Me too, Frok. I posted him not to cause contention but to edify the saints ( would definitely encourage anyone in the Spring / NW Houston Area to go listen to him). I am not able to articulate my words ad he can, it's a blessing to hear him say what I wish I was able to convey. He is also very big on the family unit, as well as a great discerner of current events and how to address them.

(Not to mention, he is highly intelligent! He played football at Rice and did graduate work at Oxford! Not bad for a boy from he gangland of LA).

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would I reject the Pauline epistles (and thus most on the New Testament) because some secular scholars say it wasn't written by Paul?

---

Who said it was some secular scholars? Its most scholars of all type of back ground, it's most scholars period, including the bible believing variety. And you should reject or accept the pauline epistles as authentic based on the evidence laid out by those scholars rather than blindly accept what you wish to be true. However, you appear totally ignorant of the scholarship on the issue so I will note that many books are near universally attributed to paul (First Thessalonians for instance). And having clear works written by paul is a great measure with which to determine which books are not written by him.

quote:

---

I believe Paul authored both books of Timothy because he said he did.

---

The author claims to be paul, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.

---

You are right in that I am quite ignorant, and more along the lines of scary stupid if I might be frank. I could potentially be one of the dumbest guys I know, save one or two. That being said, how much more is God glorified that he would use a complete idiot like me to share the gospel. Thankfully he uses the foolish to confound the wise.

Also, I have not taken anything at "blind faith". If you reject the Bible as an unbeliever, that's your decision. However, you have yet to show me even one genuine Christian apologist or scholar that preaches salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone and simultaneously rejects the Pauline epistles.

Again, I care nothing about what tactics some secular scholars or ecumenicalists use to reject the authority of scripture. John 1 tells us why they hate the light, and men will continue to reject the light because it exposes their deeds. So color me unimpressed by guys with tons of "religious degrees" and no relationship with Jesus Christ.

(who knows.......they're probably mad that Paul himself was a highly educated man, a voting member of the Sanhedrin that studied under Gamaliel. Yet in his letter to the Philippians he counted all his scholarly credentials and religious works as "dung", and how much more he valued Christ).

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would I reject the Pauline epistles (and thus most on the New Testament) because some secular scholars say it wasn't written by Paul?

---

Who said it was some secular scholars? Its most scholars of all type of back ground, it's most scholars period, including the bible believing variety. And you should reject or accept the pauline epistles as authentic based on the evidence laid out by those scholars rather than blindly accept what you wish to be true. However, you appear totally ignorant of the scholarship on the issue so I will note that many books are near universally attributed to paul (First Thessalonians for instance). And having clear works written by paul is a great measure with which to determine which books are not written by him.

quote:

---

I believe Paul authored both books of Timothy because he said he did.

---

The author claims to be paul, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.

---

You are right in that I am quite ignorant, and more along the lines of scary stupid if I might be frank. I could potentially be one of the dumbest guys I know, save one or two. That being said, how much more is God glorified that he would use a complete idiot like me to share the gospel. Thankfully he uses the foolish to confound the wise.

Also, I have not taken anything at "blind faith". If you reject the Bible as an unbeliever, that's your decision. However, you have yet to show me even one genuine Christian apologist or scholar that preaches salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone and simultaneously rejects the Pauline epistles.

Again, I care nothing about what tactics some secular scholars or ecumenicalists use to reject the authority of scripture. John 1 tells us why they hate the light, and men will continue to reject the light because it exposes their deeds. So color me unimpressed by guys with tons of "religious degrees" and not relationship with Jesus Christ.

---

Please spend a little time reading up. If you would do that, I bet you would not say the things you just said.

Here is a Catholic dude to help you out. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-Disputed.htm

These aren't only secular scholars that reject Pauline authorship of many of the epistles. Many are devout Catholic and protestants.

This concept seems new to you. Read up on it and it may open your eyes.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Also, I have not taken anything at "blind faith".

