IC, WOW!

He said Cubans were abused by the ‘Jewish” men. Also he praised Castro and bashed America. IC, You are a self apointed Data Mining Machine. Thank you. IT’s good to know this. Manning even went on to say Cuba defeated America and Castro has lived beyond most recent Presidents. BTW, I clicked on another one of his vids and he claims he personally met Jesus. Nuff said. Thanks IC.

Kyle

Another Manning tall tale.

Here is a response from Manning to a YOUTube viewer:

Oliveira yes, Mary’s mother, the mother of Jesus was a virgin and gave birth to Jesus’ mother, making Jesus twice consecrated. Also, Jesus and the Apostle Paul were male virgins, and His mother Mary never knew a man after her birth of Jesus.
And yes, I have been commissioned to preach that truth and to offer the sanctified blood of Jesus to the nations of the earth.

So Mary’s mother was also a virgin and so was Paul. Hmmm, wasn’t Paul, Saul prior to conversion? Why would he make such a claim. Also, what’s the deal with double virginity?

Kyle

BTW, I clicked on another one of his vids and he claims he personally met Jesus. Nuff said.

Waste enough of your life reading his comments and you’ll learn that he feels the only real preachers in the world have had a personal meeting with Jesus .

It could be possible that Saul was a virgin, although the Pharisees, which he was were known to be big time hypocrites in areas like sexual immorality. Of course once he became Paul we know he had an amazing level of self control.

The whole Mary’s mother nonsense. Somebody obviously had some strong wine with their communion ! (Is that something the Catholics teach with the rest of their lies?)

Somebody better tell Joseph that Mary never had sex, because Matthew 1:25 shows that Joseph got to know SOMEBODY after Jesus was born.

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see the assumption of Lawrence’s part that bad doctrine (which is the lumpting factor here) is an automatic ticket to hell. I wouldn’t expect Lawrence to write to the lowest common denominator of the readership. People can wrongly assume all kinds of things, as you have clearly demonstrated.”

I hear what you’re saying and all, and this is why I specifically asked him a question, concerning his beliefs on these matters. In essence, I wanted to know whether or not he was making this a “heaven or hell” issue.

Not only that, there are times when folks who are espousing truths from scripture, or discussing biblical matters, have to write or communicate “to the lowest common denominator of the readership,” so that folks aren’t being deceived, or misled into believing falsehoods. (MN: Understood. But this site isn’t going to do that. See the article on Dummifying Pulpti-Pimps.org here.

I’m not going to assume that all folks are going to “get” where he’s coming from, especially if they are novices, or new and foreign to the faith. (MN: Neither am I. But it’s really not an issue with me. After all, how would I know when to “write down” and when to not “write down” to the readers? Why even worry about it. Expect the readers to rise to the level of the discussion. I assure you those who are interested will indeed. strong>)

But oh well…

(MN: I apologize for speaking in place of Lawrence. But no, neither he nor I am making these (tongues, and pentecostalism, immersion vs pouring, etc, etc ) heaven or hell issues. But again, this site isn’t being written with an eye toward the “new to the faith.” It’s written for the folks trapped in the wolves’ dens and for those who have people trapped in the wolves’ dens and are looking for material to defend themselves and their relatives/friends. People come here every day who don’t “get it.” They develop. And often they heed the warnings. )

It appears that in some of these statements that WoF’s and Arminians are being “tied” together in what they believe. Arminians do not believe that God needs man’s permission nto enter the earth. WoF’s (who believe in speaking “life”-because they want to- and things of that sort) do. I am slightly alarmed at these subtle linkings in that not all Pentecostals believe in “my own authority” so to speak. There is many a bad Pentecotsal doctrine. Many others as well. But to lump those together (two totally differeing beliefs/originations in which some have erred in teaching a bad combination of both, which leads to further instability) is plain misleading. You have your beliefs yes, but Arminians do do believe in the “powers’ that WoF’s say that they have been given by God. Much of it is “play church”.

Arminius did not originate with regard to Metaphysics, WoF did. Not that I hold him in higher regard to what one instrument of God stated above another, but to link these is not proper. It mis-leads.

(MN: Here, let me help you out. No one is saying Arminians are the same as Word Faithers, though most Word Faithers are certainly Arminian. No on is saying Armenians are Pentecostal, though most Pentecostals are certainly Armenian. No one is saying Armenians do anything as a group except put man over God in the salvation process. That, wether Arminians admit it or not, is the dividing line between Arninianism and Monergism. And WoFers have simply taken this view to the next level. Not only can we resist God’s will in our lives, we can use the same kind of Faith God uses. They’re both wrong. It’s simply a matter of degree in the wrongness. The WoFers have simply broken through the facade of reasonableness presented by “normal” Arminians. They have simply taken it to a logical conlusion.

