Sound Doctrine & Love

Love rejoices not in iniquity (false doctrine and practice) but in truth.

You are using love, which your kind I call SLOPPY AGAPE, as a backdoor to merge progresssive sanctification with justification by Christ as the object of faith.

 

Yeah, pretty much what Dr. Walter said. :jesus:

 

We always should do what is right in respect to any person whether they are our best friend or worst enemy. However, love does not mean God has no enemies or God is not an enemy to the wicked. Neither does it mean we have no enemies and we are not enemies to the wicked. Doing right does not always mean tears and honey but many times strict justice.

 

Would "hateful" be regarding some as "accursed" who preach another Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) and practicing separation from them, refusing to have church "fellowship" with them be "hateful." If they were members in your church would practicing church discipline toward them and removing them from your church be "hateful" (2 Thes. 3:6)?

Or could all these things be done in a right attitude toward them, treating them with "tough love"?

 

In India a woman walked toward the Ganges River with her two small children: the younger a sickly child, the older strong and healthy. In utter amazement she threw the older child into the river and watched as he drowned. When asked about the horrid act she replied:

"We always sacrifice the best that we have to the god that we love."
It was a sacrifice based on love. She truly loved her god.
Will God accept her based on her "love?"

 

I take it your a fan of Joel Osteen.

 

If you are not justified by faith all the love that you have is but sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal--worth nothing.

 

I don't agree with everything Martin Luther believed or did.
Martin Luther was a Catholic Priest who got saved because he discovered a doctrine in the Bible that was already there. He didn't discover anything new. He found out how to be saved. The way to salvation was by faith and faith alone. This is not Lutheranism. This is Biblical teaching.

Not only does Romans 5:1 teach this, but so does Eph. 2:8,9 plainly teach it. You cannot run from these Scriptures. To do so is to deny the Word of God. Again your statements show that you do not even know what antinomianism is. Perhaps you better stop using the word until you find out what it really means.

 

I believe you just defined yourself.
You demonstrated that previously when you were ready to throw out 23 books of the Bible because you said justification had to be defined by the words of Jesus, which are recorded only in the four gospels. So in reality the rest of the Bible didn't matter.

 

So Martin Luther 'got saved, did he?' Even though he claimed that baptism was necessary for salvation??? This is a fact, DHK, you claim Martin Luther was saved but ignore that he also believed in the the biblical teaching that one must be born of water and the Spirit. And, no, he did NOT adhere to your baptist view of what it means to be born again.

And once again, HE NEVER LEFT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND DIED A CATHOLIC PRIEST!!

 

Jesus said: Search the Scriptures (I believe he meant all that were available)--and now we have all.
We are to compare Scripture with Scripture. All Scripture must be in harmony.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth.
--The word of truth is not confined to any one set of books, but includes all 66 books of the Bible.
You remind me of the debates that I had with the Oneness Pentecostal when they came to this board. They could not show the plan of salvation without going outside of the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts was an absolute necessity for them to demonstrate how to be saved. That is because of their belief in the necessity of speaking in tongues in order to be saved--another version of a false gospel.

You do the same thing in a different way.