| Messages (newest first): |
[Sort by Oldest first]
|
|
Page 4/135 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 37 [21332] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Friday 25 May 2012 - 09:58pm |
Davidr - postmodernism is so 1990s! So, you join the Mark Benet 'we cannot understand words' camp.... fine.... if you are convinced by that.... but Lambeth 1.10 still says certain practice is 'incompatible with scripture'.... (not that unclear, is it?) and few buy doing intellectual backflips to try and pretend it means the opposite (open revisionists certainly don't bother, they have the courage to say they are going against scripture when they....go against scripture!).... and when scripture only ever condemns any activity, I do not dare tell anyone that it is possible to interpret it to be just fine by God...... if He never says so (in any circumstances)........ and I notice Christ was not too impressed by the pharisees' attempts to avoid being obedient while being religious (Mark 7:9-14) ...He demanded that they obey both the letter and the spirit of the law........ but He ain't no postmodernist.....no an excuser of sin as Mark 7 goes on to explain. |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 38 [21324] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Thursday 24 May 2012 - 11:54pm |
| Charles.... It does not follow that because church teaching can err, people are free to ignore it at will, does it? If one disagrees with Lambeth 1.10, then change the mind of the communion....... But there is no integrity in merely ignoring the position of the church..... And no sense in trying to pretend it doesn't say some activity is incompatible with scripture. And if some teach what the church says is incompatible with scripture, why on earth should evangelicals who disagree with them pay for them to mislead people?? Nothing in scripture to say they should.... Quite the opposite. |
|
|
|
| Should Orthodox Christians depart from Fulcrum ? |
| 39 [21323] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Thursday 24 May 2012 - 11:48pm |
| Hi waterangel. Revelation is not talking about how the church should deal with false teaching when we are given a picture of lions and lambs living in peace. But the new testament does talk of how the church is to respond to false teaching.....but some want to ignore it. And it does not suggest we subsidise false teaching but says we are to have nothing to do with it. Christ himself warned that wolves would come into the church disguised as harmless sheep..... The new testament couldn't be clearer re false teaching..... It never suggests accommodation of or compromise with it.... And certainly not paying for it. .... That is why nobody below gives a scriptural reason to pay for the expensive decline of revisionists. Perhaps we might do well to follow the new testament re church order.... If we are evangelicals. |
|
|
|
| Wycliffe |
| 40 [21316] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Thursday 24 May 2012 - 02:27pm |
| Lots of excellent evangelical people have the academic credibility and faithfulness to do the job .....Maybe Dr Goddard..... |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 41 [21315] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Thursday 24 May 2012 - 12:33pm |
| Davidr, yet again the pretence that we are only talking of interpretation.....Rather than people going against the teaching of the church.....and the church catholic in the last 2000 yrs.. I wonder why you, Simon Morden et al think its convincing to pretend that, for example, Lambeth 1.10 does not call some practice is 'incompatible with scripture'..... Not my interpretation, it says that....read it. Now, given the open teaching against this 'mind of the Communion', why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund those teaching that the same behaviour is just fine, even though they never show it is ever ok on scripture? I bet you don't answer yet again..... Well, you pay for false teaching if you want..... You might as well teach the same if you pay for others to teach it |
|
|
|
| Should Orthodox Christians depart from Fulcrum ? |
| 42 [21307] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Wednesday 23 May 2012 - 09:31pm |
| David Baker - sure, manner is important.... But how do you propose to obey the teaching, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to have nothing to do with false teachers? Now, we can avoid the red herring repeated below re who decides what is fakse by only taking stated church positions, eg Lambeth 1.10..... Is it not consistent with your call for the right attitude to politely refuse to subsidise the work of those who teach what 'the mind of the Communion', not I, calls incompatible with scripture? Surely a polite manner but paying for some to teach against scripture is not right.... for an evangelical looking to what scripture says re the church and dealing with disruptive false teaching ? Over the decades, what have evangelicals gained by paying for false teaching in Southwark? Just token promotions.... And rising quotas given how few go to hear revisionists.....politely refusing to pay for those going against the mind of the communion is all we can do...... If we take what scripture says re church order and when not to associate with some.... We were never to welcome and feed wolves even if they dressed as sheep |
