Jump to content
IGNORED

Predators, Dangerous Deviants & J.D. Hall of Pulpit & Pen


Danger Noodle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

38 minutes ago, JoshuasonFlower said:

I would add to that righteous observation that all that carries the name of Christianity today is being targeted and assailed by a handful of that which is represented within that condemning statement. Enemies of the faith calling others wolves while howling against the church repeatedly and permissibly.

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!)

 

Edited by Jeff2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  311
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/14/2017
  • Status:  Offline

19 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

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!)

 

A great story. Thank you for posting that here.

I don't think the foundation of the blind is that in defense of personal tradition. I think the evidence points to something more insidious and like unto that which we hear of in scripture as committed enemy of the church. Which is of course all saved members in the body of Christ.
I have known a great many people who identify as members of many a different tradition. And in the course of our chats they've demonstrated educated awareness of scripture, in context, that supports the foundation principles of their tradition. The light of Christ is unmistakably within them because there is no hatred for the others that may join in our circle of trust as we of many paths sit and talk together. We share, we learn of one another, and we all have one common characteristic among us. We are all in Christ.

In retrospect I think of that group I join with here in my home. And as we travel one to the others homes cycling meeting weeks in that way so as each one of us accommodates the gathering in our living space. In that way it is reflective of the trust we all feel for one another because we share the same love of and for God and Jesus Christ. And as such we share our hospitality and our safe space too.

Then I think of that which I encounter in this space. And I ask would any one of us invite it into our discussions? The weak point that would shout like mad to be heard as it would insist we are all wolves, we are all wrong, we are all not saved. We are all not righteous. We are all not infused with God's righteousness. We are all not proof of the wisdom in James that says faith without works is dead. Concluding with the insistence that it alone is all the things we are not by its judgment.

I know that we would sit there if we did find a one such as that as a new arrival in our homes and realize that old saying stands in evidence before us, because I've shared with them what I've encountered in recent days. And we all agree that a righteous observation would hearken that old axiom of truth to repel its darkness; save for the grace of God there go I.

That's what I recall when I see the repeated hymn of the obstinate damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  11
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  311
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/14/2017
  • Status:  Offline

Jeff, I do believe you are on to something when you recognize Gnostic teachings, and I'd insert even Calvinist doctrine, in certain arguments in these type topics. This excerpt is to give context to the whole body of the article as imputed righteousness is repeatedly referred to by some. And wrongly, as the subject of this discussion is condemned over and over again  using that term. One that is often used to defend once saved always saved teachings.
As if one can deny Christ after claiming they've been saved and still be saved and afforded the reward after life that awaits those in Christ.

The View of Imputed Righteousness That Goes Way Beyond Scriptural Bounds

 

 
2 Corinthians. 5:21: 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."  

Much can be said about this verse, but suffice to say, the gnostics would teach that sin is a substance and can be transferred from one person to the next.  Sin is not a substance, it has to do with moral choices.  The Bible describes sin as a transgression against His law and conscience (1 John 3:4; James 4:17). 
 
What the gnostics would have us believe is that Jesus literally became sin itself.  Jesus couldn't because He knew no sin.  He was always undefiled and still undefiled.  He was not guilty because He was not a transgressor of the Law.  If sins were imputed to Him as the gnostics would have us believe, whether by own fault or imputation, the guilty is still punished and would not be considered "suffering" as the Scriptures says He did.
 
On the other hand, the gnostics, who have been busy for a very long time, would have us believe that Jesus made a "swap."  Ungodly teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Tony Evans, John McAuthur, Pat Robertson, Ed Young, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, etc. etc., really want us to believe this traditional teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible. This swap would look like this:
 

Tract_Page_10_What_He_Did_GIF.gif

 
We are to believe that whatever sin you or I committed or would have committed in the future, is all placed on him.  Jesus did not become sin itself, the Bible is clear that he was a sin OFFERING.  There was never a time, nor shall be, where Jesus will be found with sin. 
"And you know that He was manifested to take away our sin and IN Him is NO sin" ( 1 Jn. 3:5)
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, JoshuasonFlower said:

Jeff, I do believe you are on to something when you recognize Gnostic teachings, and I'd insert even Calvinist doctrine, in certain arguments in these type topics. This excerpt is to give context to the whole body of the article as imputed righteousness is repeatedly referred to by some. And wrongly, as the subject of this discussion is condemned over and over again  using that term. One that is often used to defend once saved always saved teachings.
As if one can deny Christ after claiming they've been saved and still be saved and afforded the reward after life that awaits those in Christ.

The View of Imputed Righteousness That Goes Way Beyond Scriptural Bounds

 

 
2 Corinthians. 5:21: 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."  

Much can be said about this verse, but suffice to say, the gnostics would teach that sin is a substance and can be transferred from one person to the next.  Sin is not a substance, it has to do with moral choices.  The Bible describes sin as a transgression against His law and conscience (1 John 3:4; James 4:17). 
 
