Contd...

"I think we get a clue by understanding why Paul so severely condemned the Judaizers’ doctrine. It’s because there was something fundamental to that teaching that denied—was mutually exclusive to—the Gospel of grace. That’s how we answer the question of what’s bad doctrine versus what breaches the bounds into heresy. The wrong beliefs that indicate someone is not saved are those teachings, which believed, necessarily undermine or deny the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone according to Scripture alone for the glory of God alone."

by Michael Riccardi

We all need to work out the implications of this in threads like this.

Does decisional regeneration undermine Grace? Does it deny true Faith? Does it preach a false Salvation and a false Christ?

Anyone who truly understands the Gospel of Grace, would have a difficult time denying that decisional regeneration is another Gospel, a different Gospel and as such it is a heretical gospel.

________________

contd..

"Now, that point of disagreement is an admittedly fine distinction! And yet Paul still employs the harshest language of condemnation for their error. “A different gospel” (Gal 1:6). “No true gospel at all” (Gal 1:7). “Let him be anathema”—condemned to hell (Gal 1:8, 9). “Severed from Christ” (Gal 5:4). “They will bear their judgment” (5:10). “I wish they would emasculate themselves” (Gal 5:12). Strong words for a disagreement on the ordo salutis! What it teaches us is, at the very least, there are certain things which, if believed, preclude someone from salvation, because to believe those things is to believe a different gospel, which is really no true gospel at all, and therefore which cannot save but can only condemn.

What Are the Fundamental Doctrines?

That brings us to the natural question: How much can one get wrong and still be a true child of God? Or said another way: What are those false doctrines which, if believed, by definition indicate that someone is not truly saved?...."

contd..

"They believed in one God, who exists eternally in three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believed in the deity and humanity of Christ. They believed that He was Israel’s Messiah in fulfillment of the Old Testament. They believed in penal substitutionary atonement—that Christ bore the punishment of God’s wrath against the sins of His people when He died on the cross, so that they might be free from sin’s penalty and power (and one day its presence). They believed that He was buried, and that He rose on the third day. And they believed that repentance and faith in Christ was absolutely necessary for forgiveness of sins and fellowship with God in heaven. That is a lot of really important doctrine that they got right!

Their one issue boiled down, basically, to whether good works were the cause or the result of salvation. Was law-keeping the ground or merely the evidence of saving faith? Are we saved by faith alone, or by faith in Christ plus our religious observance? ..."

Galatians 1

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul wrote that about the error of the Judaizers, which, if you think about it, by some evaluations was quite a fine point of doctrinal disagreement. Think about everything the Judaizers shared in common with the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints..."

Paul told Timothy to "study" that he might be able to "rightly" divide "the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth as canker. of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some " (11 Tim. 2:15-18).

Lurker wrote:
Okay..... we're good.

Your hermeneutics, your beliefs in the Sovereignty of God and the absolute necessity of his grace forbid me thinking that you'd ever cave to such shallow theology bro. So I apologize that you ever got the impression that you were among those that I criticize here.

Lord bless you bro.

BTW - I liked that you picked up on LB where she erred, and I also like that LB apologized for that error.
______________

Brother Dave

Good to see you posting. I agree with your posts.

to yours of 1/4/18 4:53 PM

_______________

Brother Frank

Good comments as always!

______________

Sister MS

Agreed.

______________

Sister LB

Lurker wrote:
Bro Observer,
Your general comments are troubling. If I have something to say to you, I'll say it to your face or not at all. I hope you would do the same.

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Did John really mean "doctrine" of Christ? Surely not! Why would he use such a dirty word?!

And any who support those who bring not this doctrine are partakers of their evil deeds? Wow! Who'd have thunk it?!

2 John 4

I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

Walking in truth? Who cares, right? Because truth is opposed to love, right?

What was that? God commands us to walk in the truth?

O boy, then we sure have quite a few people here who profess to follow Christ but are in deep trouble because not only do they not care for the truth but also support those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. Being dupes of political correctness sure comes at a heavy price.

Frank wrote:
..
She was a woman.
She was catholic.
She was a mystic.

Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

You may not know this, but this Romanist mystic is also hailed by so called "christian" feminists.

Frank wrote:
....
To me this is very sad and that is the same thing brother Observer voiced. I guess the best way to say it is my heart is grieved.

Frank wrote:
Maybe he is simply taking the biblical things she said and ignoring the unbiblical parts. Reminds me of JohnY

It's convenient for sowing confusion and discord and when one wants to remain unrepentant.

John UK wrote:
Which means: "Because John is continuing in what I regard as impenitence, I no longer regard him as a Christian."
Wow wow wow wow wowsa!
Thankfully, the Lord takes a different view.

15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Here is something from Warfield's article to consider:

"Christian mysticism... obviously differs in no essential respect from the parallel phenomena which are observable in other religions. It is only general mysticism manifesting itself on Christian ground and interpreting itself accordingly in the forms of Christian thought. It is mysticism which has learned to speak in Christian language."

Poor John quotes Guyon and attributes evangelical sentiments to her words, when he doesn't have a clue what she really meant by them.

I bet he's never studied mysticism or what they believed but then he shows by most of his comments that studying is not really what he likes. He likes to be dogmatic based on the slenderest of grounds.

