False teachers

[Hebrews 11]

You are entitled to your opinion,as I am.
Personally I think forming a theology based on a dark ages sociopath,is a wrong turn.

How many people did Kenneth Copeland murder that opposed him?

How many people did John Calvin murder in Geneva?

Based on your comments as to the Elect ,it seems that of Calvinist persuasions.

When we use terms like Blasphemy I do not think murder is irrelevant.

Have you ever spoken in tongues?

If you have not then what is your basis of Judgement on others doing so?

 

[Hammster]

You are entitled to your opinion,as I am.
Personally I think forming a theology based on a dark ages sociopath,is a wrong turn.

How many people did Kenneth Copeland murder that opposed him?

How many people did John Calvin murder in Geneva?

Based on your comments as to the Elect ,it seems that of Calvinist persuasions.

When we use terms like Blasphemy I do not think murder is irrelevant.

Have you ever spoken in tongues?

If you have not then what is your basis of Judgement on others doing so?

My theology is based on scripture. When people pull the Servetus card, I know I've won the debate.

Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

There is no winning, only truth, this is not a philisophical discussion but rather life and death and rightly discerning the word of truth. If all someone wants is to win then they are welcome to it, I prefer truth

 

[Hebrews 11]

If you consider a Syllogism Fallacy a victory then congrats.

In case you reply with huh?

The Thread topic was false teachers,some how you managed to proclaim all false teachers are Word of Faith.

Servtus was only one of 55 people burned.

Your hyperbole on Servtus is not the equivalent to Godwin's law.

What influence did Augustine of Hippo have on John Calvin?

Or would be discussing the activity of Augustine be out of bounds?

Kinda reminds me of the kid who knocks over the Chess board

 

[Hebrews 11]

Surely in a topical discussion with a broad range of subject matter,it does not evolve around one subject.
The one subject Word of Faith.
No mention or in depth talk of Jehovah's witnesses,Mormons,or the possibility of Masons and religion.
That short list only names a few examples,it seems someone has a ax to grind and will use any bully pulpit to do it.

 

[Hammster]

There is no winning, only truth, this is not a philisophical discussion but rather life and death and rightly discerning the word of truth. If all someone wants is to win then they are welcome to it, I prefer truth

You don't want the truth. The fact that you support heretical teachings is evidence of that.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Surely in a topical discussion with a broad range of subject matter,it does not evolve around one subject.
The one subject Word of Faith.
No mention or in depth talk of Jehovah's witnesses,Mormons,or the possibility of Masons and religion.
That short list only names a few examples,it seems someone has a ax to grind and will use any bully pulpit to do it.

There's a difference between false religions and false teachers. So this is not a broad subject.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

You don't want the truth. The fact that you support heretical teachings is evidence of that.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Your truth is not mine and the fact you continue to attacj me and anyone else that tries to show you that speaks loudly about your motivations.

 

[Hammster]

Your truth is not mine and the fact you continue to attacj me and anyone else that tries to show you that speaks loudly about your motivations.

And what are these motivations?


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

For one you dont respect any opinion but your own and that you have little regard or respect for anyone elses beliefs

 

[Hammster]

For one you dont respect any opinion but your own and that you have little regard or respect for anyone elses beliefs

Not true. My opinions are based upon research (note that I posted links exposing some of the false teachings of these false teachers) done by others. So I have a lot of regard for other's beliefs.




Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[psalms 91]

Then please do not attack not only me but anyone else who choose to believe or do we need a section where we can post in peace, I really hope not as that is one thing I really dont want to suggest as I have always felt that the denominational forums at CF helped to divide rather than enlighten but I am seeing why it was necessary

 

[Hammster]

If you consider a Syllogism Fallacy a victory then congrats.

In case you reply with huh?

The Thread topic was false teachers,some how you managed to proclaim all false teachers are Word of Faith.

Servtus was only one of 55 people burned.

Your hyperbole on Servtus is not the equivalent to Godwin's law.

What influence did Augustine of Hippo have on John Calvin?

Or would be discussing the activity of Augustine be out of bounds?