---

I see nothing but that. And regardless of your own personal regard for your intelligence, I can find someone dumber who believes in other gods and shares that belief, for whatever peculiar reason you find that compelling.

quote:

---

f you reject the Bible as an unbeliever, that's your decision. However, you have yet to show me even one genuine Christian apologist or scholar that preaches salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, to the glory of God alone and simultaneously rejects the Pauline epistles.

---

Ugh. It's not al the epistles, it's certain ones. And I'm not sure why that would matter since it's about facts, not someone who believes what you believe. It's bizzare that you would only accept information from people who already agree with you. It's like asking for evidence of evolution but only if ken ham agrees. But christians aren't hard to find who reject the authorship of some or many books. Im doubtful you find a YEC with such beliefs, but christians aren't rare among scholars and the majority reject certain books.

quote:

---

Again, I care nothing about what tactics some secular scholars or ecumenicalists use to reject the authority of scripture.

---

It's not just secular scholars. I'm not sure who you consider proponents of ecumenicalism as I rarely see the term regarded so harshly. I think you might mean anyone who isn't some kind of southern protestant I dont' know.

quote:

---

John 1 tells us why they hate the light, and men will continue to reject the light because it exposes their deeds. So color me unimpressed by guys with tons of "religious degrees" and not relationship with Jesus Christ.

---

You don't know anything about their faith. Your are an incurious person who is rejecting while knowing nothing. Protestants and catholics alike can be found among the ranks of educated scholars. Even conservative ones (maybe not YEC, but pretty normal jesus loving folks).

And the statement about exposing their deeds is quite laughable and ignorant. I stand by my deeds, it's nothing to do with why I don't believe.

Tampa, I agree with you about that the key is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Where we disagree my brother iis that Christians with a deep relationship with Christ can read scripture and get different interpretations.

This is not on the basic fundamentals that I have listed before, therefore as discussion of these appears to cause discord, I will avoid them in the future. In fact, I am taking a break from here but I thoroughly appreciate the kind, civil discussions.

God bless you all.

Doc, I absolutely agree that many verses are exposited differently and realize many Christians will have different views on non-salvational doctrines.

However, adding to or taking away from God's Word isn't something we should take lightly. Every major cult was built upon the extra-Biblical revelations of their leader (JWs, SDAs, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc). In other words, the Bible was insufficient and needed new doctrines.

Additionally, I don't think we can throw away the scriptures that aren't going to be welcomed by contemporary culture. Marco, Maplethorpe, and 08 find the message of repentance towards God and the exclusitivity of faith in Jesus Christ alone repulsive. They might resort to name calling and circular arguments, but they will never find a born again Christian (as defined by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the RCC religious system - sorry Marco....I laid out the tenets off faith and all you did was post some liberal religious instructor that rejects them).

quote:

---

Doc, I absolutely agree that many verses are exposited differently and realize many Christians will have different views on non-salvational doctrines.

However, adding to or taking away from God's Word isn't something we should take lightly. Every major cult was built upon the extra-Biblical revelations of their leader (JWs, SDAs, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc). In other words, the Bible was insufficient and needed new doctrines.

Additionally, I don't think we can throw away the scriptures that aren't going to be welcomed by contemporary culture. Marco, Maplethorpe, and 08 find the message of repentance towards God and the exclusitivity of faith in Jesus Christ alone repulsive. They might resort to name calling and circular arguments, but they will never find a born again Christian (as defined by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone, not the RCC religious system - sorry Marco....I laid out the tenets off faith and all you did was post some liberal religious instructor that rejects them).

---

Please show me where I expressed the opinion that the gospel is repulsive. Admitting that some of the Pauline epistles were probably not written by Paul (or that 2 Peter was a forgery, for that matter) doesn't mean I hate Christianity. It also doesn't mean Christianity somehow falls apart or even that the disputed epistles are useless. What it does problematize is the fundamentalist theory that the Bible is 100% infallible: did God inspire scripture writers to lie about their identities? But This is stuff you would learn in most any seminary in America for crying out loud. God gave you the ability to learn and think critically, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water. It appears youd rather categorically dismiss anyone who dares to question than actually learn anything.

What circular logic? We are just trying to convey information, not make an argument.

quote:

---

Every major cult was built upon the extra-Biblical revelations of their leader (JWs, SDAs, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc).