I believe the Bible presents sufficient evidence that Pentecostals are wrong about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, tongues, the Gifts of the Spirit, and a host of other teachings. Can they be saved - as Pentecostals? Sure. Can they be consistent with Bible doctrine as Pentecostals? No. But before you perhaps launch into a discussion disagreeing with this, read the posting on Pentecostals (specifically Tongues) here. Of course I might have missed one that you could point out. )

“But again, this site isn’t being written with an eye toward the “new to the faith.” It’s written for the folks trapped in the wolves’ dens and for those who have people trapped in the wolves’ dens and are looking for material to defend themselves and their relatives/friends.”

Yeah, I hear what you’re saying on this end, and in regards to “dummifying” and all, but from where I’m standing, or sitting, many of the folks who are leaving their pimps homes, are indeed “new to the TRUE faith.”

In other words, they’ve left an apostate christianity, so as to seek the truth. And in their vulnerable states, I don’t want them to get fed more deceit, which can lead them into thinking that a section of saved christian brothers and sisters, aren’t saved, ergo true christians-simply because they don’t agree with certain non-essential issues…

The body of Christ must be united on essentials, and not divide on non-essentials like eschatological matters, or sundry other non-essential doctrinal issues.

Anyway, I’m through.

I know I said I was through with this topic, but let me just say that in my area, I know of several baptist ministers, who are not believers in arminianism, nor tongue talking, who adhere to huge tenets of Word of Faith theology.

You see, the Word Faith movement is a belief that doesn’t require someone to be an arminian, seeing as how this movement is like a cancer, in that it transcends, and permeates, any denomination you belong to. (MN: Actually, with regard to this specific item, I would have to agree with you. That is one of the reasons fighting for right doctrine is SO important. )

A friend of mine, who is a baptist, put it this way:

“God needed our permission to re-enter the earth’s realm before the new covenant. After the new covenant, he no longer needs such permission, and can save whom he wills, seeing as how he whipped satan publicly, and took the keys of life and death, from Satan’s grip.” (MN: Your friend isn’t a WoFer. He’s very badly trained and, I suspect, heavily influenced by WoFers. And he appears to be trying to synthesize the two views. I forget sometimes that WoF has been around for quite a while and has had a lot of tiime to poison the Body, even if just around the edges. But at the same time, I did say show me a well-known WoFer who isn’t Pentecostal. Though given what you have observed, it shouldn’t be too many years until a Charles Stanley type holds up the WoF banner. They already have dealings with the heretics. Sigh. )

This is how this person merged reformed theology, with Word Faith teaching, when it comes to God ordaining those to be saved.

I’m serious, in the area where I’m from, I would estimate that about 80% of all black churches, even those who aren’t pentecostal, teach some degree of Word Faith teaching.

I’d have to think an honest look makes it clear to anyone that WOF is an outgrowth of Pentecostalism. The nucleus around which it all revolves is the Pentecostal penchant for experiential manifestation, emotionalism, and signs in place of historic doctrine.

WOF simply codifies these same penchants into formulas that can be used to bring about manifestations, and emotional release, and signs.

In order to give a pseudo-Biblical veneer to the formulas, there must be a mechanism proffered that allows Christians authority to operate in a realm where (before Azusa) it was previously accepted that only God could operate (such as creative power through words, the ability to manipulate the material world to our will, and our elevation to a position where we move God rather than the other way around).

Without the Pentecostal foundation of bad doctrine for WOF to build upon, there would have been no means of getting this clearly metephysical heresy into the church.

That is PRECISELY why, though not all Pentecostals are WOF, virtually ALL WOF are Pentecostals, since they NEED that flawed Pentecostal foundation upon which to build their heresy AND fill their pews.

Not only did faulty Pentecostal doctrine provide entree for WOF into the church, faulty Pentecostal doctrine also conditioned tens of millions to ACCEPT even FAULTIER WOF doctrine, since they share a common Pentecostal foundation. WOF heresies have the ring of familiarity to Pentecostals. They speak the same language, share common traditions,and aspire to the same experientially-based relationship with God.

All heresy begins with a misrepresentation of who God is, and who man is in relation to God. It’s Pentecostalism’s misrepresentations of God and man that WOF is built upon.

Seekerman, it’s infiltrated almost everything down my way as well. What isn’t WOF is Emerging, seeker sensitive crap (the next wave of heresy).

But you can’t deny where WOF came from, nor where most of its adherents come from, nor what branch of Christianity all of its main proponents come from……..Pentecostalism.

First of all Melvin, thank you for attempting to explain what I was trying to say in my earlier post. I didn’t mind at all and you did a great job! But now I will answer for my self. Anyone who reads this should realize that:

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF PULPITPIMPS.ORG., IT’S OWNERS, SPONSORS, OR CONTRIBUTORS! (Man, I wonder if I owe anyone copyright money for that one. HA! HA! HA!)

To Seekerman, George B. and anyone else:

I have personally mulled over these issues that you raised many times over. It is very difficult for our limited understanding to grasp the brevity of the situation that we face as professing believers when it comes to believing and teaching sound doctrine. A lot of times we attempt to make room for error by using terms such as “essentials and non-essentials”. We do this because we recognize our own imperfections and the imperfections of others and we don’t want to be overly critical and judgmental. But even in this there is much debate and disagreement over what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”.

