said, “I do not know of any "church" here on earth that is perfect, nor one that I would identify with.”
Then I’d be in perfect agreement with you on this except I tend to like a teaching church and identify with some of the Calvary Chapel’s more than others in their “philosophy” of teaching and not stressing questionable biblical doctrines that only cause contention among believers.
But here is my argument to you specifically – how much error should there be in a church before someone should leave it? Please don’t answer as I think I’d loose all respect for you if you did. God draws the line for each individual. God is responsible for His children who He loves. We can only point things out “In Love” and let God do the work – we don’t need to get emotionally charged, angry, rude, contentious, or overbearing because none of those things are LOVE.
---------------------------------------
”We can not argue anyone into believing in Jesus; neither can we LOVE anyone into the kingdom. I also can NOT harden anyone's heart to God, nor can I soften it, the Word does not support those concepts. We can plant and we can water, but GOD ALONE can make that seed grow. If myself or another challenges an individual with Scripture, it is up to them to respond. The Word of God alone has the power to change a heart.”
I’d agree completely but we are Ambassadors of God. We are to act as Jesus would act and Jesus acted in Love much more then He acted in anger and being argumentative.
---------------------------------------
”Roman Catholicism teaches a false Gospel. The official teachings are completely contrary to Scripture.”
So does Benny Hinn. (He’s a false prophet, proven time and time again.)
But can a person be saved there? How little Jesus can you hear and still be saved?
So you say “A person that believes their teachings is not saved. Why do you take such issue with that? They are just as false as Mormonism. The idea of purgatory alone is just as blasphemous as anything Mormonism teaches.”
I take issue with that for the same argument I just presented in this section of the post. I know people who were saved in the Catholic church. They believe in Jesus – not all of the teachings of the ancient church. They believe in Jesus’ work, His plan, His gospel, His teaching, but they also like the ritual because they find closeness with God that way. Now that's not for me, but people are different so how can I say it's not right to do a ritual thing? God commanded ritualism with The Jews and the Catholic Church is remarkably similar to temple services.
Like you, I’ve seen the doctrines of men interfere in this church from time to time, and, the people I have spoken with marveled at what I taught them given the proper place and time. And I myself was drawn by LOVE and by patience to a better way. That completely contradicts you when you say “person that believes their teachings is not saved”.
I think you are a little immature when you take it upon yourself to argue people out of the Catholic church. All we can do is wet their appetite for more of God and show them a better way; but I can’t know their heart and say they are not saved like you do. I can only do what God called me to do and that is to share what God did for me.
You said, “Would God have a person stay in a false religion? NO WAY!”
--> I see you conceded that people can be saved in a polluted church and I’m happy to see at least this concession.
But look at Luther. It wasn’t His choice to leave the Catholic church and the man had a genuine motivation to change the church, teach the truth – and in fact did so for “years” before **God** moved him out.
God has a purpose for everyone that follows Him. How can you speak for Godlike you just did? It's not right and it's not necessarily accurate. There is no biblical basis for it.
-----
“There is absolutely NO Biblical basis for staying under false teaching,…”
--> How false is false? We just went over this. How much Jesus do you need? How correct must the church be?
There must be some point that we have to personally take responsibility for what know and move as God direct us. But God has a responsibility too.
I left a church but it was under great anguish that I did so. But God still used me while I waited for Him to allow me to leave – I was used to influence many people, who have since become some pretty remarkable people in my life. And we’ve influenced others – even pastors.
I think you place limits on what God can do or not do.
-------------
“…why have you been so hostile toward me when I warn people of the non-Christian cult, called Roman Catholicism?”
Since I don’t know you personally I can’t help direct you except to challenge your way of thinking. We have no common bond in our communications, so, my answer to a person with knowledge must be fairly blunt, direct, and even rude as you would be rude. I see you as being immature, a teenager in Christ. While I love your heart as I love the passion of many teens I’ve taught, I think you lack charm school and maturity to handle the information you’ve learned. I’ve told you and GG that I agree with your core doctrines; I disagree with your tact and your language.
