Featured Question of degree, type, or???

Yes,....that happens here when some try and substitute carnal human reasoning for the word of God ....which Paul tells Timothy to guard, and that it was committed to him as a deposit.

Man tries in vain to exalt carnal reasoning to oppose scripture that is revealed truth.

4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.


13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

What scripture is that you have? 1 Tim 6:20? Is it from the Message?

However I do understand what you are saying if it is 1 Tim 6:20. But I look to Titus 3:9 and feel I very often go against what Paul has instucted. I guess the problem here is our own version of what we feel is foolish? I don't feel arguing over doctrine is foolish where many others have told me differently.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Personally, I think any topic from Scripture can be discussed or debated within the bounds of communicating of one brother and sister in Christ to another. We are never going to agree with each other completely. There was one church in Acts. Today we have hundreds of denominations, and who knows how many different types of Baptists. This forum is a diverse mix of opinion, sometimes even greater amongst Baptists than us with other denominations.

The line is crossed into meanness, deception, and cruelty on the basis of intent. When the subject of a thread is presented in the context or purpose of inflamming, angering, drawing a reponse based on emotions, or causing members to say things they would not otherwise say, then the line has been crossed. The threads that do this are very clear. They are not edifying, and do not exchange one bit of useful information. As of late, the threads dealing with depression, mental illness, and human suffering in general have been the focus of this. Add to this the treatment of such conditions. Many members on this board have had their souls offended and been hurt by comments in these threads. The premise of the threads are always mixed with half truths, smoke, and mirrors. None of these threads reflect the love of God, or the sacrifice the Lord made for us.

The Bibles calls these people babblers, divisive people, troublemakers, and those that cause dissention in the body of Christ. In modern day terms, we might call them trolls, flamers, bullies, and pot stirers. My own opinion is that this offense is as great as any curse word or heresey anyone could post.

It is very easy for my anger for this nonsense to translate into inappropriate words, and it is something I am working on controlling. The Lord and the moderators will eventually catch up with these types, as there is no place in a Christian community for such garbage.

 

For Icon....it is whenever anyone poses an argument he cannot answer:

According to the Scriptures however, which he was kind enough to quote....it is:

Someone who is utilizing fallacious reasoning to deny a fundamental of the Faith such as the Resurrection...Salvation by grace...denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ....et.al.

The Bible does not teach us to avoid "reasonings" it tells us to avoid "profane and vain " reasonings....that is the qualifier and an example of a "profane" or "vain" babbling is supplied in vs. 18. If we simply allow the Scriptures to tell us the answer, it's rather easy. What were the fallacious reasonings and beliefs of Hymenaeus and Philetus? That is your Biblically prescribed answer.

 

Like I said before in the other thread...all this other stuff is vain carnal reasoning.....not biblical knowledge unfolded....non cals have nothing else...

post after post....no scripture....just speculation ,hypotheticals, math formulas, vain and pointless post after post.

not really....I can answer any scriptural argument you attempt...or the others.

it is when you do not accept scripture and move into these VAIN,and Profane ideas...to denigrate the truth of God...that I turn away as scripture instructs to do.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

yes,....also election and predestination, God's eternal decree

 

I just made an argument by more deeply expositing the Scriptures you posted, Icon....:BangHead:

You randomly threw in a slew of Scriptures.....some relevant.....many utterly IRRELEVANT....took one of the relevant ones, and attempted to argue against what you had just said and what you are saying here. DID YOU READ IT!! I am claiming that you are using your own Scriptures out of context. You can't just continually post your presuppositions and then hurl random verses (poorly exposited) at the screen and then think you have demonstrated your point....that includes this one.

 

1.) They are not Fundamentals of the faith
2.) For the 798th time, I believe in both...I just don't bring to the table the same pre-conceived philosophical assumptions that you do.

 

Of course I read it....and I corrected your selective view of what are essential doctrines....:laugh:

see you did notice...lol you say you believe it...and I do think you must believe part of it....it's the other part that you need

 

God's eternal Decree and purpose have been made known to the church eph3:9-11....Covenant is at the heart of the scriptures. To side step these as essential truths is unacceptable:thumbs::thumbs:
These are biblical presuppositions...not philosophical

 

Yes and that is the gospel....The Gospel is fundamental.

Presupposition..also one not even mentioned in eph3:9-1. Covenant Theology is not a fundamental of the Gospel....Neither is Calvinism (even supposing it were true) If it were....then one would have to be a Calvinist to be saved. Is that your claim?

a bald assertion.....also not mentioned in Eph 3:9-11

Please tell us Icon...since you claim to give a flip about what the Bible actually says....What were the false teachings of Hymenaeus and Philetus? Are the passages of Scripture which actually serve as qualifiers for "Vain" babblings to be used to define what they are.....Or are Icon's personal Determinist over-lords. I assure you, If you attempt to use the Scriptures with no pre-conceived ideas to define for you what a "vain" babbling is....you will find that it would mention no tenants unique or relative to Calvinism or Covenant Theology.

 

You do not know the difference.

 

No wonder you do not get it.......:laugh::laugh::laugh:

No....no.....nothing at all...hahahahaha.....give me a break:thumbsup:

 

Why don't you answer these questions, and statements instead of being cutesy and abusing the continuous use of obnoxiously placed emoticons?

I understand that there is signifigance to the eternal convenants of Salvation Icon, I just don't curl up with that particular facet of Theology when I go to bed at night as it appears you do. But you are suggesting that it is a Biblically supported idea that theological beliefs which are specifically unique to Calvinism are what the Bible is claiming that the "vain babblers" are contending against. It isn't that I don't "get it" as you claim.....I simply do not believe that the sum total of all of the focus of the Scriptures is based upon the particular doctrines of election and pre-destination. The Bible does teach something about those....but if you are of the belief that that is the FUNDAMENTAL drive of the Scriptures you have sadly missed the purpose of the book. Why don't you simply exposit for us what is being mentioned in each application where the Bible speaks of vain and false philosophies and carnal reasonings etc....and explain what the context is?

If you are contending that a particular view of election and predestination as YOU believe it are FUNDAMENTAL (even if they are true) to the gospel....you are simply preaching another gospel.

 

Yes........to you who makes this statement:

I would be preaching a gospel you are not familiar with.....The Covenant is at the heart of All redemptive history.The blood of the cross,applied by The Great High Priest, on behalf of All the sanctified elect,has accomplished redemption for them.
That is good news to me.Maybe....not so much to you with your failed Molinism ideas. Like the screwtape letters, I have no interest in these failed ideas.I will discuss the bible with those who desire to learn, and would like help.You do not .....instead you appear to be content to avoid truth and play games with it....This is not a wise use of time. Study the truth instead.

Because...as with your original foul posting....the bible does not teach the mangled ,mis-quoted idea that you and dhk posted....it was a fabrication.
Until you own this.....no progress can happen here.

 

Yes...then ...as today,someone perhaps sincerely attempted to blend two contrary ideas together. Fair enough:thumbsup: but when it is shown to be unscriptural...it needs to be left on the error pile.

 

And reformed theology started with someone who was RCC at one time, whose major influence was another RCC, namely Augustus of Hippo.

 

At the time of Augustine, are you sure that you want to call the church back then "RCC"? What other church was there?

And as to Augustine's being a major influence to Reformed theology, that is only half right. The later RCC claims much vindication for their teaching (misteaching) from Augustine. Likewise the Reformers also saw much of their distinctives (Christology, grace, justification, and several others) in the writings of Augustine.

But both camps, RCC and Reformers, for the most part, weren't reading the same pages.