Go to any apologetic web site and compare their statements on the essentials and see how many of them agree down the line. Not very many. For instance, take a look at carm.org which is Matt Slick’s web site. He goes so far as to break it down into what he calls “Primary Essentials”, “Secondary Essentials”, “Primary Non-Essentials” and “Secondary Non-Essentials”. Though I appreciate his efforts, even these breakdowns did not give any more clarity in my own mind as to what was essential and non-essential.

I raise these issues because I believe that the warning that Jesus gave in Matthew 7:13-23 and that Paul gave in Galatians 1:8-9 are at the heart of this debate over correct doctrine.

Let’s look at what Jesus says first: (by the way Mel if this is too long you have my permission to make it it’s own post or to edit it at your leisure)

Matthew 7:13-14 To me the warning here cannot be too clear or too frightening. Jesus says that both the gate and the way to life are narrow.

Matthew 7:15-20 Immediately after narrowing the numbers of those finding the path to life, Christ warns of false prophets calling them “ravenous wolves”. Yes Jesus called names! However, He doesn’t stop there. He goes on to tell the crowd how to spot them. He says that they bear “evil fruit” because they are a “corrupt tree”. The eighteenth verse says it all, “A good tree CANNOT bring forth evil fruit, NEITHER can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Now I have to ask this question to all: Is bad doctrine an example of “evil fruit”? Sure, we
can attribute bad doctrine to ignorance (Apollos comes to mind), but what about after sound teaching and exposure to truth happens? What if the person continues in the bad doctrine? Surely Apollos didn’t! ref Acts 18:24-28. Also biblically speaking, ignorance as an excuse for continuing in bad doctrine not only doesn’t let us off the hook, it further damns us. (Matthew 13:10-17)

Matthew 7:21-23 Many differ over the cause of the offence here in this passage that ends with Jesus’ profession that He “never knew you”. But I think that some things here are clear. The person who says “Lord, Lord” is sincere, religious, and even pious. They obviously PROFESS to know Christ. They call Him Lord. However, something is wrong. This person is testifying FOR THEMSELVES and the WORK that THEY’VE done. They seem to believe that those “works” are their ticket in. Notice that Jesus doesn’t disagree with them. He doesn’t contradict their assertions that they did all these things. Perhaps they did preach in his name. Perhaps they did cast out devils. Perhaps they did do “many wonderful works” in his name. Jesus gives us no indication that they didn’t. But HE NEVER KNEW THEM and they must depart from Him! Lord have mercy on us all!

You see people, no matter how we look at this, it is obvious that entrance into heaven cannot be achieved through any effort on man’s part. Therefore, all doctrines that add this dimension to the gospel message, fall into the category of “another gospel”. Now you have to ask yourself, does the Arminian perspective have this dimension in it? What about Pentecostalism? Word of Faith?

GaryV said:

All heresy begins with a misrepresentation of who God is, and who man is in relation to God.

People pay close attention. This statement is exponentially profound on so many levels. Here the heart of the matter is expressed beyond refutation. It raises several questions that must be asked. Is Arminianism a “misrepresentation of who God is and who man is in relation to God”? How about Pentecostalism? Word of Faith? It also raises another important question, do heretics and those who follow them or believe their message get into heaven? Just ask Jesus:

Matthew 15:13-14 “But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”

Let me say clearly what I also believe others have tried to express. There are many people who would label themselves Arminian who, upon questioning, would actually turn out not to believe the tenets of Arminianism. I used to call myself an Arminian but I didn’t believe that I chose God. I believed that He chose me. I did, however, believe that I could lose my salvation, which was error. Now it may be the same with those who call themselves Pentecostals, although I don’t really see how. Most of the problem centers around legalism, (which is another gospel) the gifts of the Spirit and the perseverance of the saints. Admittedly, some Pentecostals are less legalistic than others but ALL are legalistic to some degree. As far as Word of Faither’s go, they have no choice but to affirm those tenets and therefore they are blind and lost.

I know that these are strong words and strong claims. I know that there will be much disagreement over them as I stated in the beginning. But I do believe that the bible has the answer and that the bible has been my basis for these claims. I don’t intend with this post to upset the faith of any but rather to provoke you to study so that you may do as Peter says in I Peter 3:15 “But santify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a DEFENSE to EVERYONE that ask you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;”.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL! AND GOD HAVE MERCY ON US ALL!

Good comment. I even refrained from putting an MN in it.

Melvin

Gary V, I’v answered your questions on the post “that shell not be named” and would like to send it to you my e-mail address is Msamu703@yahoo.com

Question:
1. Who or what determines what sound teaching is and what’s truth?
2. When disputes arose in the early church how were these disputes settled?
3. What do we have today that has the authority to settle these doctrinal differences?
4. If there are conflicting and or contrary doctrinal view’s that have convening augments on both sides how then is truth determined?
5. other then the absolute truth of Christ’s statement the He is the Way, The Truth, and the light can anyone without doubt claim to have doctrinal truth ?