You have agreed with me that people can be saved in a flawed church. Then you can also agree that people in the Catholic Church can be saved yet still attend – we simply argue how long they should be there. Really the question here is how we speak to other Christians that happen to be in the Catholic Church – we speak to them in Love and teach them the truth in LOVE and allow God to open the door instead of our using a crow-bar.
That may also mean that we need to leave them alone and let God work out the problems – that might mean pain for them in not having the full truth, even to suffer some eternal rewards believing that works help them out in any way (by the way, some believe this and some do not).
But I see you often attack in your language. You make claims that they are not saved. – Brother, you're in sin for doing this as you’re creating a great amount of animosity among not just non-Christians but also among your brethren and that's aside from being judgmental on people's hearts -- and that is reserved for God and not you. If the Catholic says they are saved, let ‘em alone and stop dogging their doctrine – which they probably know little about anyway!
Allow God to use His sovereignty and open the doors for you. It’ll be accepted much better if you use a gentle word that is well placed and when it’s on God’s timing (and this is biblical/proverbial).
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 3:07:11 AM
GG,
Funny thing you bring up the NIV, while I agree that there are problems, I know many that use it -- people who are used by God in many ways to encourage and spread the gospel.
The KJV is very difficult for many to use. In itself, it's not perfect either which is why if people want to learn the word of God I tell them to use what they feel is best for them to understand. The Holy Spirit will intervene and speak to them just as the KJV speaks to us.
I also encourage people that are "Studying" to either get a side-by-side or use the on-line bibles or even get several copies of different versions and keep them all open (Comparing one against another -- this tends to be what I do)
---------------------
As for God pulling people out of a bad church once they learn the truth -- maybe you're right; assuming there is a better alternative. I can't ignore the hypothetical because it's all hypothetical. While you may have become fed up with the church you were raised in once you realized it wasn't meeting your need, that may not be the case with others that stayed.
God may have spoken to you and had a different mission for you, you may have responded more actively, you might be a different kind of vessel that God chooses to use -- it's all hypothetical because I'm not God, I'm not the master, and I can't second guess God's working in people's lives.
We certainly can get engaged in teaching others -- but we've got to understand that God moves people, we don't nor our words -- not even if our words come right out of the bible.
[Edited by: PGM at 5/7/2007 6:09:31 AM EST]
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 7, 2007 2:58:47 AM
GG,
You said:
>>And for the record, I reject your slots for defining [F|f]undies.<<
You may reject it, but by your own postings here, you have filled them to the tee.
I read what wiki had on Ockenga, and I still don't know that much about him or his beliefs, but I did not get the sense from wiki that Ockenga was denying parts of the Bible......Different ideas, but not denying it. Like I said, I know too little about him to say either way.
But why are you using a guy who has been dead for 20 years to make your point?
You said:
>>Think about your answer in relation to Ockenga, and those who deny other parts of the Bible.<<
I have NEVER said that I deny the issue of separation. Stop putting words in my mouth and lumping me with others that you disagree with.
I do not deny it (separation), I differ in how I apply it.
You did not answer directly if you or your church would rent to a CMA church?
Classic capital (F) move....since I do not believe lock step with you I must be denying parts of the Bible....since then I deny pars of the Bible then you cannot fellowship with me, and you must separate from me......Isn't that how it works?
Like I said before, I do not deny the issue of separation, but HOW it is applied. I reject HOW most capital (F) Fundamentalists apply it.
BTY, Like the parting shot at the SBC....nice....classic move as well....
How much of recent SBC history do you know?
Did you know that by the late 70's the SBC seminaries and denominational offices were filled with liberals (theologically speaking)? That is where/when most Capital (F) Fundamentalists got their dislike for the SBC. But over the past 25 years there has been what is now known as "conservative resurgence" in the SBC. The seminaries now have all turned from liberalism to believing in the inerrancy of scripture. I could go on about why and how this happened, but it will take this thread even further away from where it started!
Regarding the HCSB translation, I too have a problem with many of the new translations, but the HCSB was done in part so they (SBC) could stop paying royalties for use of the NIV in the SBC literature. Not the only reason or most noble for a translation, but it was not started as a money making effort as you implied.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 10:14:01 PM
PGM, I agree new believers are not infused with full knowledge of the Bible. Boy do I wish it had been so, it would have saved me a lot of missteps!
