Jump to content
Join us for Throwback Thursdays in Worthy Chat! Join us at 8 PM EST every Thursday. ×

Jeff2

Advanced Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    318

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jeff2

  1. Jeff2
    You can disagree with God's inspired Word where He frequently calls out these sins where they exist. Any "'gospel" that evades dealing directly with sin, is deficient and unbiblical.
  2. Jeff2
    If Christians are hardwired to sin, God is a failure! Regeneration, conversion, and being Born-Again are a farce. All commands in Scripture that tell us not to sin, are never met with an expectation of failure. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy... Jude v.24
  3. Jeff2

    Assurance

    Jeff2 replied to KiwiChristian's topic in Apologetics

    The Joy of Salvation, is when you realize that God has created a relationship with you, through the Blood of Jesus, that once its applied to you, you are "free indeed" and never held hostage.
  4. Jeff2

    Assurance

    Jeff2 replied to KiwiChristian's topic in Apologetics

    Key word: "Believe" as usual, the condition of "having eternal life" is in the present tense! Praise God! We don't have to wonder at the half-truths of those that ignore the entire truth of the passage!
  5. Jeff2
    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.
  6. Jeff2
    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!
  7. Jeff2
    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?
  8. Jeff2
    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.
  9. Jeff2
    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."
  10. Jeff2
    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.
  11. Jeff2
    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.
  12. Jeff2
    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.
  13. Jeff2
    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.
  14. Jeff2
    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.
  15. Jeff2
    If someone cannot read plain English, their post should be removed.
  16. Jeff2
    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!
  17. Jeff2
    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!)
  18. Jeff2
    We all be judged by our works at the Judgment. Those that have done good will (works) go to heaven.
  19. Jeff2
    What man does, is "works." Your gnostic application that what is done in response to your "gnosis" is spiritual, and not "works" does not come from the Bible.
  20. Jeff2
    I gave the connection, but you refuse to take off your theological glasses to see it. Undeniably, it is connected to Gnostic influence.
  21. Jeff2
    Do you know what anti-nomos means? I doubt it. It is anti-Law. So, do you believe in the "works" of faith, belief, and repentance... all of which precede salvation? If you reject that without works, no one is saved, you not only reject James, you reject the Bible. Your definition of "Faith Alone" is shown to be antinomian. It suggests that obedience to the Law of God does not matter. It is A-Nomos. Anyone trying to be saved without works is not an authentic Christian.
  22. Jeff2
    Now I remember! Notice that I said nothing about "faith alone", now did I! As for the theological fiction of imputed righteousness, the Bible clearly never supports such a doctrine. The object of every passage given in support of it refers to the imputation of faith. If you lose the obvious theologically loaded term for something more accurate, one could see that Abraham's faith was (counted, reckoned) as righteousness. It does not say that righteousness is (imputed, reckoned, accounted), for faith. First of all, you would not admit the clear exegesis of the passages, and as you have now done, appealed to something other than the Bible for your evidence. Faith Alone is not equal to Imputed Righteousness. Imputed Righteousness is Gnostic in that it makes their primary claim that the spirit is pure, and the material body is evil. Things done in the body have no affect on the spirit. Standing and State, a doctrine invented by man to support the unbiblical teaching of Imputed righteousness, is a sister doctrine that defies Scripture by saying that what exists in the spiritual realm, is not so in the material realm. Clearly a Gnostic influence.
  23. Jeff2
    So, you concede: 1) Genuine saving faith produces works. 2) Without works, no one is saved. 3) Saving faith is never "alone." So, why teach the man-made antinomian doctrine of Luther as if the Bible ever teaches it? Why make a humanistic creed your basis of salvation? The Bible states that we are saved by grace through faith. Adding antinomian doctrine to it is not the Gospel.
  24. Jeff2
    OK, I never said that "Faith Alone" was Gnostic. But I find it odd that you pursue a distraction instead of believing the Bible. It is however connected to Gnosticism's dualism between matter and spirit. Faith Alone (which I have proved is condemned in Scripture), suggests that one is saved purely on gnosis, and that things done in the realm of the material are inconsequential.
  25. Jeff2
    You have replaced the Gospel with your version of salvation by works, called Doctrinal Regeneration.
×
×
  • Create New...