I’m asking these questions not to detour from the conversation but to understand how any one person, society, and denomination can claim what only God can and that an absolute truth out side of knowledge of Christ is possible when interpreting scripture.

Msamu, I likely know as much about Preterism as you brother. We can just agree to disagree there.

Gary V. as you said we’ll agree to disagree,

peace

Can anyone answer the below questions????

Question:
1. Who determines what sound teaching is and what’s truth?
2. When disputes arose in the early church how were these disputes settled?
3. What do we have today that has the authority to settle these doctrinal differences?
4. If there are conflicting and or contrary doctrinal view’s that have convening augments on both sides how then is truth determined?
5. other then the absolute truth of Christ’s statement that He is the Way, The Truth, and the light can anyone without doubt claim to have doctrinal truth ?

To Gary V and Lawrence.

From my research, the WOF movement didn’t originate with Pentecostalism, but rather, with the metaphysical cults.

(MN: Actually, the conduit into the Pentecostal churches was through Dad Hagin (Ken Hagin). He lifted the teachings of E. W. Kenyon almost word for. He even lifted the standard WoFer teaching of Jesus suffering in hell (What Happened From the Cross to the Throne). Certainly there have always been elements of the WoF foolishness in the world. Metaphysical crap has been out there all the time. BUT, it was, around fifty years ago, that they concepts began to receive wider and wider acceptance within the professing Christian community - specifically, the Pentecostals. Are all Pentecostals WoFers? Again, no. But they have been especially vulnerable to an agressive teaching of the basic metaphysical teachings of Kenyon/Hagin/Copeland/etc.

This isn’t a rant against Pentecostals in general. I’m simply pointing out the dangers of standing on lousy doctrine. It makes you virtually defenseless against all that the metaphysical clap trap stands for. )

Pentecostals of old, especially black Pentecostal churches (which is what I’m mainly familiar with), use to talk against greed, and accumulation of wealth. As a matter of fact, they were greatly criticized by secular folks, for focusing in on a “pie in the sky” type of doctrinal beliefs, as opposed to more progressive ventures, such as accumulation of wealth here in on earth.

(MN: But all of this was easily countered by misusing such verses as “God is doing a new thing!” That was the standard then. With the right teaching I can convince you that seeking wealth and health are just another expression of holiness. )

Now, I will grant it, that many pentecostals have in recent years, been caught up in the maelstrom of WOF teaching, because of the outline you (Gary) had given, when it comes to Pentecostals experiential type of faith, that focuses in on outward signs such as tongues, miracles, etc. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean, again, that Pentecostalism is part and parcel of the WOF movement, no more than it is with many other denominations, whether they are adherents to arminianism, monergism, reformed theology, or what have you. (MN: No one said it was. Why do you keep denying what no one is saying? )

The traditional doctrinal beliefs of the varying Pentecostal sects, don’t believe that God needed man’s permission to enter into the earth’s realm; that Jesus Christ was rebirthed in hell; that Christ was a twice born again man; that Christ didn’t receive his legitimacy to deity, until he was older, or was annointed by the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove; that saved humanity, are mere incarnations of Jesus Christ; etc. (MN: No one said it was. Why do you keep denying what no one is saying? )

Again, these teachings aren’t classic Pentecostalism, but are teachings that have been imposed upon Pentecostalism.
(MN: They are teachings that were easily slipped into the overall pentecostal teachings given the weakness of appealing to experience and eschewing a disciplined approach to teaching and learning scripture. This can happen with Baptists, Episcopalians, or anyone. No teaching - - > a movement from the faith. )

My friend has an old relative, who’s a pastor within the COGIc denomination, who receives a lot of criticism from members within his own organization, because he so call preaches that “old time slave religion”, of accumulating wealth in heaven, as opposed to on earth, and that to serve Christ, means that you must pick up your cross, and live righteously.

You see, he’s an obvious Pentecostal, who doesn’t preach, nor adhere to WOF teaching, which accounts for his, I guess, small congregation, and his constant battles, with those within his own organization. (MN: Why do you keep denying what no one is saying? )

Now that I think about it, he’s not alone. There’s this one cat up the street from where I live, in Richmond, VA, who’s a pentecostal, and he strongly condemns the WOF movement, almost every chance he gets. (MN: Why do you keep denying what no one is saying? ))

So no, from my experience, I really can’t see how WOF teachings, is synonymous with classic Pentecostalism. HOWEVER, I do see how the deceptions of this teaching, can find a home in many Pentecostal circles, because of what I stated in the above, concernining their beliefs. (MN: No one said it was. Why do you keep denying what no one is saying? )

I also come to this conclusion because, due to the fact that many “mainline” christian denominations, especially within the black community, regardless of their doctrine concerning eternal security, conditional security, ad-infinitum-ARE FALLING FOR THE TENETS OF WOF TEACHING! (MN: they are falling for it because, like the Pentecostals who fall for it, they are very badly taught. )

I know of baptist churches, methodist churches, and the like, who are totally being sucked up in these teachings, or some portions of these teachings. (Look at Jamaal Bryant, who is a methodist.) (MN: You know, the horse you keep beating was dead about three comments ago. Either you’re not listening or you just like to watch yourself type. )
Again, this WOF movement is like a virus that has penetrated the church, and has stealthily sprouted its deadly tentacles, into all of christendom.

