i have a question

I believe these "false teachers" are "wolves in sheeps clothing" that Satan places within the church. I believe there are some today who may have made false professions, and teach false doctrines or "damnable heresies" in the church today. These "false teachers" could be the many antichrists that are paving the way for THE Anti-Christ.

 

There is a view that says that Christs' atoning death was sufficient for the propitiation of the sins of all of mankind but only the elect will be redeemed. This is my view.

Therefore this Scripture could apply to lost religionists.

AOBTW There is another view : Universalism.
They don't have a problem here.

Not all Universalism is Unitarian either, there are even Trinitarian Universalists and yes even among Baptists.

I believe they are called no-hellers.
However on another thread someone said no-hellers believe in hell just not that it is unending.

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

HankD

 

I would say that is right. We are all "bought", but not everyone has repented of their sins and put the faith in Christ for their salvation. I believe there are many who can make a false profession in Christ, follow a false doctrine or false teacher, and spend eternity in hell, even if they were really good people.

 

I'm always careful to use the term "false teacher" and the like. Not everyone whose interpretations differ from ours is a false teacher. There are many faithful, honest, and spirit-filled preachers and teachers who may be mistaken about some points, or have a different interpretation from others. Heck, my own pastor has on occaision made mistakes from the pulpit. It's all part of being human. These folks aren't false teachers at all.

What makes someone a false teacher is someone who is aware of the truth, but purposefully teaches something that differs from the truth, or who uses unscriptural tactics or practices, for a non-spiritual purpose.

 

I'm always careful to use the term "false teacher" and the like. Not everyone whose interpretations differ from ours is a false teacher. There are many faithful, honest, and spirit-filled preachers and teachers who may be mistaken about some points, or have a different interpretation from others. Heck, my own pastor has on occaision made mistakes from the pulpit. It's all part of being human. These folks aren't false teachers at all.

What makes someone a false teacher is someone who is aware of the truth, but purposefully teaches something that differs from the truth, or who uses unscriptural tactics or practices, for a non-spiritual purpose. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree, my own pastor has made some errors from the pulpit, but I think the difference in a preacher in error and a "false teacher" is whether they are willing to admit when they have made errors. I respect a preacher who is willing to sit down with a member of their congregation to discuss theology. A false teacher will not even let his congregation approach him or quesition him in regards to their teachings or theology.

 

Has your pastor, or have you, not evern made a theological mistake, or spoken incorrectly? That doesn't make you or your pastor a false teacher. That makes you human. However, to expand on my earlier thought, if a person who is in error is confronted with the error, and doesn't seek to correct the error, then yes, he very well could be a false teacher. However, "correcting the error" is not akin to "agreeing with the person who brought the error to his attention". Also, interpretational issues are not the same as doctrinal issues. I'm speaking of doctrinal falsehood. Different teachers can have different interpretations, and not be in doctrinal error.

That's got to be one of the most rude, and most self-righteous things you've ever said. But, then again, it's you speaking, so I should not be surprised, as unrighteousness is clearly in your nature.

I agree, but having error in itself does not make one a false teacher. If that were the case, then every one of our pastors would be false teachers at one point or another.

Since you hold to the liberal theology of KJVOism, which is false doctrine, you're obviously talking about yourself. Your definition of a liberal is anyone who doesn't agree with you on bible topics.

 

Then, I retract my KJVO inference with apologies.

Not sure where that's coming from. On some things I agree with him on, on some things I don't. I've heard him many times preach repentence and turning your life over to Christ. Other times, he hardly mentions it. Overall, he's not my cup of tea. Then again, neither are Jerry Falwell and D James Kennedy, but I get a lot out of listening to them. I wouldn't call these guys false teachers, but I would say that I've disagreed with them in some areas from time to time. But that's getting off topic....

 

Since your'e so fond of getting personal, I'll bite. Define my "liberal view".

 

Interesting, since I've consistently stated that I'm against elective abortions. You'll never find a single post of mine which says otherwise. (it should be noted, however, that abortion is an interpretive scriptural issue, not a doctrinal issue)

Again, interesting, since I've always stated that sex outside of marriage, which would include sex between two same gender people, is a sin. (another non-doctrinal issue, although I don't think there's much room for differing interpretations other than sex between two people of the same gender being a sin).

Again interesting, since I've firmly criticized Benny Hinn, Kent Hovind, and Robert Tilton.

Clearly, your view of someone being a "liberal" or being "someone to avoid" is based on whether they agree with you or not. Since you are not just conservative, but hyperconservative, most people on this baord will disagree with you on one point or another. That doesn't make them liberal. Well, maybe to you it does. It does, however, indicate that you've got a selfrighteous heart.

 

I've never condoned elective abortion. Hence, you cannot say that my view is "more proof".

I have never condoned same sex marriage. In fact, I just read my previous post, and if you think there's any condoning of same sex marriage in that statement, you're truly fishing in the wrong lake.

Well, I think Jesus covered that sentence with the adulterous woman, so to say that the death penalty is okay for homosexuals is, in your own words, a liberal scriptural viewpoint.

Perhaps the reason you're in the minority is because it's easier to cleave to selfrighteous behavior and get away with it. Most likely, the reason you're in the minority is because your views are of a hyperextreme nature. Again, anyone who disagrees with you is a "liberal" in your book.

You have yet to prove that I'm remotely liberal on any doctrinal issue.