---

By 'Campbellites', are you referring to members of the Church of Christ? Do you believe the CoC is a cult?

quote:

---

dditionally, I don't think we can throw away the scriptures that aren't going to be welcomed by contemporary culture. Marco, Maplethorpe, and 08 find the message of repentance towards God and the exclusitivity of faith in Jesus Christ alone repulsive

---

The main problem with fundamentalist is they are taught how to not think. Rather than examine the specific claims and the specific evidence, you've decided upon a whim that people who make such claims are your enemy and are rejecting your claims based on doctrine rather than fact. It's this inability to think, to reason from another perspective and to look at things objectively that so poison the mind. This rationalization of anything and everything also infects your political worldview which is why we see such nonsense on the politics board as well from fundamentalist christians. Were you only to look, you would find plenty of firm protestant (since catholics are going to hell I guess) christians who understand these issues of authorship. And it's hardly just the pauline epistles, that moses didn't write the Pentateuch is taught regularly at seminary for some time now.

quote:

---

Every major cult was built upon the extra-Biblical revelations of their leader (JWs, SDAs, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc). In other words, the Bible was insufficient and needed new doctrines.

---

If you knew but a little of your religions history you would know how varied canon has been over the ages particularly early on, and how late the bible you read now was fully established, and also how it varies still from the orthodox and catholic bibles.

quote:

---

And the point being is that except for the TRUE fundamentals, I. E. Jesus is the Son of God, died for our sins, rose on the third day and if we believe on him we shall not perish, everything else can be read and interpreted differently by Spirit filled serious Christian scholars. That is why I don't like tracts or signs. Happy to witness and do it all day long but I stick to the TRUE fundamentals.

---

My issue is that sticking to the true fundamental teachings is so hard (the above, and then add the beatitudes, Golden Rule, the lessons from the parables and maybe the fruits of the spirit get in, too). We all fall short, so the discussion about almost everything else is a distraction. It can be fun. It can bring people together. It most often pushes people apart, though.

Tampa,
I'd really be curious as to your response to this:

quote:

---

Every major cult was built upon the extra-Biblical revelations of their leader (JWs, SDAs, Mormonism, Oneness Pentecostals, Campbellites, etc).

---

By 'Campbellites', are you referring to members of the Church of Christ? Do you believe the CoC is a cult?

RetiredAg,

A very good pastor friend of mine in West Virginia had a prison ministry and saw quite a few inmates repent and trust Jesus Christ as their Savior. He held frequent Bible studies there and though many of them were in for lengthy sentences (not sure if any were lifers or not), there was pure
joy when they'd gather together and sing hymns to God and study His word. Their lives had been changed and they were set free from the dark pasts that had landed them in prison. One day my friend went to the prison for their normal Bible study and all the guys were down. They didn't want to sing. They didn't
want to read the Bible. I believe some of them that had been faithful to the Bible study didn't even bother showing up. He asked them what was wrong, as they were all in high spirits and had a great time fellowshipping in the Lord just a few days prior.

In turns out that a Church of Christ minister had visitedthe prison and upon speaking with these men, he told them they were not saved. He told them they couldn't be saved until they were baptized and without baptismal regeneration they were still dead in their sin and on their way to hell. These new converts hadn't been baptized and most of them likely wouldn't be for a long time.

In short, ANYONE that adds baptism to the finished work ofJesus Christ is a heretic. I do believe we should be baptized in obedience with the two ordinances of Christ and the new covenant (the other being communion). However, our regeneration is in the blood of Jesus Christ alone and not any
religious work. I know you attend a COC, but I don't think you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, do you?

(FWIW, I do find it hard to believe that any genuine bornagain believer would refuse to be baptized. Every professing Christian I know that refused baptism eventually fell away from the faith).

So, you believe they are a cult?

quote:

---

I know you attend a COC, but I don't think you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, do you?

---

No, I do not believe it is absolutely necessary. But I also know that traditional CoC people can provide scriptural reasoning behind their belief. I don't agree with it, but to call them a cult or heretics is absurd.

quote:

---

So, you believe they are a cult?

quote:

---

I know you attend a COC, but I don't think you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, do you?