As far as man choosing God. I don’t believe, as an adherent of Arminianism beliefs, that man chooses God, rather, God chooses man, whereas man has the right to choose, or not to choose, God. (MN: This is the core belief of Arminianism. ) This way, those who do choose God, are doing so because they want to be with God, as opposed to being puppets of God, simply because they had no choice in the matter.

In the other words, heaven will be a place where people want to be, as opposed to folks who don’t want to be there, but are there, because they were forced to be there.

I realize that some will say that God will work on their hearts, and in their lives, to where they will become worthy of spending eternity in paradise, okay, I can understand that. HOWEVER, if you’re not a willing subject, in the hands of the master-THEN WHAT’S THE USE IN GOD FORCING SOMEONE INTO A SANCTIFICATION, THAT EVEN THEY DON’T WANT? (MN: No. They will never be worthy of spending eternity with God. But becasue of their new hearts, they will want to spend time with Him. )

In the end, Christ died for all, and stands at the door and knock, and if any man, or woman, opens up the door, and allows him to enter-they shall be saved. The reason why some don’t choose God, is not my concern, but I do know that in the end, they, as free moral agents, had a right to walk with God, or not, even if God chose them for salvation.
(MN: I’m not going around in that circle again. You have to ignore too much of the rest of the Bible to really come to that conclusion. )

With that said, when it comes to Pentecostalism, I do believe that this movement is a legitimate part of Christendom, just like reformed theology, even though much of church history appears to have been arminianists…

(MN: I understand that you believe this. If you would, please respond to the posting on tongues. Tell me, not ignoring parts and pieces, what I missed in concluding that there is no such thing as a privat prayer language, etc. )

Maybe someone can elaborate further on this.

Msamu,

I know my head is going to hurt after you follow your usual pattern of ignoring answers to your questions but here goes: (BTW I must be a glutton for punishment)

1. The bible determines what is sound teaching and what is truth.

2. When disputes arose in the early church (I wish you would be more specific about which disputes you’re talking about) the Apostles came together to discuss the revelation that had been given to them by the Holy Spirit and then to compare the evidence of what they had experienced in preaching that very revelation.

3. Again the answer is the bible. When interpreted by a method that can be consistently used throughout the text in order to avoid contradiction. The only method that fits this criteria is the Historical, Linguistical, Grammatical (sorry I know you hate Grammar), and Contextual Method.

4. I believe you meant convincing arguments. If you did, then you should know that all arguments must arrive at certain logical conclusions in order to be valid arguments. All arguments must be taken to their furthest and most logical conclusions in order to discover their validity. Usually any error in these arguments can be found by doing a critique on the interpretive method of scripture used in each individual argument.

5. Anyone can claim to have absolute doctrinal truth. It’s the convincing of others that presents the greatest challenge. Claiming is easy. Proving is the difficulty. It is my opinion, as well as the teaching of scripture itself, that it is possible to be doctrinally sound. Seems like II Timothy 2:15 tells us that we can rightly divide the word of truth and all we have to do is to study.

(Msamu) I’m asking these questions not to detour from the conversation but to understand how any one person, society, and denomination can claim what only God can and that an absolute truth out side of knowledge of Christ is possible when interpreting scripture.

I believe that you had another motive or agenda but I will try and respond to this comment as is. While it is true that no one can claim absolute truth unless they are God Himself, one could claim a well rounded understanding of the truth that God Himself has presented in His Word. Besides, who would listen to us for long if after every statement that we made we said “Although I could be wrong”. I think that in order to be effective, we must speak with certainty and a level of confidence. The best way to do this would be to constantly study and to avoid adding or taking away from scripture.

Hopefully you really just wanted answers to your questions and you got them. Probably not, I fear! BLD

Bro Lawrence D: Thank you for responsing,
You agree that there’s only one truth, and that truth can only be found in the word of God. How can the Body have conflicting doctrines? the Apostles were told that the “Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance, what Christ had spoken to them” they didn’t need to interpret thus they had no error.
1. Roman Catholic doctrines
2. Eastern Orthodox doctrines
3. Oriental orthodox doctrines
4. Anglican doctrines
5. Protestant doctrines
Each of the above denominations can support its teachings, each has biblically educate men and woman fluent in the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, each will say their saved, each has its fundamentalist side and its conservative side; each will argue the other is teaching error.