|
|
|
| Should Orthodox Christians depart from Fulcrum ? |
| 43 [21302] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Wednesday 23 May 2012 - 11:45am |
| Simon, that's the best yet.... so Lambeth 1.10 says we have no position and therefore it's find to engage in practice incompatible with scripture? You've never shown the same practice is ever compatible with scripture, so you're now pretending Lambeth 1.10 doesn't say what it says...... And rules for clergy in cps must be fictitious too? |
|
|
|
| Should Orthodox Christians depart from Fulcrum ? |
| 44 [21277] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 11:57am |
| Peter, I post because Fulcrum positions are biblical (apart from the lack of love for 'weaker brothers' sometimes ie those who disagree with Fulcrum on WO....which is very disappointing). It's good to debate with openly revisionist Anglicans and those revisionists who are still in the closet but call themselves evangelical because they were once....they may even come out of the closet when failing repeatedly to back up their arguments from scripture...but they seem to revise the meaning of 'evangelical' to fit their views, sadly, even when unable to justify their revisionist positions from scripture. Some trolling posts appear from non Anglicans... they are irrelevant. But, given Fulcrum positions (apart from not making space for 'weaker brothers' re WO and bishops) are biblical, it is good to debate here..... And people like Andrew Goddard and others on the Fulcrum team do greatly valuable work for evangelicals' witness in the cofE..... And take heat for their convictions....for which I'm grateful to them. |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 45 [21276] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Tuesday 22 May 2012 - 11:40am |
| Davidr...yet again you repeat yourself but ignore questions about the fact that there have been decades of people in the cofE openly teaching eg what is 'incompatible with scripture' in terms of what the ABC calls 'the mind of the Communion' and also going against other church positions often ....your failure to deal with that old reality does not give your argument any credibility...... We are not dealing with a new or rare phenomenon. Unless you agree with those who teach what is incompatible with scripture, why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund them ? I guess you have no answer from scripture so you'll fail to answer the question yet again? |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 46 [21267] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Monday 21 May 2012 - 06:54pm |
| Davidr...Irish coffee may be needed! I responded to your assertion re arguments from silence by referring you to all the very loud NT teaching which says have nothing to do with false teachers..... Which cannot include funding them! You do indeed continue to ignore that noisy teaching and questions re applying it to Southwark after decades, for example, of evidence of people going against the mind of the Communion....why (from scripture) should evangelicals fund them to teach anything incompatible with scripture? (I wonder if you will at last answer the question.....or distract again?) |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 47 [21257] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Sunday 20 May 2012 - 08:59pm |
| Hello Davidr, it's simple..... The NT says we should support gospel work.... But it also says that not all who claim to be doing gospel work are genuine and we should judge (1 Cor 5:12) and have nothing to do with false teaching.... In Matthew 7, Christ warns that we must look out for wolves dressed as sheep.... He doesn't say feed them for obvious reasons! Now, unless you are not sure re Lambeth 1.10, for example, after decades of patience in Southwark, why on earth (or from scripture) should evangelicals fund those who teach what 'the mind of the Communion' says is incompatible with scripture? |
|
|
|
| Reports of an Alternative Trust Fund established in Southwark |
| 48 [21246] Posted by: nersenpaul |
Sunday 20 May 2012 - 12:18am |
| So, only institutionalist but no biblical arguments below to fund teaching incompatible with scripture....and biblical teaching ignored re having nothing to do with false teachers .... Classical revisionism, selective....unconvincing. Funding teaching incompatible with scripture is as bad as teaching people it's just fine to go against scripture if the 'Garudian' disagrees with it ...... Indefensible for any non-revisionist meaning of 'evangelical'....as the lack of scriptural arguments for funding those undermining church biblical teaching from within below shows.......... |
|
|
|
|
Page 4/135 |
First |
Previous |
Next |
Last
| Top
|