And all this is still a diversion for his continuing impenitence! Can a Christian conscience continue in such obduracy?

John UK wrote:
As I've said before, if anyone sees anything I post with which they disagree, please quote me and ask your question. My most recent post, anyone have any problem with that? If so, please speak up now, rather than in twelve months time. If everyone regards it as the truth, I shall continue, but I first want to give the brethren and sisters time to evaluate what I have quoted and ask any question about the quote. Thank you so much.

Unimpressed!

You say plenty by your silence and diversion tactics! All your seeming piety is meaningless given your obdurate refusal to say a simple sorry.

I cannot see how anyone can call you a brother in good standing when we see such reluctance to repent and such eagerness to spread error, and sow confusion, and division.

The man is tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine because he is still a spiritual child lacking a doctrinal foundation.

He is a spiritual nomad not able to settle in any church. Why is that I wonder? Does his refusal to answer my post from yesterday suggest some answers? For example, is he a fugitive from justice? Does he leave the moment he believes he is going to be taken to task or disciplined? Makes me wonder.

Let's address a few of his red herrings first. He asks his errors to be quoted straight away, not a year later knowing that I have not been around for the last year.

He suggests that the only reason I brought up Madame Guyon was for an argument. Well I mentioned her, among other things, because it was one of the reasons why I stopped posting here. He has over time become an apologist for many anti-grace beliefs and even argued vehemently for Billy being a God sent preacher. His recent stance of looking into this is merely a diversionary ploy.

In another post I will list the various issues that I have posted on and the reasons why I did so to show, contrary to what John would everyone believe, that there were crucial issues at stake and I was not arguing over words or over trivial matters.

John claims that those taking issue with him consider themselves perfect. Care to quote any one of us saying that John? After all you made a great deal about liars being excluded from Heaven, right?!

John UK wrote:
As I've said before, if anyone has a problem with something I've posted, and want to ask me about it, please quote me and I will get back to you.

John UK wrote:
Because I am one of the brethren of Jesus, whatever anyone says or does to me, they are saying or doing it to Jesus himself, as the text says.

John UK wrote:
Now Jesus tells me to rejoice at any sign of persecution,

Tell me honestly John, how many assemblies and churches have to left on this count?

Frank wrote:
Observer,.
..
Madam Guyon was a woman.

Good points you raise.

In previous centuries, since the Reformation, when Romanism was known only at a distance and from her actings in history there was perhaps an excuse for some to view these mystics as amounting to something when they spoke of their love for Jesus, especially when some were ill treated by the "church" even though they didn't dissent from her doctrines. But in this day and age there is absolutely no excuse for confusion on the fact that the Jesus they sought to worship and attain union with is not the Jesus of the bible. (BTW - the union they sought was not the union spoken of in scripture, but the pantheistic idea of becoming absorbed into the divine essence).

Christopher000 wrote:
...
I'm assuming I'm one of those who others feel should speak up more. Maybe, maybe not. ...

No, I think on the issue of Romanism, ecumenism and Romanizing tendencies you have been consistently against it. It is noticeable that those who have ever encountered Romanism, either because they were themselves caught up in it before being converted, or have loved ones still within the system and can see the idolatrous worship and delusions of the same cannot but be against a system so perfectly engineered to be the very opposite of true religion.

I have not seen your comments on Billy, but It doesn't take a genius to figure out that any so called "gospel" which appeals to the false idolatrous anti-Christian "church" is anything but the true gospel.

____________

Re: Madame Guyon

Here is a good article by B B Warfield on mysticism, which clearly shows that it is totally incompatible with true Christianity.

She was one of the leading lights in the Quietist movement, an extreme mystical movement within Roman Catholicism.

If you want to learn more about Quietism, [URL=http://www.apologeticsindex.org/2985-quietism]]]check this out.[/URL]

As if her Romanism was not bad enough Guyon’s contemplative mysticism also led her to the heresy of panentheism viz. that God is in all things.

She did not believe that praying was words or thoughts. In fact she was convinced that any thought life, and especially critical thinking, was a positive hindrance to spirituality and to growth.

She looked to God within herself, because she believed that she had attained union with God's essence.

Once John is done extolling her virtues I may post up a more complete exposure of this woman who in my estimation was no more a Christian than Mother Teresa was, but whose writings have nevertheless tended to give credence to the idea that there is no difference experientially between Roman and Evangelical Christianity.

contd..

John accused me once of being ungracious because I challenged a greek woman on here who claimed to be a preacher and held to charismatic beliefs. Even though my challenge was for her to show me scriptural grounds for her beliefs this was seen as being ungracious because it led to her leaving. Now it seems any sister who withstands error is fair game.

Why is it that of a sudden "doctrine" is seen as something evil, when contention for apostolic doctrine is found on every page of the NT from Romans onwards? It beggars belief that God's truth has such low value these days that some consider is not worthwhile fighting for or those unloving who contend for it! Have we become enemies for the truth's sake? If the answer is yes then one wonders whether we are after all of the same household of faith! I am not here talking about peripheral matters where legitimate disagreements arise, but crucial matters that go to the heart of the gospel. Billy Graham's decisional regeneration is a works based gospel and sits well with his espousal of Roman Catholicism as genuine Christianity. Those who consider this inconsequential really are deluded.