But when knowledge comes, we are called to make the right decision with that knowledge. I was saved from an NIV along with my wife, but once I learned there are major errors in the NIV, continuing to use it would be my error.
The Bible is freely available to all of us; several versions are online. None of us can say we didn't know because the word was not available. I had a bible (RSV) from the time I was a kid, but it took decades before I was saved. Had I died before then, not being saved would be completely my fault, as I had not chosen to read the Word of God. It was available to me, only I stopped myself from reading and being saved.
Once I learned that Hugh Ross's teachings are bad, continuing to follow him would have been an error.
But all of that does not apply to those of us actively engaged in this conversation. You, Qadosh, trinuclear, and I cannot claim to be new believers. So I suggest we leave out the hypothetical cases, or address them in another time and/or thread.
Qadosh, I have to ask, why do you have RC capitalized all the time? Are you using some auto-capitalizer (like MS Word) function? It seems odd to read "ChuRCh" in your posts.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 10:01:31 PM
trinuclear, okay I guess my posts before were too long for you, as you obviously didn't read them if you didn't see who Harold Ockenga is. I even gave the link to a Wikipedia page about him...
As for the question that you've missed in previous posts, here it is again:
I invite you or anyone else who claims [f|F]undamentalism is not the right way to interpret the Bible to answer this:
The Bible says, in 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you". I suggest reading the whole chapter to get the context though.
This says why Bible-Believing Christians should separate. Fundies aren't popular for believing and acting in concordance with this verse; others deny it ignore or forget it I guess.
Neo-evangelicalism was founded on the idea of being like the world to win the world, explicitly denying this verse. Harold Ockenga, founder of Neo-Evangelicalism, summarized it as "It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ockenga for the details.
So how about if someone chooses to repudiate the principal of "thou shalt not kill" and says they have a religion that glories in, to pick something we would all agree is heinous, murdering the homeless. To those who aren't Fundies - would you say those doing so could be genuinely saved people? Think about your answer in relation to Ockenga, and those who deny other parts of the Bible.
As to your question, here's the simple standard. If an organization either agrees with the Bible; or accepts correction and changes to be Biblical; or provides a convincing statement why they are correct according to the Bible, then sure.
Your example of denying OSAS (once saved, always saved) is a common thing among those using new versions of the Bible. They have been changed to say "being saved" instead of "saved", to align with the Catholic manuscripts they are translated from. Those using these Bibles will fit in better with Catholicism in the coming One World Religion.
However I don't care for denominations, as compromise happens in every one I've checked out. Your own, the SBC, is an example. They are, among many faults, making money by copyrighting their version of the Bible (HCSB).
And for the record, I reject your slots for defining [F|f]undies.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 8:17:04 PM
PGM, please try to refrain from "typing" me, including "once saved always saved", those words are not in Scripture, they are men's teachings. I believe the Word of God and am open to rebuke and correction from the Word of God. I, like you say, am trying to follow the Lord Jesus alone. I do not know of any "chuRCh" here on earth that is perfect, nor one that I would identify with. I am a follower of the Lord Jesus. I will not ever identify with anything other than the person of Jesus the Christ.
We can not argue anyone into believing in Jesus, neither can we LOVE anyone into the kingdom. I also can NOT harden anyone's heart to God, nor can I soften it, the Word does not support those concepts. We can plant and we can water, but GOD ALONE can make that seed grow. If myself or another challenges an individual with Scripture, it is up to them to respond. The Word of God alone has the power to change a heart.
Roman Catholicism teaches a false Gospel. The official teachings are completely contrary to Scripture. Sure they "believe" in the Trinity, so does satan. A person that believes their teachings is not saved. Why do you take such issue with that? They are just as false as Mormonism. The idea of purgatory alone is just as blasphemous as anything Mormonism teaches.
I am glad you are "pretty sure" the Holy Spirit guided me out of the RC, but how could He leave me there? Am I to read the Word of God, see blatant contradictions with a fellowship (the RC in this example), and remain there? Would God have a person stay in a false religion? NO WAY!
