Featured The Source of False Doctrine

I am sure some would think of you that way also. So..........

 

For emphasis, not anger!

 

Yes, pleaseeeeeee report me. When the only thing a person goes on is capital letters to make such accusations then you are being guilty of the very thing you are accusing me of.

Of course, when you can't respond to rational Biblical based statments then why not falsely accuse the person of being angry or etc. That is the easy way out isn't it.

 

You and Jope have made a false accusation against me based merely upon my use of capital letters - period! Find anything in this thread that indicates I am angry or abusing anyone. If not, then you need to apologize. I use capitals like many use bold and underline for emphasis only. You accusation is false.

 

This is a forum for those who hold basic orthodoxy. The Trinity is a required basic orthodox beleif. This man denies the Trinity among many other things. I am surprised that those who are unitarian in their view of God are allowed on this forum.

Only someone claiming to have omniscience could make such a statement as this. Are you God among us? You have no way to prove this statement! You cannot read my heart or know my intentions.

I will tell you what can be shown though. Those complaining and making these charges all have one thing in common. They cannot respond to simple contextual based evidences and so attack the person presenting the evidence. This is Satan's old trick from memorial.

You are lying through your teeth. You have no way of knowing how I wake up or what are my thoughts or motives or anything else.

For example??????????????

Praise the Lord oh my soul - Mt. 5:13

I

Not a chance! I have nothing to repent of! These are fabricated charges.

So you confess that those who reject the nature of God - His triune nature are Christians - Jn. 17:3?? You confess that those who reject Jesus Christ is "LORD" = Jehovah in the flesh are Christians? He denies both.

 

Wherever the truth is brought there will be division as a result. The light is always rejected by darkness. Wherever Paul went he turned the world upside down and division and debate always pursued as that is the nature of truth in direct connection with error. There can be no peace between the two or between those who embrace truth versus error.

Satan's tactic is to demand no one can make absolutes. He generalizes that none can know all truth as though some truth can be known, some absolutes can be known. Satan's favorite tactic is "that is your interpretation" when he and his servants cannot respond by sound hermeneutics. When that does not work he attacks the person who presents the truth and makes it personal rather than doctrinal.

 

Now that we are back on track. Let me make a few more comments in regard to Jope's position.

1. God is not the author of Confusion - he will not inspire the use of OT scriptuers out of their context. If you think New Testament writers pulled words, phrases, verses out of context then God is the author of confusion.

2. Rare words that are not used anywhere else in scripture never affect any essentail doctrine or practice.

3. Rare words can be interpreted by their immediate context to get their intended sense. Ephesians 5:3-4 is an example that shows from context that Paul is not referring to a postive type of "convenience" but a negative type. The adjective "not" demonstrates this. The last phrase in verse 3 demonstrates this.

 

The bottom line is still the same. I said he was heretical and a heretic in regard to the doctrine of salvation - baptismal regeneratist.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

What post? I could not find these scriptues in any post on this thread. I did read the scriptues but I don't see anything that makes your point in these scriptures.

What post did I ever respond to these two scriptures or disagree with them. I don't even understand what point you are attempting to make with them after I read them just now.

What are "ambiguities" to some are not to others. I have no trouble looking into any text.

The Pre-trib rapture is not taught anywhere in scripture IF context is the final guide.

I understood your point, but just disagreed with it. Extrabiblical literature is not essential to understand anything essential to Biblical doctrine or practice including the word translated "convenience" in Ephesians 5:4.

 

Paul was a well educated man. The Holy Spirit brought this passage to his mind as additional support for his point. That does not mean the man he quoted wrote under inspiration or that anyone a Bible writer quotes was writing by inspiration.

 

No, I am not parroting you. I am simply reinforcing my own position that extrabiblical materials are not essential to understand the Bible as the Bible provides a self-defining context. Paul said the "scriptures" are able to make one wise unto salvation not extrabiblical materials. Paul said the scriptures are complete for doctrine, correction, instruction in righteousness NOT scripture PLUS any other writings. Paul said study the scriptues not study the scriptures PLUS other writings. You are denying the sufficiency of the scriptures in and of themselves to be furnish all that is necessary for the man of God for what they were designed to provide.