Jeff2

Advanced Member
  • Content count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jeff2

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Idaho
  • Interests
    Theology, Bible, gardening

Recent Profile Visitors

374 profile views
  1. This describes the modus operandi of the tyranny of the prevailing opinion. An appeal to the stone passes for a vindication of the closed mind.
  2. I would like to, but I have to get to work this morning. I should be able to give a rough outline for your consideration this afternoon. keep in mind that the Bible addresses different aspects of Gnosticism (it seems like they were commonly known, yet assumed, without using the actual name). It was condemned in the Early Church, and has existed in many forms to include "Christian" versions of it. (The Gnostic Gospels that are easily found; yet were rejected by the Church and not included into our Cannon.) To get overly specific would be like defining every nuance of every Baptist Church. Baskin Robbins 101 different flavors. So I will emphasize what the Bible shows light upon, and is concerned about, not every disgusting practice that I have read about them.
  3. It is not an "opinion," it is a fact that neither Eternal Security (Stanley) or Calvinism (Spurgeon) is the Gospel! To say so demands that if you don't believe it, you do not have the Gospel. And if you do not have the Gospel, you really cannot be saved!
  4. And anyone who goes beyond just teaching it as a false doctrine, and places it at the level of the Gospel, is a lost heretic. I do not believe that these men are trying to teach evil; they are preaching what they have been taught to be true; albeit false. The line is crossed, I believe, is when people teach "another gospel" by saying or inferring that one is lost if they do not accept the man-made doctrine. That too is common in many threads. Personally, I have a lot of friends that believe in Eternal Security; obviously, they do not believe that I am lost because I do not. When people rely on Doctrinal Regeneration, they are claiming that the Person of Christ and His Atoning work is not enough... you have to believe their unbiblical doctrine to be saved in addition to Jesus Christ. But, this is an disagreement over the author's ad hominem argument; what about the substantive Biblical and doctrinal points that have been made?
  5. No doubt, yet few have stepped forward in defense of Eastern Orthodoxy being broad-brushed as lost (ungodly). As for preaching the Gospel, I cannot say this about all that were listed, but Charles Stanley does not teach the Gospel of the Bible. He teaches that Eternal security is the gospel; which is something only a false teacher without the Gospel would teach.
  6. I NEVER stated such a thing. It was the opinion of the writer of the article. As I pointed out, it is their opinion that someone who teaches false doctrine are ungodly. No matter how much one complains about the term "ungodly," it does not erase "false teacher."
  7. Can I make a small observation? Look back at the responses. The article quoted many facts, and tons of Scripture to back its argument, yet people key is on some emotional argument, or just make an ad hominem argument in return. The whining about the author's judgement on the character of those who teach Gnostic error is such a minor point, and does not undo any doctrinal points that have been made. If one can just dismiss all facts because they are insulted, then should I dismiss every person that does not agree with me? Yet, I am where I am today because I was willing to listen to opposing views. I don't know who Ed Young is, and I have never listened to Tony Evans, but the others I have; and they teach much Gnostic doctrine. Ironically, the only appeal to defeat this argument is an argument based on "Tradition." Perhaps many should trace those doctrines back to find where they originate.
  8. Personally, I would not append "Ungodly" to the individual, but to their false doctrine. But one could understand the author's conclusion: if you teach false doctrine, it is an ungodly act. Therefore one would be ungodly.
  9. One does not have to accept every aspect of Gnosticism to teach Gnostic doctrine. There were many flavors of Gnostics as there are many flavors of Baptists. The principle of Platonic dualism between the material and the spirit has influenced many in Christianity. They were also Fatalists, as was introduced into Christianity. Much circular reasoning and unbiblical interjection into what many accept as "sound doctrine" is not Christian, but Gnostic. A little Christian varnish may make the doctrines more appealing, but underneath, much is Gnostic.
  10. Even after the New Testament where Jesus chose plain fishermen... you seek "credentials"? For every Ph. D., there is another that will contradict the other one. Besides, you show no none of your "credentials" to be eligible to criticize; so your comment has no value and will be disregarded.! If you don't have any real rebuttal but to question 'credentials," and have no proof or Scripture to show any error, it is tantamount to just a gripe, because you have no answers.
  11. This statement also show the author hasn't a clue about the new nature received through faith in Christ, a new heart, new desires etc. He is mistaken mere profession for actual salvation. The new birth, justification and imputed righteousness, though separate concepts, go hand in hand. It shows that the "Evangelicals" that teach such things do not have a clue; but that is what they teach! I have not gone through the whole list, but have listened to the teachings of many of them. Saying that these things "go hand in hand" is true; they are so burdened with circular reasoning to justify what they cannot from scripture, they are forced to teach things that are not Scriptural.
  12. If someone cannot read plain English, their post should be removed.
  13. The Bible clearly tells us that Christ was an OFFERING for sin. (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 9:13-14; 9:28; 10:10). He was a SACRIFICE to God for a sweet -smelling aroma. (Eph. 5:1-2). These verses also affirm, Christ NEVER became sin on the cross, which means, when God viewed His Son on Calvary He saw NO sin. (Isa. 53:7; 53:9; Acts 8:32-33; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pe. 2:22-23). This being the case, there was NO exchange, magnificent transfer or imputation that took place on the cross! The Scripture declares, 'He (Jesus) was manifested to TAKE AWAY our sins, and IN Him is NO sin' (Matt. 1:21; 2 Co. 5:21; 1 Jn. 3:5)! This is why God could accept Christ precious blood and sin-offering as a sacrifice for the sins of the WORLD. (Lev. 22:20; Ex. 12:5; Jn. 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:19; 2:24; 1 Jn. 2:2) The false teachers of yesterday and today would have us believe that "impute" means "transfer." NEVER. Please read very carefully what John the apostles says. Apparently he comes against this teaching of Jesus' righteousness imputed. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John 3:7) The article in full:http://www.dividingword.net/ES Issues/View of imputed righteous that goes way beyond.html Great and accurate article! Gnostics don't like being called Gnostics. The source of their belief is not grounded in Scripture, but Gnostic philosophy. If they can't find it in Scripture, it likely came from "somewhere" outside of Scripture!
  14. The fact is, those that deny tradition and condemn others because of it, are surprisingly blind to the traditions that they themselves adhere to. Generally, they will not listen, they are incapable of peering over the wall of presupposition that they have built. A story I read last night gave a great example; The short version is this. Monday morning, the custodian comes to the Church to clean up. As he dusts along, he comes across the Pastor's notes at the pulpit. Nothing unusual, but besides a typed outline, he saw handwritten notes in the margin. Curious, the custodian read them. The first note was (Story of mother and baby- soften voice, show empathy), the second note said, (motivational point- speak enthusiastically!), and the final note read, (weak point-shout like mad!)
  15. We all be judged by our works at the Judgment. Those that have done good will (works) go to heaven.