---

No, I do not believe it is absolutely necessary. But I also know that traditional CoC people can provide scriptural reasoning behind their belief. I don't agree with it, but to call them a cult or heretics is absurd.

---

I believe the innate congregations of Alexander Campbell were a cult. I don't know if cult is the proper term for the modern COC. I have friends in COC churches and the COC does a lot of good, not to mention I respect their moral standards (disagree about their refraining of instrumental worship, but I don't think all COC assemblies adhere to that).

However, I don't think there's anything absurd about deeming those that claim the blood of Jesus Christ is insufficient for salvation as heretical. (If ones believes in baptismal regeneration, that's exactly what they're saying - the blood isn't enough and something must be added to it to cleanse a man of his sins).

quote:

---

RetiredAg,

A very good pastor friend of mine in West Virginia had a prison ministry and saw quite a few inmates repent and trust Jesus Christ as their Savior. He held frequent Bible studies there and though many of them were in for lengthy sentences (not sure if any were lifers or not), there was pure
joy when they'd gather together and sing hymns to God and study His word. Their lives had been changed and they were set free from the dark pasts that had landed them in prison. One day my friend went to the prison for their normal Bible study and all the guys were down. They didn't want to sing. They didn't
want to read the Bible. I believe some of them that had been faithful to the Bible study didn't even bother showing up. He asked them what was wrong, as they were all in high spirits and had a great time fellowshipping in the Lord just a few days prior.

In turns out that a Church of Christ minister had visitedthe prison and upon speaking with these men, he told them they were not saved. He told them they couldn't be saved until they were baptized and without baptismal regeneration they were still dead in their sin and on their way to hell. These new converts hadn't been baptized and most of them likely wouldn't be for a long time.

In short, ANYONE that adds baptism to the finished work ofJesus Christ is a heretic. I do believe we should be baptized in obedience with the two ordinances of Christ and the new covenant (the other being communion). However, our regeneration is in the blood of Jesus Christ alone and not any
religious work. I know you attend a COC, but I don't think you believe baptism is necessary for salvation, do you?

(FWIW, I do find it hard to believe that any genuine bornagain believer would refuse to be baptized. Every professing Christian I know that refused baptism eventually fell away from the faith).

---

So, I attend a Church of Christ.

I will start with the fact that CoC is a loosely organized fellowship, and not many two CoC's teach the exact same thing.

I find your language and opinion pretty strong.

I obviously don't agree on the CoC minister passing judgment on anyone. Not his job.

That being said, I would say that baptism is a pretty important part of the whole Christian thing, was a pretty important event in Jesus's life, and actually is part of the Great Commission.

You might have your own opinion on whether or not someone who is or is not baptized will be saved. I try not to. I do not agree with you if you are saying that teaching baptism is not an important part of our mission to evangelize.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I do not agree with you if you are saying that teaching baptism is not an important part of our mission to evangelize.

---

---

Where did you get that? I clearly stated I would doubt if someone is truly born again if they had access to baptism and blatantly refused it. I encourage believers to be baptized as soon as possible and teach them on the ordinances and doctrines of the New Testament Church. However, I'd never tell someone"...you've repented and trusted Christ as your savior. Great job! You're almost there. Now, we need to get you baptized because until we do so.....you're still dead in your sins".

So, that was a "yes" to Retired's question, then.

I just found out I was raised in a cult and that my parents are cult members. I need to go think on that for a spell.

quote:

---

So, that was a "yes" to Retired's question, then.

I just found out I was raised in a cult and that my parents are cult members. I need to go think on that for a spell.

---

Marco,
The thing is, they can actually point to scriptures to support their views on baptism. I grew up in a baptist church and was told if you aren't saved w/ a KJV bible, then you aren't really saved. All other versions were called "perversions". The pastor would actually refer to it as the "New International Perversion".

Then again, that was independent/fundamental baptists.