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: (James 1:13)
There is absolutely NO Biblical basis for staying under false teaching, though I can think of many reasons to leave, including this: "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."
(1 Corinthians 15:33)
You said, "I think the same can happen in a non-Christian chuRCh (Cult). A person can be saved and believe they are in the right place -- only to be chocked by the weeds or the trampled on the hard road, or dry up on the shallow soil (like many real Christian chuRChes I know)."
--> PGM, you sound like you are in complete agreement with what the Word of God teaches, so, again, why have you been so hostile toward me when I warn people of the non-Christian cult, called Roman Catholicism? At the VERY least it is full of weeds and very little soil.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 7:11:56 PM
trinuclear, you said, "Long (and short) answer - NONE! I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God."
--> As do I. I follow the Lord Jesus alone. So what is your issue with me?
|
PGM
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:9,070
Points:721,825
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 6:52:43 PM
Q & GG,
I'm kinda lost as to where to start. I'm kind of lost after so much discussion in just 24 hrs.
So let me try to answer a couple things that stuck out.
----------
GG, you said, "The Bible says, in 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you".
Well I tend to stick with Tri on his answer but I understand what your feeling is. So based on your feeling I must ask you what you think a new believer understands when he/she is first saved? Do you think they really understand that they are in the wrong place when they are saved at a Benny Hinn ralley?
I think in time, if they really are seeking the Lord in prayer and in the word, they will learn that they are in the wrong place. But the Holy Spirit is subtle, we often ignore the pull of the Spirit, especially when we are young believers. We need to cultivate an understanding of how the Spirit leads us. So I feel it can be that a new believe will stay in the wrong place because that is where God first met them -- not separating themselves even though the teacher may be false in some areas.
But the situation with Benny is an extreme, it's an argument from an extreme point of view. What about the middle ground? If you argue from this vantage point then I would ask you what religion/denomination/non-denomination/Church is 100% correct in its teaching of Christ/God? Should God be leading us away from ALL churches since none seem to be 100% correct?
If you can't answer this then I would propose that the H.S. can still guide a new Christian in spite of the place he worships in. That goes for Catholics as well -- I'll defer my opinions about the cults because I frankly don't have an answer to the question of someone being saved and then brought out from a cult. I must rely on God to do these kinds of works and moves in peoples lives(More on this below).
--If there was some other question that I've missed, please ask again -- I must be dense or something but i don't want you to think I'm blowing you off. I think this is probably one of the more rational discussions I've had/seen with you guys and I wouldn't want to spoil it.
-------------------------
Q,
"PGM, I believe, Scripturally, we are to have ALL of Jesus."
--> Well, I would agree with the exact language of your answer, but the fact that someone can be saved knowing a very small amount of Jesus makes me wonder if indeed a Catholic, LDS, JW, or other can be saved too. As I said above, I just don't know but I feel pretty sure that what is being said about the H.S. guiding you out of that church might be accurate, but that's up to God and I'd only be speculating since God is sovereign and can do what He wants -- since He knows best.
"I have no doubt at all that people get saved hearing Benny Hinn, but they are not going to remain under his teaching, they will realize his errors and not be yoked with him."
---> I think you believe "Once saved always saved", am I correct?
I don't. I think we play an active part in working at our relationship with God. If we are saved, trusting His word, believing His authority and God-hood, yet we still want the world and all it has to offer then we greatly grieve the Holy Spirit. We place ourselves against God once more by craving the old flesh of our lives.
I think the same can happen in a non-Christian church (Cult). A person can be saved and believe they are in the right place -- only to be chocked by the weeds or the trampled on the hard road, or dry up on the shallow soil (like many real Christian churches I know).
it's not all or nothing. I think it's all, then we fall away, or it's all and we get into God and develope our relationship and God moves us as much as we let Him move us.
Jesus went all the way. I want to be like Him, having the Father work in my life. But I know many that accept God, but go stagnant. Or, like my dad, who God used to perform miracles for people, fell away due to his own lusts of the flesh.
So concluding, God may try to move us, but we may refuse to move and God can't force us. Salvation is a two way street as I, and many many of my friends and pastors associates, understand the scriptures.