What the gnostics would have us believe is that Jesus literally became sin itself.  Jesus couldn't because He knew no sin.  He was always undefiled and still undefiled.  He was not guilty because He was not a transgressor of the Law.  If sins were imputed to Him as the gnostics would have us believe, whether by own fault or imputation, the guilty is still punished and would not be considered "suffering" as the Scriptures says He did.
 
On the other hand, the gnostics, who have been busy for a very long time, would have us believe that Jesus made a "swap."  Ungodly teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Tony Evans, John McAuthur, Pat Robertson, Ed Young, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, etc. etc., really want us to believe this traditional teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible. This swap would look like this:
 

Tract_Page_10_What_He_Did_GIF.gif

 
We are to believe that whatever sin you or I committed or would have committed in the future, is all placed on him.  Jesus did not become sin itself, the Bible is clear that he was a sin OFFERING.  There was never a time, nor shall be, where Jesus will be found with sin. 
"And you know that He was manifested to take away our sin and IN Him is NO sin" ( 1 Jn. 3:5)
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

That article is a pile of garbage and just because the false teacher who wrote it calls men like Swindoll and Stanley "Gnostics" doesn't really serve as any kind of evidence of Gnostic teachings. Clearly many do not really understand Gnosticism and secret religions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, JoshuasonFlower said:

Jeff, I do believe you are on to something when you recognize Gnostic teachings, and I'd insert even Calvinist doctrine, in certain arguments in these type topics. This excerpt is to give context to the whole body of the article as imputed righteousness is repeatedly referred to by some. And wrongly, as the subject of this discussion is condemned over and over again  using that term. One that is often used to defend once saved always saved teachings.
As if one can deny Christ after claiming they've been saved and still be saved and afforded the reward after life that awaits those in Christ.

The View of Imputed Righteousness That Goes Way Beyond Scriptural Bounds

 

 
2 Corinthians. 5:21: 

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."  

Much can be said about this verse, but suffice to say, the gnostics would teach that sin is a substance and can be transferred from one person to the next.  Sin is not a substance, it has to do with moral choices.  The Bible describes sin as a transgression against His law and conscience (1 John 3:4; James 4:17). 
 
What the gnostics would have us believe is that Jesus literally became sin itself.  Jesus couldn't because He knew no sin.  He was always undefiled and still undefiled.  He was not guilty because He was not a transgressor of the Law.  If sins were imputed to Him as the gnostics would have us believe, whether by own fault or imputation, the guilty is still punished and would not be considered "suffering" as the Scriptures says He did.
 
On the other hand, the gnostics, who have been busy for a very long time, would have us believe that Jesus made a "swap."  Ungodly teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Tony Evans, John McAuthur, Pat Robertson, Ed Young, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, etc. etc., really want us to believe this traditional teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible. This swap would look like this:
 

Tract_Page_10_What_He_Did_GIF.gif

 
We are to believe that whatever sin you or I committed or would have committed in the future, is all placed on him.  Jesus did not become sin itself, the Bible is clear that he was a sin OFFERING.  There was never a time, nor shall be, where Jesus will be found with sin. 
"And you know that He was manifested to take away our sin and IN Him is NO sin" ( 1 Jn. 3:5)
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  53
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,371
  • Content Per Day:  0.87
  • Reputation:   1,489
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/05/2016
  • Status:  Online

47 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

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!

Chuck Swindoll is a really solid  teacher of the word .  Any man casting words to describe him as "ungodly", has not listened to him speak and teach.  He is on the radio morning and evenings and is usually my half an hour drive to work  program of choice to listen to.    Others on that list are solid teachers too, though some i have not heard.   If someone is going to post Mr. Swindoll as "ungodly", provide the proof or withdraw the statement.  This is scarring men who strive to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ, that  is listened to world over.  

Edited by warrior12
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  138
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   64
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

39 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I see...great article?...and so you agree with this...?

"Ungodly teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Tony Evans, John McAuthur, Pat Robertson, Ed Young, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, etc. etc., really want us to believe this traditional teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible."

 

some of these people are straight as!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  471
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  2.30
  • Reputation:   7,619
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  06/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

I see...great article?...and so you agree with this...?

"Ungodly teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, John Piper, Chuck Swindoll, Erwin Lutzer, Tony Evans, John McAuthur, Pat Robertson, Ed Young, Billy Graham, Josh McDowell, John Ankerberg, etc. etc., really want us to believe this traditional teaching that has nothing to do with the Bible."

 

These are not Gnostic teachers . They don't deny christ in the flesh. Gnostic teaching of that time believed christ never was flesh. But was a spirit. And they believe your sin could not defile you if you had faith. You could go on sinning because your flesh meant nothing. It was your spirit that counted and your spirit could not sin. This men are not Gnostic in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, warrior12 said:

If someone is going to post Mr. Swindoll as "ungodly", provide the proof or withdraw the statement.

If someone cannot read plain English, their post should be removed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

14 hours ago, Yowm said:

From the article...

Quote
So what it really comes down to is that it does not matter what Jesus taught about the workers of iniquity.  A practicing homosexual is "covered."  A drunk is covered.  A Christian can be an adulterer and be covered and so on. 
 

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.

Edited by Jeff2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...