Marco, I would ask you if you think baptism is necessary for salvation, but you probably don't care. You already reject the exclusivity in Christ, doubt there's even a God, and believe the Bible is both inaccurate and contains deliberate lies. So given those aforementioned points, I'm not so sure why you're seemingly defending the COC. (Unless it's for pure contention, which I think you kind of enjoy).

Is "heretical" better than "cultish"? I'm flexible.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, that was a "yes" to Retired's question, then.

I just found out I was raised in a cult and that my parents are cult members. I need to go think on that for a spell.

---

Marco,
The thing is, they can actually point to scriptures to support their views on baptism. I grew up in a baptist church and was told if you aren't saved w/ a KJV bible, then you aren't really saved. All other versions were called "perversions". The pastor would actually refer to it as the "New International Perversion".

Then again, that was independent/fundamental baptists.

---

As one preacher I used to listen to would often say, most of us are in a long process of detoxing from bad religion and bad theology.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, that was a "yes" to Retired's question, then.

I just found out I was raised in a cult and that my parents are cult members. I need to go think on that for a spell.

---

Marco,
The thing is, they can actually point to scriptures to support their views on baptism. I grew up in a baptist church and was told if you aren't saved w/ a KJV bible, then you aren't really saved. All other versions were called "perversions". The pastor would actually refer to it as the "New International Perversion".

Then again, that was independent/fundamental baptists.

---

I got saved with the combination of the NIV and HCSB Bibles. Praise God!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So, that was a "yes" to Retired's question, then.

I just found out I was raised in a cult and that my parents are cult members. I need to go think on that for a spell.

---

Marco,
The thing is, they can actually point to scriptures to support their views on baptism. I grew up in a baptist church and was told if you aren't saved w/ a KJV bible, then you aren't really saved. All other versions were called "perversions". The pastor would actually refer to it as the "New International Perversion".

Then again, that was independent/fundamental baptists.

---

As one preacher I used to listen to would often say, most of us are in a long process of detoxing from bad religion and bad theology.

---

Agreed, sir.

quote:

---

Is "heretical" better than "cultish"? I'm flexible.

---

Couple of definitions...

cult

klt/noun

a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

heretic

hertik/noun

a person believing in or practicing religious heresy

heresy

hersy/noun

belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine."

"Huss was burned for heresy"

quote:

---

Marco, I would ask you if you think baptism is necessary for salvation, but you probably don't care. You already reject the exclusivity in Christ, doubt there's even a God, and believe the Bible is both inaccurate and contains deliberate lies. So given those aforementioned points, I'm not so sure why you're seemingly defending the COC. (Unless it's for pure contention, which I think you kind of enjoy).

Is "heretical" better than "cultish"? I'm flexible.

---

I'll be the first to gripe about the COC because I know it very well and have a conflicted relationship with the denomination. But to label the entire denomination as heretical or to use a pejorative like "cultish" is a bit much, to me.

As for that other stuff, I'll just say that I resent a lot of the way you characterize me. It's ok, I understand. I was raised in the COC.

he wasn't doing too bad until about 16 minutes in. there is PLENTY of archeological evidence that contradicts the bible. the fact that he thinks none of it does doesn't warrant me to continue listening.

quote:

---

he wasn't doing too bad until about 16 minutes in. there is PLENTY of archeological evidence that contradicts the bible. the fact that he thinks none of it does doesn't warrant me to continue listening.

---

Eh.

Nothing that I have seen calls into question in my mind the fact that Jesus lived in the time that he did, said the things that he did, or any of the important stuff.

I'm not sure if there were really hundreds of thousands that crossed the desert during leaving Egypt, or if the number was a lot smaller.

These are different in my mind.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I do not agree with you if you are saying that teaching baptism is not an important part of our mission to evangelize.

---

---

Where did you get that? I clearly stated I would doubt if someone is truly born again if they had access to baptism and blatantly refused it. I encourage believers to be baptized as soon as possible and teach them on the ordinances and doctrines of the New Testament Church. However, I'd never tell someone"...you've repented and trusted Christ as your savior. Great job! You're almost there. Now, we need to get you baptized because until we do so.....you're still dead in your sins".

---

Yeah,

I wouldn't either. For different reasons, I guess.