----------
Q,
"...when a person defends and is united with a fellowship that teaches false docTrine, we should exhort them to separate from it; if they refuse to and continue to defend the false teachings. "
To what extent? To the point of a fight? To the point of creating a hard heart? I thin kwe have different views and I think this relates to maturity. I've seen God work through a subtle word spoken in LOVE. I've rarely seen people moved by coersion, or by arguing them into submission.
A friend of mine just recently asked the home study, "Can you argue someone into believing the gospel?" -- What would your answer be?
Is it our place to argue them into submission? or simply to allow the Spirit of God to move and let us say the right word at the right time?
I choose the former except when I see someone "preaching" and/or "Evangelizing" a lie. Then it becomes a matter of defending the truth and it becomes a Spiritual battle -- I'll take biblical correction from anyone on this if they can show me differently.
---Sorry for the long post -- just trying to catch up!
[Edited by: PGM at 5/6/2007 9:58:43 PM EST]
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 6:26:13 PM
Q,
You said:
>>I guess I should have said in Spiritual matters and principles, but I thought you would have known that and you SHOULD have. We live in the world, but we are not to be a part of it.<<
I was just taking what you wrote at face value:
>>To yoke means to be connected; just as two oxen were tied together, working together toward a common goal, so we are not to work with non-Christians toward any common goal. It is that simple.<<
How do you apply it? What is its practical every day application?
I used the examples I did, because there are those out there that actually believe what I wrote down!
I am very curious to know you you and your church would handle the issue of renting your facilities to another church plant that was not of the same denomination.
Oh in response to your question: >>>Here is the real issue, what parts of Scripture do you reject Tri? <<<
Long (and short) answer - NONE! I believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 6:15:17 PM
Wow were to begin......
Thank you Q & GG for illustrating perfectly capital (F) fundamentalists.
Since I don't agree with you 100% an what you think is important, I have become in a half hours time, someone who does not believe the Bible and associated with someone whom I have never heard of before.
Geekguy
>>>
What do you maintain the doctrine of separation is? Or do you deny it as Harold Ockenga taught?<<<
I do not know who Harold Ockenga is.
I would not raise it to a level of doctrine(something that is a non-negotiable). Is it biblical - yes- since it is found in the Bible - and Paul said NOT to be unequally yoked with an unbeliever.
BUT HOW it is applied is what I am interested in, and is where I have a problem with the capital (F) Fundamentalist application & view of separation.
Real life example.....
A CM&A (Christian Missionary & Alliance) church plant was meeting in the mall. The mall closed and was tore down. The CMA church asked if they could use (rent) our church facilities on Saturday night for worship.
We were SBC, they were CMA....For some that alone would have been enough to say no deal.
I did NOT have an issue with that. Why? Because in their core doctrinal beliefs, there was no difference between what they believed and what we believed. The one issue that the CMA does not take an official position on is the eternal security of the believer. So you will have some pastors teach you can loose your salvation, while some teach once saved, always saved. This was not an issue because the two pastors that pastored the CMA church believed in the eternal security of the believer.
The Lord blessed both congregations over the years. They have since bought a piece of land and built their own facilities, just down the road from us.
Now if a Unitarian Universalist church (or any other church that rejects Jesus as the only way to heaven) had wanted to rent from us, we would have said no.
GG,
Under your view of separation, would you support YOUR church renting to a church plant of another denomination? How different of a belief system can they have before you are "unequally yoked"?
|
Kyrie
All-Star Author
Tampa
Posts:829
Points:34,430
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 3:03:03 PM
sooosshh... it's taken a life of it's own! :o)
Back, beast... ...back!
down!... heal!
"...and his deadly wound was healed: ..."
-Rev. 13:3,4. ---LOL! :o)
~
.
|
Qadosh
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:1,264
Points:107,920
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 2:07:03 PM
Tri, you said I contradicted myself, but where? Do not try to play the wine game. Jesus most definitely drank wine, but wine of that time was not nearly as potent as it is today. More importantly Jesus never EVER got drunk, nor did He condone people getting drunk, as some blasphemously associate with Him turning the water to wine. That is ludicrous.