Kinda reminds me of the kid who knocks over the Chess board

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


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Hammster]

Then please do not attack not only me but anyone else who choose to believe or do we need a section where we can post in peace, I really hope not as that is one thing I really dont want to suggest as I have always felt that the denominational forums at CF helped to divide rather than enlighten but I am seeing why it was necessary

Here's the thing. There are false teachers. I've given the evidence that these teachers are teaching things contrary to the gospel. Yet you and others want to just ignore these things. And then call your view the truth.

I don't ever expect anything that I post to be received and believed by everyone. But I do expect that if challenged, it's more than just feelings or genetic fallacies. Give good arguments. Maybe we still won't agree at the end, but maybe we will still better understand the position. I think expecting the same from others is not too much to ask.

I don't have a lot of tolerance for arguments from emotion.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Pedrito]

I refer to my Post #180 on Page 18, which I re-quote here.

In Post #48 tango stated:

The Scriptures are an objective standard. The wisdom of the church is certainly worth considering but over the centuries some churches seem to have elevated tradition to the status of theology, which is a bad thing.

I would appreciate people's thoughts on which churches (denominations) actually do not contain some form of tradition that has been elevated to the status of theology.

Those who respond might also like to share their definition of “tradition”, and when it started creeping in.

If a denomination holds to doctrines based on tradition, which of necessity must be at variance with apostolic teaching (and that of Jesus), does that denomination as a whole not qualify itself for the title of false teacher?

So my request for thoughts and definitions can be seen to have relevance and substance.

That is my reason for repeating it.

Could that relevance and substance also be a reason for lack of response so far? (Unless I missed it.)

 

[tango]

Your truth is not mine and the fact you continue to attacj me and anyone else that tries to show you that speaks loudly about your motivations.

What do you mean by "your truth is not mine"? Is there more than one truth?

 

[tango]

Then please do not attack not only me but anyone else who choose to believe or do we need a section where we can post in peace, I really hope not as that is one thing I really dont want to suggest as I have always felt that the denominational forums at CF helped to divide rather than enlighten but I am seeing why it was necessary

Isn't it better to look more closely at the teachings of those brought into question (or, to borrow Paul's words, to "test all things") than to have a little corner where you can hide away and nobody tests? If iron sharpens iron, how does it help anyone to take some of the iron away?

It's easy to use terms like "we choose to believe" which is all well and good but how would you react to someone who insists there are pink unicorns dancing around their cherry tree and brushes off all questioning with "I choose to believe" and even goes as far as wanting a place to talk where only other people who believe in pink unicorns are allowed to be? Isn't it better to look at what you believe and why, and to learn to defend what you believe? Doesn't the (short) book of Jude urge us to "contend for the faith"? Aren't we urged to "study to show (ourselves) approved"? How do we do that if we form a huddle away from those who disagree with us?

 

[tango]

You are entitled to your opinion,as I am.
Personally I think forming a theology based on a dark ages sociopath,is a wrong turn.

How many people did Kenneth Copeland murder that opposed him?

How many people did John Calvin murder in Geneva?

Based on your comments as to the Elect ,it seems that of Calvinist persuasions.

When we use terms like Blasphemy I do not think murder is irrelevant.

Have you ever spoken in tongues?

Not sure how any of this is relevant. It seems little more than children at school insisting that the other did something Really Bad which means they shouldn't be punished for doing something Not So Bad.

If you have not then what is your basis of Judgement on others doing so?

I don't have the first idea how to fly a 747 but that doesn't disqualify me from judging the landing to have been bumpy. The fact my attempt at landing would probably have resulted in a fireball doesn't disqualify my judgment.

Scripture tells us that if tongues are spoken in public there should be an interpreter. If there is not the person who spoke needs to be told, politely, to button it. If tongues are spoken in private then nobody else needs to know about it, and what people do in private is unlikely to be about looking extra spiritual in front of others.

 

[Hebrews 11]

And then we have a nice example of circular logic.

Either topic would be a broad subject.

False teachers are not singular they all come from some form of denomination.

I thought you proclaimed victory in this discussion?

This must be the reason you did not reply to my response on your proclamation.

 

[Hebrews 11]

Ok it's only relevant when it allows for calling Word of Faith teachers false.
Your reply on tongues is a answer that was directed to someone who was accusing blasphemy.
Your answer is Ambiguous in that it does not address the question.

Does the other poster or you speak in tongues?