ECT Question for MADs re: disputes, debates, foolish questions, etc

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
What's your opinion of this?

It is impossible to keep the truth without separating from false doctrine and maintaining church discipline. It is good to ask sincere questions in the honest search for the truth, but [here's the point of the thread] it is evil to entertain questions that deny Bible truth. Our questions must be controlled by the Bible, not the Bible by our questions.

Foolish questions are not to be entertained. A foolish question is a question that is asked insincerely by a heretic with the goal of confusing people and leading them astray from sound doctrine. This is the immediate context of Titus 3:9-10. A heretic is someone who is self-willed and has rejected sound doctrine in favor of his own opinions and perversions of the truth. The terms heretic and heresy refer to the willful choice of false doctrine, a willful alignment with error. The heretic is not content with the plain teaching of Scripture but pursues his own agenda.

A foolish question is also a question that produces strife and contention among Bible-believing Christians. Titus 3:9 associates foolish questions with “contentions and strivings,” and 2 Timothy 2:23 says foolish questions “gender strifes.” When someone only wants to argue with the Word of God, he stirs up strife and doubt and confusion among others and causes trouble in the churches.

This is exactly what we find in emerging church circles. A foolish question is one that is used in an attempt to overthrow plain Bible teaching, such as questions about the Trinity or Christ’s bodily Resurrection and virgin birth or biblical inspiration or the eternal suffering of Hell or separation from the world.

If the Bible says all unbelievers will suffer conscious eternal torment in fire, which it does, we must not entertain questions that speculate if this is a just punishment. If the Bible claims to be the infallible Word of God, which it does, we are not to question how this could be possible. If the Bible says we are not to love this world, which it does, we are not to question whether this might be a narrow, “legalistic” position.

False teachers must be dealt with and not ignored, and the scriptural way to deal with them is to put them out of the assemblies and to separate the believers from them. A heretic is not a person who is merely ignorant of sound doctrine. A true believer can be ignorant of sound doctrine but the evidence that he is not a heretic will be seen when he responds to sound doctrine and rejects the error. The mouths of heretics are stopped by refuting their questions and by putting them out of the assemblies (Titus 3:10-11).

The heretic is to be admonished two times (Titus 3:10). An effort is to be made to reclaim the heretic from his error. It is possible that he is not truly a heretic but that he is only teaching out of ignorance, but the effort is not to be long and drawn out.

The heretic is to be admonished only two times (Titus 3:10). When it is obvious that he is set in his false ways, he must be rejected and put out of the assembly; otherwise, he will corrupt others.“A little leaven spreads though the whole batch” (Gal. 5:9).

If a person asks a sincere question, it should be answered from the Bible, but if he is asking a question to try to spread rebellion and promote false doctrine and draw people away from the truth, it is not profitable to answer it.

The heretic condemns himself by his self-willed commitment to error. "Knowing that such a person is corrupted and sinning, and is self-condemned” (Titus 3:11). There is something wrong in the heretic’s heart.


-- David Cloud
Click to expand...
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I agree with most of it.
Folks try to 'soften' GOD's wrath in areas they think He is too overbearing.

Bob Enyart did a nice article too, called "Nicer Than GOD".
http://kgov.com/nicer-than-God,

And there are times that folks think scripture is just too fantastical to be true as stated, so they search for a more appealing interpretation, often turning it all into a 'spiritual' meaning.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
musterion said:
So...with regard to the endless debates, brawls, contretemps, imbroglios, slap-fights and spats we all get embroiled in here...?
Click to expand...
I like 'em! Sometimes.
:)

I, personally, shy away from a "it always has to be done THIS way".
Ecc 3:1-8


Proverbs 26:4-5 KJV
(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.


Above we have both, answer a fool and don't answer a fool.
I think you have to seek wisdom to know which approach is needed at the time.

I think there can be valid points made during arguments and heated debates.
Then again, I think there are times it is just not beneficial to carry on with it.
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
My disagreement with Cloud:

"If the Bible says.... If the Bible claims"

Of course, one of the reasons there are so many denominations, is that there are respective differences in interpreting what "the bible says/claims." That is, his argument of "If the Bible says.... If the Bible claims" assumes a doctrinal truth, which must first be argued. Whose interpretation of what "the bible says/claims?" His?

For eg.-his...

"If the Bible claims to be the infallible Word of God, which it does, we are not to question how this could be possible. "

By that argument, a JW could assert(wrongly-my doctrinal assertion):


"If the Bible claims that Jesus Christ was not divine, but God's only direct creation, which it does, we are not to question how this could be possible."


So, Cloud here is providing an argument of sophistry, which says NADA.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
I don't see any validity to D'ism so I keep trying to oppose it. I find it to be fantastical and wishful on the clearest of passages.

Paul was referring to Judaisers in his pastoral letters. You can tell from Acts. It most often came down to Judaism's denial of who Christ was. In Acts 26 it clearly came down to their not seeing their people's hope fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ and to undercutting that the resurrection had ever happened. That unfortunately meant that they would seek to fight and win against Rome. and they lost. But to know any of that and to correlate it to the NT is 'sin' to D'ism.