How is a mortgage being yoked with an unbeliever? I guess I should have said in Spiritual matters and principles, but I thought you would have known that and you SHOULD have. We live in the world, but we are not to be a part of it.
Here is the real issue, what parts of Scripture do you reject Tri? I am surprised by your analogies, they sound like something a worldly person would say. So that is why I ask you that, do you reject parts of Scripture?
If you can not understand the difference between an association and yoking, as your post suggests, then I doubt I am going to be able to explain it to you, because the difference is huge. It is ALL about the Word of God Trinuclear. The conclusions and analogies you make are not Biblical, so please do NOT try to imply that is what I suggest being separate means.
|
geekguy
Champion Author
Seattle
Posts:3,504
Points:1,318,595
Joined:Aug 2005
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 1:21:09 PM
trinuclear - you're mixing things up in that post. Read 1 Corinthians chapter 5 (yes the whole chapter), you will see we are to keep sinners out of the church. To come into the church, a sinner has to repent first. Someone who continues to, and refuses to repent of, sin should be removed from the church. That's just what the Bible says.
Should we go out and find sinners, preach repentance and salvation? Yes, absolutely. Then when they do repent and accept salvation, we welcome them into the church. But the church is for edification and instruction in being Christians, not about welcoming actively practicing sinners. Only when they have repented are they to be welcomed back.
Of course the Lord Jesus Christ was not wrong, what a silly statement for you to make. Or were you engaging in the corrupt debate tactic of a straw man argument? The answer was lurking just two verses beyond for example in Matthew 9:13 for example. He came to call sinners to repentance, not to glory in their sin, not to make them comfortable in their sins.
Note also that after He was resurrected, after the Cross, the Bible only documents His interacting with believers.
Your continued use of straw man arguments is tiresome. You obviously object to the concept of separation, so a question for you since you've ignored the previous, twice-issued challenge.
What do you maintain the doctrine of separation is? Or do you deny it as Harold Ockenga taught?
|
trinuclear
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:9,779
Points:601,410
Joined:Sep 2006
|
Message Posted: May 6, 2007 11:47:33 AM
Q,
You contradict yourself with your own words. You said:
>>>There is a HUGE difference. Jesus associated with sinners, but He did not yoke with them. He did not go bar hopping with them, He didn't have dinner every night with them, nor did He go to any pig roasts; He was still separated from them.<<<
How much association is OK. One day a week? Two? How does association jump to Yokeing?
Jesus may not have gone “bar hopping”, but he did turn water into wine at a wedding party:
John 2:6-9
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it. 9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine , and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom.
NKJV
All it takes is a quick look though Matthew and you see Jesus with the people ALL THE TIME! The only time I see him “separating” himself is so he can PRAY – and when he did that he separated from EVERYONE including his disciples.
I see Jesus caring for PEOPLE. It did not matter where they were from. It did not matter what they believed, He had compassion for them, healed them, touched them.
Matt 9:35-38
Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. 36 But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. 38 Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest."
NKJV
Q, Do you honestly believe and practice this statement:
>>>To yoke means to be connected; just as two oxen were tied together, working together toward a common goal, so we are not to work with non-Christians toward any common goal. It is that simple.<<<
Really……..How far do you go?
Does your church have a mortgage? - Under your view – unless you borrowed money from a Christian lender - you have yoked together with non-Christians toward a common goal – buying a building ……
What about you? Do you have a mortgage? If you do, then you have yoked with a non-Christian…….
Can you or your church even have a bank account? –If so you are yoked with the bank with THEIR terms and conditions – they set them not you – Unless it is a Christian bank.
Do you produce your own food, water & electricity? Unless you do, you are yoking with others to provide you with them – Unless they are all Christian suppliers.
Did Christians manufacture the car or even computer you are using to read this post. What about your ISP?
Jesus left us in the world so we should be HIS witnesses, not so that we would pull back and retreat into the 4 walls of a building, call it church, and not let anyone else in until they say and do exactly as we do…..
Jesus said:
11 Now I am no longer in the world , but these are in the world , and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are……..I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
John 17:11, 15 NKJV
[Edited by: trinuclear at 5/6/2007 2:49:19 PM EST]
|