Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | userdoe214 | 8005 | ||
Dear EdB, You pick a sore with me on this. If you look at my bio you will notice that I've walked with many fringe groups (more than listed). I've never felt like a part of such groups, but my attraction is their many outlandish yet totally committed members. I like people who sweat and bleed what they believe. My only complaint has been; I wish they would think as hard as they believe. But so often I saw people who acted on slightly wrong belief being cared for by God. It's long been a warning to me not to think that God's loving care is based on my sound intellectual knowledge of the Bible, theology, history, or the power of careful thought (all things which lead to boasting). I must clarify that all of these groups were believers in the infallible Scriptures, the Lordship and divinity of Christ, the Lordship of the Holy Spirit and prayed to the Father God. They all believed that it was their mission in life to make the Gospel known to all men. I add this to make it clear that these are in my opinion necessary for a genuine faith--the kind God acknowledges with His presence. So I am not talking about J.W., Mormons or the various expression unitarians.... Now imagine me when I know these people personally and hear a trusted defender of the faith vilify them without mercy. Imagine my feelings when I find out a personality widely trusted/widely published contacts us and says if we don't change our teaching, he'll tell everyone we're a cult. Imagine again that we know that his personal life is in a mess: making a living as a fruit inspector all the while his orchard is worm infested. Should we fire back? In this case we did not, for the supposed evil teaching was not that big a deal to us. Anyway, where could we find a platform big as his? I've often taken the same criteria of judgment the defenders of orthodoxy use and applied them to historic denominations and seen that it's possible to make them look like cults. This gets to a more basic problem. Throughout the history of our faith, there have been defenders of orthodoxy who whipped up powers that be to punish those whom they judged enemies of the faith. Not infrequently we call such a person Saint, Reformer... or some title of dignity, but history has proven that the ones persecuted were holding opinions we consider acceptable today. Now if it just stayed in the boundaries of words, maybe I wouldn't care, but many cases ended up killing people (even their children) for what we today relegate to a difference of biblical interpretation. When I hear attacks on groups (even Mormons, J.W.,...) by these on the radio, I wonder why we continue to defend the faith in this way. My objection is simple: We do not need such men to protect us, for The Holy Spirit and The Holy Bible together are our guide. Any person who caught up in a deception is there because they've 1st silenced the Voice of God, thus 2nd blinded themselves to the Word of God. The maintenance of orthodoxy is between the believer and God: that's why the Scriptures say, you need that no man teach you (and don't take that as a denial of the role of teachers in the church). Now should we talk about right doctrine? Yes, but in the free market place of ideas. We must attempt to extract personalities from discussions and center on the core issues. Admittedly, we often can't tell the difference between core and fringe, but fair/courteous discussion can't hurt. And most of all, never draw the sword over differences of practice--tongues, raising hands in church, infant baptism, church government, laughing, dancing, litergy, KJV-vs-NASB-vs-NIV...get the idea. And just incase you think I go along with some bizarre interpretation of scripture which the faith teachers teach; I do not. There is one in particular who came to my Bible School in the 70's which a voice inside said "be very careful." Now you can read that man's extremely weird beliefs when reading about the errors of the faith leaders. But I always have to say, be sure you really understand what a man means before you judge his words. Many fringe leaders do not have knowledg of the history of doctrine, and don't realize what their words mean to those how have the benefits (and weaknesses) of such study. Think and ask before judging. Give time a chance to expose hearts, and remember ours is a vital faith, not a stone monument. Finally: I ask people to turn off their TVs and radios, reducing their diet of opinion, which passes for learning. If you want to know more of God, seek Him in a quiet place, in unaided Scripture study and with your dear friends. After all, the world you effect is where you live, not hundreds of miles away were TV/radio originate. If you're like me, I can't tell if I listen or watch because I want to know more, or want to take in opinions to strenghen my own to fuel self-complacency and arrogance There you see the puss under this scab Imperfectly His, mrk |
||||||
2 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | Radioman | 8011 | ||