Explain, which denomination has and can clam absolute truth? Or is Paul correct in 1Cor 1:10-13

(MN: Just so you don’t go around in circles again let me say that WE recognize that NONE CAN CLAIM TO HAVE THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN ALL AREAS OF DOCTRINE. Those who believe they have the absolute truth in all areas of doctrine tend to start religious wars. WIth respect to the five you named, where they teach that which contradicts the 5 Solas, they are in error and not listening to the Spirit. But even within that there is wide room for variation. In love we tolerate each other on the non-essentials. For instance, you’re a preterist. I don’t think you have any justification from Scripture to believe what you believe. But with respect to salvation, your view doesn’t stand in the way of salvation. I am willing to receive you as a brother in Christ. I’ll never have you teach a Bible study, but I will receive you as a brother in Christ. Catholics? I generally don’t classify them as Christians. And I’m none too sure about the rest - as they differ from the essentials. )

Seekerman, Mel has done a great job with his patented “Melvin Notes”, so I won’t rehash everything. I believe I specifically named WOF as metaphysics in my post, correct?? It certainly didn’t originate within orthodoxy. However, the point is that the fertile soil that allowed this metaphysical cult to infiltrate the church is the soil of Pentecostalism.

Pentecostalism is where it gained entree through Kenyon and Hagin. The errant doctrines of Pentecostalism gave it a place to root. It draws virtually ALL its leaders from Pentecostalism. It draws its adherents almost entirely from Pentecostalism (though since it has become so culturally prevalent, we are seeing others drawn in as well).

The fact that you may know Pastor Joe Blow who DOESN’T ascribe to WOF changes nothing. There are Catholics who don’t venerate Mary, there are Mormons who don’t believe in polygamy. The fact that there are exceptions does not disprove the rule. The FACT is, Pentecostalism is where this cult infiltrated the church, and where it STILL draws it strength to this day.

I ask you to show me where I said that Pentecostals are ALL WOF. You can’t find a denomination ANYWHERE that’s ALL anything. ALL Lutherans do not believe in justification by faith alone. However, the VAST majority do, and that is why Lutherans are categorized that way.

The VAST MAJORITY of WOF adherents come from the ranks of Pentecostals. That is also fact.

As for your Arminian argument, Jesus is NOT standing at the door and knocking on the hearts of the sinner. Read the passage again. He is standing at the door of the CHURCH in that passage.

Instead of going around this circle, why not be the FIRST to actually address the Scriptures I posted and the accompanying questions I offered. If you are going to stake your claim on stuff like Jesus knocking on the door of sinner’s hearts (which is taking that verse out of its context), you’re not going to get anywhere.

Again, the post is right there………instead of bringing in inapplicable Scriptures, why not deal with what’s been posted and ignored for almost 3 weeks??

If I may interject. Since Pentecostalism and it’s erring ways are “exposed” Is it possible for a man such as John Calvin to have been a “great theologian” and at the same time to act in this reprehensible way (the murder of Servitus at the stake) and afterwards show no remorse? Folks, do you have a heart that could, like John Calvin, burn another person at the stake?

Also (one last comment) I have a few questions that I would like honest answers to. Please, no smurks, smart comments, or names. I really need answers for my own understanding.

(1) Can John Calvin be Scripturally justified for murdering Michael Servetus? (2) Does a “murderous hate” (according to some), according to Scripture, render one spiritually unable to accurately interpret the Scriptures? (3) Can a murderer be saved according to Rev. 21:8?

“No event has more influenced history’s judgment of Calvin than the role he played in the capture and execution of the Spanish physician and amateur theologian Michael Servetus in 1553. This event has overshadowed everything else Calvin accomplished and continues to embarrass his modern admirers.” (Ibid-p369)

I thought this comment in my research was interesting. But as I know there are some with whom adhere to this doctrine here, I would like to know the take.

(MN: Again, you’re using the failings of a man to attempt to negate the teachings of Scripture. This isn’t about John Calvin. It’s about God’s sovereignty. Monergism is not “John Calvin’s Religion.” At best it is one of many things he taught. By the way, perhaps we should drop the idea of interstate highways. Afterall, the Nazis came up with and implemented the concept. But wait - I can’t use that as an example because Calvin didn’t come up with the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty. My bad. Now, if you would please, address the issues. And Calvin’s participation in a leagal execution is not one of the issues. )

Hey Curious…………that sword cuts BOTH ways slick. Can I reject your theology because it has spawned such luminaries as Jim Jones, Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, Marilyn Hickey, Ken Hagin, Ken Copeland, etc??

Don’t be stupid. The theology has NOTHING to do with frail humans.Calvin didn’t INVENT what has been called Calvinism. All Calvin DID was write a theological system of MONERGISM, which has ALWAYS been the belief of the historic church. Arminianism (a Pentecostal doctrine) however WAS INVENTED by James Arminius over FIFTEEN HUNDRED years after Christ. It was a NEW HERESY that the church condemned.

UNTIL THEN, the church was MONERGISTIC from the Apostles on down and REMAINED monergistic until Biblical ignorance caused Arminianism to rear its head again in these last days. Arminianism is NOT the teaching of the historic church, MONERGISM always has been. Only the ignorance of history and the modern detestation of knowledge allows Arminians to believe that it was ever the teaching of the historic church.

Anyway, to FURTHER correct your SLOPPY and FALSE assertions about Calvin, I ask you to read THIS…….

Servetus was the only individual put to death for heresy in Geneva during Calvin’s lifetime. Strange indignation it is that men focus upon this one and virtually ignore the hundreds executed in other parts of the world, or the other heretics who were NOT executed in Geneva.

