False teachers

[Hebrews 11]

Accusers rarely look in the mirror.

 

[Hammster]

Hebrews 11, if you use the quote feature, it will be easier to have a discussion. That way folks will know who and what you're responding to.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Accusers rarely look in the mirror.

That sounds like an accusation.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hebrews 11]

Huh?

 

[Hebrews 11]

What you put up was a genetic fallacy. Look it up.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Give us a reason that Calvin's History is a Genetic Fallacy?
Are Historians all having a conspiracy against Calvinism?

Calvin would not have been considered a reformer if he had not been kicked out of Catholic seminary.

4. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambast his opponents with vicious names.
Calvin treated his critics with contempt, calling them “pigs,” “asses,” “riffraff,” “dogs,” “idiots,” and “stinking beasts.” In this vein, Calvin said this of the great Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons: “Nothing could be prouder, nothing more impudent than this donkey.

Source Patheos.

You can find Calvin's History anywhere,and the only site that speaks positive of his actions is a Catholic site.

 

[Hebrews 11]

What you put up was a genetic fallacy. Look it up.



Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

You know this is boring,I'm going to let you accuse who you want .


At the end of the journey I would not want to think I wasted time on this meaningless nonsense.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[tango]

You know this is boring,I'm going to let you accuse who you want .


At the end of the journey I would not want to think I wasted time on this meaningless nonsense.

Thanks and God Bless

Is following the Scriptural call to "test all things" (1Th 5:21) meaningless nonsense? What about the call of Rom 16:17 to avoid those who cause divisions and offence contrary to the doctrine we learned? Is that meaningless nonsense?

If not, why should we do anything less? We were warned that false teachers would arise for a reason, so it seems entirely appropriate to discuss the merits of someone's teachings when they are accused of being false teachers.

If so, what other passages of Scripture can we write off as meaningless nonsense? Some of them are quite inconvenient at times.

 

[Hammster]

Give us a reason that Calvin's History is a Genetic Fallacy?
Are Historians all having a conspiracy against Calvinism?

Calvin would not have been considered a reformer if he had not been kicked out of Catholic seminary.

4. Calvin believed it was acceptable to lambast his opponents with vicious names.
Calvin treated his critics with contempt, calling them “pigs,” “asses,” “riffraff,” “dogs,” “idiots,” and “stinking beasts.” In this vein, Calvin said this of the great Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons: “Nothing could be prouder, nothing more impudent than this donkey.

Source Patheos.

You can find Calvin's History anywhere,and the only site that speaks positive of his actions is a Catholic site.

It's a genetic fallacy because even if you were correct about his person, that wouldn't make his teachings wrong.

Fwiw, I've not read much of Calvin.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Huh?

You accused me of accusing. By your own accusation, you rarely look in the mirror.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

You know this is boring,I'm going to let you accuse who you want .


At the end of the journey I would not want to think I wasted time on this meaningless nonsense.

Thanks and God Bless

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

For those who care to read objectively.

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-still-in-crisis-/


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Lamb]

Kinda long article there, Hammster Not that I'm arguing with what it's saying as I skim it, but how is it objective?

 

[Josiah]

For those who care to read objectively.

http://www.equip.org/articles/christianity-still-in-crisis-/


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Good stuff there, thanks! I hadn't heard of most of those, so it was helpful.

Seems to me a LOT boils down to "Theology of Glory" vs. Theology of the Cross."

Thanks again.

 

[tango]

Kinda long article there, Hammster Not that I'm arguing with what it's saying as I skim it, but how is it objective?

I took a quick skim over it and it essentially looks at some of the teachings of a few selected WOF teachers and explains why they are unbiblical.

Personally I think it's important to differentiate between something that is wrong in a way that's not hugely important, and something that is wrong in a way that is critically important. I often think of building a house - if the specification says the gap between the two brick walls must be 6 inches wide but in places the gap widens to 7 inches or drops to 5 inches the chances are it's not going to be an issue. But if the foundations are fundamentally uneven or not laid properly at all then the house is going to be wonky. If the foundations aren't level then anything that is built upon them that is level is more likely to be level by mistake than by design. In the same way if Jesus Christ is to be the foundation of our faith we need to know we are following the right Jesus. That's Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word made flesh who died for our sins. Not the Jesus preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses who say that "the word was a god", or any other Jesus.

It's for good reason that Paul wrote that anyone who brought a different gospel should be accursed.

 

[psalms 91]

Hank Hanigrin is a known hater of WOF, to call that objective is a stretch at best, how some of the questionable practices of the Catholic church or the traditions that so many churchs hang on to and call it gospel. No, an objective look would not focus on one disipline so I reject that as objective and those who like to single out WOF. They are far from objective

 

[tango]

Hank Hanigrin is a known hater of WOF, to call that objective is a stretch at best, how some of the questionable practices of the Catholic church or the traditions that so many churchs hang on to and call it gospel. No, an objective look would not focus on one disipline so I reject that as objective and those who like to single out WOF. They are far from objective

One can be objective about the failings in one denomination without mentioning the failings of another denomination, no?

If I offer a critique on the pork loin is it any less objective because I didn't also point out the shortcomings of the creme brulee?

 

[Hammster]

Hank Hanigrin is a known hater of WOF, to call that objective is a stretch at best, how some of the questionable practices of the Catholic church or the traditions that so many churchs hang on to and call it gospel. No, an objective look would not focus on one disipline so I reject that as objective and those who like to single out WOF. They are far from objective

What was in the article that you would consider incorrect? You must be objective in your response.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Kinda long article there, Hammster Not that I'm arguing with what it's saying as I skim it, but how is it objective?

What makes it objective is that it doesn't just lump everyone together and say WOF is bad and evil. It takes actual statements and teachings, gives quotes and references, and says that they are wrong in light of what scripture teaches.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Lamb]

What makes it objective is that it doesn't just lump everyone together and say WOF is bad and evil. It takes actual statements and teachings, gives quotes and references, and says that they are wrong in light of what scripture teaches.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

I would have thought that objective didn't state wrong or right but only gave facts?

 

[Hammster]

I would have thought that objective didn't state wrong or right but only gave facts?

I'm not sure why you'd think that.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.