Mark: You are no fan of CRI? Somehow I doubt that CRI is a fan of Mark Sutton. So you're another one of those unteachable spirits who don't need any man to teach you? Does this attitude not strike you as arrogant, as well as foolish? You've walked with many fringe groups, some of which hold beliefs or practices that are controversial? It's OK to listen to fringe groups, but not OK to listen to widely known, widely respected teachers? I can only imagine what your belief system consists of. What could it be but chaos and confusion? I haven't heard you say anything on this Forum that represents sound Bible doctrine. Those in the first century who rejected or disobeyed the truth were not rejecting the very words of the New Testament, since it was as yet not completed. What they rejected were the teaching of men (oh, I thought we didn't need men to teach us). They rejected men who were apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers, etc. So much for the theory that all teachings of men should be rejected. Instead of rejecting such teachings, it would be far more appropriate to test those teachings against the written Word to see if they line up. As someone here has posted previously, if all we need is the Bible and no teachers, then why did Jesus instruct his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel? According to your logic, wouldn't it have been just as effective to keep the disciples in Jerusalem, mail copies of the Bible to nonbelievers, and let them figure it out for themselves? Whoever despises and distrusts most, if not all, of the teachers that Christ has given to the church is a fool. But whoever despises and distrusts outstanding leaders and teachers of conservative evangelical Bible doctrine shall have to answer for it to God. To malign the character of someone who can see through false doctrine and speak out against it is to stand on very thin ice. It is the duty of every teacher to warn others against false doctrine. The problem with many people is that they base their beliefs, not on the Bible, but on what their Sunday School teacher taught them in the distant past, what their parents said was true, what they hear on TBN, and who knows what else. When a teacher who is thoroughly grounded in the Word and unemcumbered with superstition and bad doctrine comes along to fulfill his duty to warn others to turn away from error, heresy, apostasy or whatever term fits, all the pious self-appointed experts want to do to him what others did to the prophets and to Christ himself, which is to arrange a violent and speedy death or exile for the true prophet. It's not right for someone who really does know basic Bible doctrine to appraise the controversial teachings of a group of men? (Men, you know, the plural of man, as in i need no man to teach me. By the way if one needs no man to teach him, why join up with some fringe group in the first place? I have a problem with those who are condemning those who are most qualified to preach the truth of God's word and then defending those who have questionable beliefs.) Surely you are not suggesting or implying that "trusted defenders of the faith" are out to persecute, whip up powers against and kill people who are in error as to their doctrine, are you? Bad enough to slander a man's character with lies and slander, but worse still to accuse him of nurturing murder in his heart. Verbal "attacks" on false doctrine are entirely essential and fitting in this age of bad teaching, no teaching, and deceptive teaching. As far as understanding what a man means before you judge his words, your assertion is full of confusion and illogic. When a man speaks or writes, we determine what he means by what he says. Words have meaning and by a man's own words he will accuse or excuse himself. If a fringe leader or anyone else has insufficient knowledge of the Bible and the doctrine it contains, he'd best stay off the platform and away from the pulpit, the camera and the microphone. I admit there is a lot of bad teaching on TV and radio and one must use a great deal of discernment to know which to turn on and which to turn off and leave off. But, if one looks for it, he will find many trustworthy ministries whose teaching is uncorrupted by strange and outlandish false doctrine. A good example of TV to beware of is the so-called Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). Why do they even call it the Trinity Network, when they allow on the network people who do not even believe in the Trinity? You may or may not be open to reproof, correction or instruction. But it is hoped that someone will read this post and wake up and be warned. To summarize: a cult is a cult is a cult. False doctrine does much harm to many people. If anyone exposes false doctrine, he should be commended, not condemned, for doing so. |
||||||
3 | Mark why do you say that? | John 10:27 | userdoe214 | 8013 | ||
Well I have been noticing that membership in the Mark Sutton Fan Club has dropped off to -3 mrk |
||||||