Paul did not teach anything from the Prophets beyond the suffering of christ and his glorification and preaching throughout the world to the nations. Read it for yourself 10x. Nothing beyond. Like Acts 1's 'it is not for you to know'.

Yet D'ism spends all its time trying to know, saying it knows, and saying every other view is 'made up' and worthless.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
john w said:
My disagreement with Cloud:

"If the Bible says.... If the Bible claims"

Of course, one of the reasons there are so many denominations, is that there are respective differences in interpreting what "the bible says/claims." That is, his argument of "If the Bible says.... If the Bible claims" assumes a doctrinal truth, which must first be argued. Whose interpretation of what "the bible says/claims?" His?

For eg.-his...

"If the Bible claims to be the infallible Word of God, which it does, we are not to question how this could be possible. "

By that argument, a JW could assert(wrongly-my doctrinal assertion):


"If the Bible claims that Jesus Christ was not divine, but God's only direct creation, which it does, we are not to question how this could be possible."


So, Cloud here is providing an argument of sophistry, which says NADA.
Click to expand...

Good point. I was assuming the general principles would be from our perspective as MADs, not his as an indy fundie baptizer.
 
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
I don't see any validity to D'ism so I keep trying to oppose it. I find it to be fantastical and wishful on the clearest of passages.

Paul was referring to Judaisers in his pastoral letters. You can tell from Acts. It most often came down to Judaism's denial of who Christ was. In Acts 26 it clearly came down to their not seeing their people's hope fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ and to undercutting that the resurrection had ever happened. That unfortunately meant that they would seek to fight and win against Rome. and they lost. But to know any of that and to correlate it to the NT is 'sin' to D'ism.

Paul did not teach anything from the Prophets beyond the suffering of christ and his glorification and preaching throughout the world to the nations. Read it for yourself 10x. Nothing beyond. Like Acts 1's 'it is not for you to know'.

Yet D'ism spends all its time trying to know, saying it knows, and saying every other view is 'made up' and worthless.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever suggested that your record player is stuck and skipping on "stupid"?

giphy.gif
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
I don't see any validity to D'ism so I keep trying to oppose it. I find it to be fantastical and wishful on the clearest of passages.

Paul was referring to Judaisers in his pastoral letters. You can tell from Acts. It most often came down to Judaism's denial of who Christ was. In Acts 26 it clearly came down to their not seeing their people's hope fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ and to undercutting that the resurrection had ever happened. That unfortunately meant that they would seek to fight and win against Rome. and they lost. But to know any of that and to correlate it to the NT is 'sin' to D'ism.

Paul did not teach anything from the Prophets beyond the suffering of christ and his glorification and preaching throughout the world to the nations. Read it for yourself 10x. Nothing beyond. Like Acts 1's 'it is not for you to know'.

Yet D'ism spends all its time trying to know, saying it knows, and saying every other view is 'made up' and worthless.
Click to expand...

Focus on the mission, and fracturization, Hop Sing.

Can you dig it?
 
Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Evil.Eye.<(I)>

BANNED
Banned
musterion said:
Do you know how Southern and Independent Fundamental Baptists tally their yearly converts?
Click to expand...

Not any more. I worked with a So. Bab. for a while. His church kind of did. But, we went on a work trip and he bought a 6er of Bud, and I bought a 6er of Guinness. We both downed em as fast as we could and had a good conversation about the depth of Christ's Grace.

I kind of miss the old coot! He was A-okay. They were all a bunch of good-ole's and kept the "old guard"... so to speak.

He loved Israel. I remember that. But... his church did tally the alter calls and they talked about the angels rejoicing.

That's all I can recollect.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Evil.Eye.<(I)> said:
Not any more. I worked with a So. Bab. for a while. His church kind of did. But, we went on a work trip and he bought a 6er of Bud, and I bought a 6er of Guinness. We both downed em as fast as we could and had a good conversation about the depth of Christ's Grace.

I kind of miss the old coot! He was A-okay. They were all a bunch of good-ole's and kept the "old guard"... so to speak.

He loved Israel. I remember that. But... his church did tally the alter calls and they talked about the angels rejoicing.

That's all I can recollect.
Click to expand...

That's okay because most baptists in the pews don't even know. Pretty sure Lon didn't until I told him.

Hint: it is not by the number of converts who believe the Gospel.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Yup.

A grace pastor I met years ago was an ex-SBC pastor. He said the only real difference between Church of Christ and Baptists is, CoC is honest in telling you up front you have get in the tub if you want to be saved. The yearly accounting proves it. Both quote Acts 2:38 but only CoC are consistent about it. CoC also quotes Mark 16:16, which is right in line with 2:38, baptists shy away from that one.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Long long ago, when I was first MAD, a "discussion" broke out at some other board. An old pentecostal finally got mad and said "YOU CAN'T TAKE MY BAPTISM AWAY FROM ME!" We were in fact talking about water baptism, too. What's that tell you about how he really viewed it?

He ain't the only one, not by a long shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top