You have got to see this!

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Pete Richert, Jul 18, 2003.

  1. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many people on this board are probably familar with David Cloud and his constant "exposing" of every Christian leader who doesn't tow his party line. It is generally hard to agree or disagree with him since he usually baseses his complaints on some form of ecumenisim (like he has a link to a guy who has a link to a guy who has a link to a guy who sister's roommate once attended a Roman Catholic Church) and not on any specific teaching per say. What makes this fun is that anyone can do this and then they can expose each other. Case in point, Darwin Fish. I heard about this guy, how he was a membor of John MacArthur's church and then left to form "a true church" and started his own Cloud like exposing of others. I found him specifically but finding his exposing of David Cloud himself, and he, (get this) accusses him of ecumenisim (sic). (It would appear David Cloud has friends who he will not fellowship with but who he believes are true believers and are Presbyterian). Anyway, I read a bit by Fish and he made the most extradionary "my way or the high way" claim I have read to date, namely, and I qoute

    You can visit his side and read this quote here
    Darwin Fish

    But the really strange thing about this guy, is his beliefs aren't extremely fundelmental (in the David Cloud sense). He supports the moderate use of alchol, is a Calvinist, is NOT KJVO, etc. Indeed, I couldn't really find anything I disagreed with him with, and I couldn't figure out why he would disagree with MacArthur. (I have yet to read his expose` on him). The only thing that might make him extreme is his extreme view on not celebratring Christmas and having no debt whatsoever, even for a house. The strangest thing he does support . . . masterbation :confused:
     
  2. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Update: Supports Polygamy (but not the other way around: women with more then one husband)

    You can read this good article very aptly named
    "You Think you are saved, but you are not!"
    at the same site under "are you saved?"
     
  3. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    You can read this good article very aptly named
    "You Think you are saved, but you are not!"
    at the same site under "are you saved?"
    </font>[/QUOTE]frankly, with a name like "Darwin Fish" I thought this had to be a LandoverBaptist.org spinoff, but having looked at the site I'm not so sure. Odd bird for a fish.

    BTW polygamy can be either way; polygyny is multiple wives, polyandry is multiple husbands.

    Haruo
     
  4. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

  5. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    You missed my point. He thinks that Polygyny (as you put it) is permitted in scripture, but polyandry is specifically forbidden. So in his view it is okay for men to have multiple wives but not the other way around.

    Oh, I'm sorry, I see what your saying. I'm using the wrong term. I thought it was polygomy and bigomy (for men and women but I am probably wrong).

    Thanks
     
  6. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the link dianetavegia. It was an interesting read. Phil Johnson is actually the guy I heard about Darwin first.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is not surprising. That is a subject, like drinking alcholic beverages, that finds Christians with different viewpoints. And that subject is one that is not addressed by the Bible by name. But it might be covered here:

    Leviticus 15:16

    Under the new rules, I imagine this is a subject that properly should only be discussed in the private forums, and I have seen discussions on this subject deteriorate quite rapidly into diatribes.
     
  8. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Pete,
    Presuming the accuracy of above site, there is quite a lot that makes Fish wrong, such as his view of the Trinity.

    Karen
     

Share This Page

Loading...