Further still, it must be remembered that Calvin’s role in this entire matter was ONLY that of expert witness at the trial. The idea that Calvin was “the dictator of Geneva” is utterly unfounded in fact. Calvin was never allowed to even become a CITIZEN of Geneva. He was technically among the habitants — resident legal aliens who had NO right to vote, NO right to carry weapons, and NO right to hold public office.(So, again, HOW did Calvin have Servetus executed?? He WASN”T IN CHARGE of Geneva, he NEVER held public office, and he therefore had NO POWER to either condemn OR exonerate ANYONE).

A habitant (such as Calvin) might be a pastor or teacher if there was no Genevan citizen who was qualified for the position. (This is why Calvin was allowed to be pastor of the church there). But he was always DENIED access to the decision-making machinery……….(you know, like the machinery that condemned Servetus).

The only place where Calvin could have exerted significant influence was in the Consistory. But the Consistory was COMPLETELY BYPASSED in this entire matter by the council apparently in an effort to demonstrate that they were far more concerned for holiness and purity than Calvin (and some of the people) had thought. They sought thus to shut Calvin out of this matter as much as possible.

Calvin even intervened to appeal for the more quick and merciful beheading as the method of execution but the council refused and on October 26, 1553, Michael Servetus was executed (but NOT by Calvin, by the GOVERNMENT who EXCLUDED Calvin except as a witness to the heresy).

Why then all the outrage at Calvin? Simply because of who he was and what he taught. The world can live with Romanism and Arminianism, it cannot abide the truth of the Reformed faith. For this reason Calvin and Calvinism have been the enemies of the world and will be till the world ends. (By Steven Wilkinson)

(MN: The article from which this comes is here )

Michael Servetus was born at Villanueva, in 1509. After a liberal education, he studied medicine; and anticipated Harvey in the discovery of the circulation of the blood. It appears that he had a lively genius, but was unstable, erratic, and weak. In 1530 he published a book “On the Errors of the Trinity.” His views need not be given here; one specimen will suffice to give an idea of them. He said that the doctrine of the Trinity was “a three-headed Cerberus, a dream of Augustine, and an invention of the devil.” The book, however, on which his trial was based was his “Restitutio Christianismi.” Only two copies of this are known to exist; and both are out of England. I have seen a copy of the reprint of 1790. Servetus sent the manuscript of this to Calvin for his perusal; and a lengthy correspondence took place between them, extending from 1546 to 1548. Of this Calvin says: “When he was at Lyons he sent me three questions to answer. He thought to entrap me. That my answer did not satisfy him lam not surprised.” To Servetus himself he wrote: “I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.”

And now occurs what foundation there is on which is built the accusation against Calvin. It occurs in his well-known letter to Farel, dated February 13th, 1546. “Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.”

(MN: For those of you who are interested in what actually happened next and not simply believe a man who has yet to argue the issues, click here. )

MN I’d like to thank you and LD for the chat. Guy’s we’re in no position to claim absoluteness in the all areas of doctrine, outside of Christ who is Lord, savior and the truth, the argument can be made that indeed our slip is showing (carnal nature). Just as some profess futuristic view’s that others believe cannot be supported by scripture labeling one a false teacher would be prideful on our part, one would have to have absolute truth in that area to defend their claim that one is a false teacher. So what about the scriptures warning of false teacher’s? I don’t know I guess each believer is responsibly for their own salvation. Since all we have in the way of truth is Christ, that’s all the truth we can without a doubt deliver with assurance, everything else God will sort out when our work’s are tried by fire.
P.S MN would I allow you to teach a bible study? Absolutely but don’t get me wrong teaching is not preaching you’d have to defend your position. After all is said and done we can agree to disagree.

Sorry Mel…………I attributed the first article but forgot to do so for the second. Thank you for correcting that.

Well Msamu……….this is really a peripheral issue. Certainly nothing that gets anyone labeled as an apostate. You believe all the essentials of the Gospel just as we do. That being so, you’re a brother and I could no more deny that you have a part in the Body of Christ over THIS issue than over someone who believes that the Sabbath must be observed.

“IN ESSENTIALS UNITY, (which we have) IN NON-ESSENTIALS LIBERTY,(which we ALL [myself included] must be willing to extend) IN ALL THINGS CHARITY.

Now…….back to the pimps

Msamu you typed:

one would have to have absolute truth in that area to defend their claim that one is a false teacher. So what about the scriptures warning of false teacher’s? I don’t know I guess each believer is responsibly for their own salvation

First off, the claim that one needs absolute truth in an area in order to label another a false teacher is itself false. One need only to know the basics claims of a teaching to notice variations or falsehoods that are being imposed on that teaching by someone in order to label that person a false teacher.

For example, I don’t need to have absolute knowledge of human births to know that if you were trying to teach me that “All babies that are born, start out as girls even if they later become boys”. I have three sons and neither of them were born girls first. So although I haven’t been at every birth of every child ever born, (which would qualify as absolute knowledge) I would still be able to call you a false teacher if you held to that claim.

