All LS Discussions and Debates

saved from sin must be the desire...so faith is the commitment.

One is not saved only to take the benefits of salvation while rejecting all the God stands for.

 

Lou was pointing out that John MacArthur et.al. believed that salvation was not only by faith, but also by faith and commitment. That is something that you infer is wrong doctrine or heresy. You don't have to use the word to make the inference. Yet your exact words were:

Not only did Lou call these men heretics; you have as well.
You are a hypocrite.
You don't have to use the word; you only have to describe the position.

 

As a former Catholic I believe that Catholic doctrine is heresy. I am not afraid to say so. That is not against the BB rules.
However it is against the BB rules to call or infer that your own brothers in Christ are heretics. And that is what you are doing at this present time. That is why the long ago Cal/Arm forum was shut down. We had Calvinists calling Arminians heretics and vice versa.
My beliefs in this matter don't matter. Piper and MacArthur both have successful ministries, more than likely far more successful than you will ever have. What good does it do for the cause of Christ to tear down men of God; to attack them as heretics where perhaps thousands of people, some of them unsaved are reading.
As Paul said in a different context "Will they not think ye are mad"? and they will! Baptist tearing down Baptist, and for what reason?

What I suggested to Lou a long time back, I reiterate again:
Is it not possible for you to discuss a doctrine, LS included without bringing other men of God into this discussion and attacking them.
If you cannot do this then perhaps this thread needs to be closed.
Attack the doctrine, not the person!

 

I worked myself out of works and realized that I still was lost and needed Christ to be saved.

BBob,

 

Its funny I read this thread and this verse keeps coming to mind.

Funny how christians haven't changed much.

 

The above is what you formerly said.
It is in direct contradiction to what you just said in your above post:

Perhaps you should think about making a retraction.
Stating the names of Godly men, and accusing them of being "dependent of a false presuppositon of pre-faith regeneration," is an attack on a person, in fact it is an attack on two "persons."
You could have said "the advocates of...", but instead you attacked people, instead of the doctrine or position.

 

DHK:

I humbly request that you provide evidence of webbdog's personal attacks. As much as I have disagreed with him on doctine, I have not felt personally attacked by him.

Secondly, you have made a personal attack on him in this reply of yours. You should retract that brother. No matter which way you slice it, when you say "You are a hypocrite. " you are making a personal attack on someone. Time to say sorry.

RB

 

Yes I called him a hypocrite. Perhaps I should have worded better, for he was being hypocritical. He was doing the same thing that Lou was and yet denying it.

My question to you all is: Can't you discuss a doctrine without attacking these people who supposedly expound these doctrines? What is wrong with a discussion about LS doctrine without bringing in MacArthur and others?
Once you bring in these men, and repeatedly so, does not that, in and of itself, become a personal attack?

I provided a quote where Webdog mentioned two names, one of which was MacArthur. Is that not enough?

I mentioned on another thread that I don't believe in Calvinism. If we started a debate on Calvinism, would you attack me or the doctrine that I post on the board? That is the question I am putting forth to you. Is it necessary to attack the person? Is it necessary to involve MacArthur at all in this discussion?

 

Are you misrepresenting my words.
I clearly said: Attack (or debate) the doctrine not the person. When you attack the person, it is a personal attack. Thus why the need for constant referral of MacArthur, et. al. in these discussions?

Here is your quote from September 3, long before I ever posted in this thread:

You can say approximately the same thing without reference to the ministries of these men, or to these men at all.
Again: Debate the doctrine, not the person.

We are both on the same side of the fence regarding Calvinism.
Would it then be necessary to draw into a debate on Calvinism, MacArthur, who is a Calvinist? Why or why not? Why is it necessary to drag current Godly men who have successful ministries and make them look like heretics to the dismay of many that are reading this thread. Are Baptists that bad that we have to tear one another down in front of thousands of readers?