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

8 hours ago, Davida said:

Ok well, that article is full of complete nonsense, imo, it is a blogger with no name on it or credentials. LOL!

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.    

 

Edited by Jeff2
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

8 hours ago, Wayne222 said:

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.

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.  

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

10 hours 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."

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. 

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

2 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:
  10 hours 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."

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. 

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

4 hours ago, Jeff2 said:

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

 

 

Calling men who has been preaching the gospel for over fifty years " ungodly" is not plain English.  It is more like blasphemy .   They are servants of the most high God .  Men  who writes garbage and label it as plain English are enemies of the gospel.  

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

1 minute ago, warrior12 said:

Calling men who has been preaching the gospel for over fifty years " ungodly" is not plain English.  It is more like blasphemy .  

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."

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

6 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

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."

I understand that you never made the statement and i was referring to the writer of the article.  I can go dig up all kind of things about a person and find a reason to label him.  If for example Bible scholars disagree about certain interpretation, [which many do] do you then label them as false teachers and ungodly.  Men have held to teachings  for years and later has come to accept or see those teachings as  truths.     We have to be respectful of the men who teach Gods word and yes if there is a pattern of false teachings consistently, then a clear statement should be provided to show those and let the reader or Bible student come to his conclusion.   The Bible has so many areas we can have disagreements on, and i think posting something to label men who have been preaching the gospel steadfastly for years is not wise.  However, producing some proof of wrongdoing or incorrect teaching in a prudent manner is open for dialogue. 

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

2 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

The Bible has so many areas we can have disagreements on, and i think posting something to label men who have been preaching the gospel steadfastly for years is not wise.

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.  

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

6 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

He teaches that Eternal security is the gospel; which is something only a false teacher without the Gospel would teach.  

This is certainly your opinion as how you interpret the Bible. There are many who believe in this teaching and it can be found in the Bible.   There are many threads here that have led to many disagreements on that very topic and are we to label all those who support this teachings as false Christians. 

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

3 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

There are many who believe in this teaching and it can be found in the Bible.

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.

6 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

There are many threads here that have led to many disagreements on that very topic and are we to label all those who support this teachings as false Christians. 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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