Secondly, for only maybe the third time since I’ve been coming to this site you’ve actually said something that I totally agreed with. As far as the bible and what it teaches, I agree, YOU DON’T KNOW! The bible warns us of false teachers which means that we are able to identify them. God affirms that His children are able to understand His word and to apply it to their life. How? Because He gives them the ability to do so! If you don’t have this ability, then you should recognize why!

By the way, I knew you had an agenda with those questions. Same old Msamu, “no one has truth, but I’m not lying”, “no one can teach, but listen to me”, “education is worthless, but I kan’t spel ur mke cumpleet centecess”. I guess some things never change!

o.k LD which denomonation has the false teachers, I named 5 their are more, which one is right? Their can only be one truth, one’s right all others are worng. So please bless use with your discovery

(MN: Let me try again. Your question is something of a nonesense question. There are false teachers in all denominations. Here let me say it a little louder so you won’t miss it. THERE ARE FALSE TEACHERS IN ALL DENOMINATIONS! It’s not a matter of which denominations have false teachers. Rather it is a question of what teachings do I consider false in the denominations. But even with that, those things that I perceive as false don’t have to be fellowship breakers.

By the way again, depending on how you respond to this, you may be done on this thread as well. You’re simply not going anywhere productive with your comments/questions. )

Lord Lawrence D god of all understanding, your correct some things never change. We’ll agree to disagree.

MN : my response was to the god of all understanding, maybe you should read his response to me, I have no problem with your Understanding I’M IN AGGREMENT WITH YOU!!!!, humans are prone to error thus we have teaching errors and different view’s this does not necessarily mean one is a false teacher. My issue is with the lord Lawrence D god of all understanding who insist on labeling anyone that does not hold to his biblical interpretations as either ignorant or some kinda false teacher but it’s kool, I’m willing to agree to disagree with the teachers pet and move on.

(MN: My comment stands. Start making sense and be productive, or stop commenting on this thread. Again, getting something wrong does not automatically make me a farlse teacher. By the way, LD isn’t saying that. He doesn’t say you have to hold to his interpretation. This absolute statement of yours is one of the reasons you are risking restriction from this and similar threads.

Consider yourself dropped from this specfic discussion. )

Hey Mel,

I want to let Msamu off the hook a little. (I’m going to regret this but the truth makes us free!)

I have, on several occasions, referred to Msamu and DTG as false teachers. I have done so when several discussions, including Preterism, have arised. I must admit that I do not regard either of them as Christian brothers. Mental assent to the essentials is not a clear indicator of conversion. Though they both affirm what is called the essentials, in my opinion (and that’s all it is), neither of them demonstrate the effect of having the Holy Spirit working in their hearts when it comes to certain discussions. No Holy Spirit influenced person would be against anything that the scriptures are clearly promoting. Knowledge, faithful teachers, sound biblical interpretation; they not only raise disagreement over what each one is (without reasons I might add) but they also deny (covertly at times) the need for either.

Now again I have to make it clear, I think that playing the “essentials/non-essentials” game is pretty dangerous. Most of it is based off of “deathbed conversions” and the thief on the cross scenario. Neither we nor Msamu and DTG are in those situations. We not only have the OPPORTUNITY to study to show ourselves approved unto God, workmen who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, we also have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so. Therefore, the most that I could concede is to the addage that where the bible is silent, we should be silent. However, where the bible speaks, whether explicitlly or implicitly, I believe the true believer will affirm those things.

So far as the absolute knowledge discussion, I believe it is as you said. When it comes to doctrine, if we are saying different things, we can’t all be right but we can all be wrong. I just believe that the warnings of scripture are to heavy to not seek to be correct, as you said.

We CAN have absolute knowledge about the things the bible teaches. How else could we rightly divide it? What we CAN’T have is EXHAUSTIVE knowledge. For example, Jesus was born of a virgin. I’m absolutely sure of it!
On what date? I don’t know. On what day of the week? Nope, don’t know that either. Time of day? Can’t say that I know that either.

What’s my point? I can know everything that God wants me to know as He has revealed it in scripture. As I said before, it’s convincing others that I know it that is the problem. As humans with many frailties and shortcomings, we have a hard time seeing anyone as “having it right”. But that is exactly how God said that we could and should have it. And I believe Him!

By the way, since I’m your “pet”, this is where you either give me a treat or hit me on the nose with a rolled up newspaper! LOL!!! So long as you don’t shoot me. Peta wouldn’t like that. (HA!HA!HA!)

(MN: Here’s a treat for your honesty and willingness to speak your convictions. But I want you to hold it on your nose until I give you the signal.

Okay, snap it up. )

MN: Does a benevolent dictator apologize?
Or because he’s merciful I Live another day.

(MN: Benevolent Dictators never apologize. They merely admit that you didn’t hear them correctly. )

I can finally say thanks snap it up!

MSAMU told me not to print his comment. But I don’t have his e-mail handy.

I do want to say that I didn’t say you are a fool. I said you are foolish.