Pristine Grace
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106

Thread: A mistake

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    Like I said...

    Anyone who can prove to me that God accepts imperfect substitutions as a means to atone is welcomed to do so.

    Here's the rules for playing the game...

    They must;

    1) Prove this in the OT;

    2) And back it up with the NT.

    Or,

    3) Vice Versa.
    From the thread on logical fallacies;

    1. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.<LI type=A>Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
    2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?

  2. #42
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by mlqurgw
    From the thread on logical fallacies;

    1. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.<LI type=A>Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it?
    2. Example: Do you still beat your wife?
    Stick to the issue and address it.

    My challenge is completely valid. There's not a single believer worth their salt who will make a claim without referring back to the Scriptures, as a whole, to offer provisions for their claims. The sum of His Word is Truth, and it is by "comparing scriptures" that we come to know if our understanding is correct.

    So, let's cut the foolish nonsense and get down to brass taxes then...

    Are you claiming Christ was made to have known sin by means other than imputation? If so, then prove this with Scripture, both OT and NT.

    Show where God has declared absolute perfection is not required for atonement - because this is the debate, and the charge brought against Don Fortner and his camp.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    Stick to the issue and address it.

    My challenge is completely valid. There's not a single believer worth their salt who will make a claim without referring back to the Scriptures, as a whole, to offer provisions for their claims. The sum of His Word is Truth, and it is by "comparing scriptures" that we come to know if our understanding is correct.

    So, let's cut the foolish nonsense and get down to brass taxes then...

    Are you claiming Christ was made to have known sin by means other than imputation? If so, then prove this with Scripture, both OT and NT.

    Show where God has declared absolute perfection is not required for atonement - because this is the debate, and the charge brought against Don Fortner and his camp.
    Your rules presented a false delimma in that you state them is such a way as to make any other view impossible. I do not have to prove anything. I have given Scripture both Old and New but you have not answered one of them. You simply make the claim it cannot be but I believe I have shown that it can very logically be. Show me how "He knew no sin" must mean that He never knew sin. Show me how Him bearing our sin in His body means that He didn't actually bear it. Show me how sin beig laid on Him means that it wasn't actually laid on Him. Answer the Scriptures I have given you. You wanted a logical argument and I believe I have given you one. I believe I have already stated that I will not nor can I speak for Don or anyone else. These are my views. BTW; this my thread so what right do you have to set the rules? If your emotion will not allow you to see what I am saying then what can I do? I ask that you do not read into these words any malice or anger or any other thing other than what they simply say. I certainly am not mad at you and do understand your reluctance to see what I am saying.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Please allow me to interject a few questions:

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, how was the sin subsequently removed from Him? Where in Scripture do we find the idea that wrath removes sin?

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, what is sin? It seems in order to say such a thing, "sin" must take on a mystical meaning. I submit, instead, that the sin debt was beared away by Christ on the cross, without respect to some "substance of sin" of which the Bible does not speak, and which must exist for Christ to be made into it.

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, in what way did the Romans err? They would have righteousnessly put to death by execution a murder, a thief, a child molester and a heretic.

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, how can He be the same "yesterday and today and forever"? If He was sin at any one point, then He has always been and will always be sin.

    May God be glorified in all that we do.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    I am not sure I can answer all of your questions but I will give it a try.
    Quote Originally Posted by melted
    Please allow me to interject a few questions:

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, how was the sin subsequently removed from Him? Where in Scripture do we find the idea that wrath removes sin?
    Wrath doesn't remove sin but the satisfaction of the penalty for sin does. Both are eternal for the damned because they could never suffer enough nor appease the wrath of God. Christ was more than a man which makes His sufferings and death as the penalty of infinite value and efficacy(sp?). He alone was able to remove sin. What does it mean when the writer to the Hebrews says that He by Himself purged our sin if not that He removed it? Does not the scapegoat typify the removal of sin? Deos the Scripture not say that He has removed our sin as far as the east is from the west? What does all this mean?

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, what is sin? It seems in order to say such a thing, "sin" must take on a mystical meaning. I submit, instead, that the sin debt was beared away by Christ on the cross, without respect to some "substance of sin" of which the Bible does not speak, and which must exist for Christ to be made into it.
    Certainly sin incurred a debt which Christ paid but How could He be made a debt? The Scriptures, at least to my recollection, do not say He took our debt but that He was made sin, bore our iniquities, and that they were laid on Him. No sin is not some mystical entity that only exists in the mind but it is more than a debt. I am at a loss as how to explain it. I do know that sin is transgression of the law, whatever is not of faith and a matter of the heart. Beyond that and how it exactly was applied to Christ I cannot say.

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, in what way did the Romans err? They would have righteousnessly put to death by execution a murder, a thief, a child molester and a heretic.
    Because the sin Christ bore was not against them. They didn't put Him to death because He had wronged but because they hated Him. Also you may recall that Christ told Pilate that he had no power over Him at all except it be given him from above, John 19:11

    If Christ was made to be sin by more than imputation, how can He be the same "yesterday and today and forever"? If He was sin at any one point, then He has always been and will always be sin.

    May God be glorified in all that we do.
    I would submit that His Godhood remained pure but that His manhood was made sin. Can I prove this from the Scriptures, no. Still, if He was made sin and bore sin and put away sin and removed sin then He no longer bears sin nor is sin. That one who is in Heaven right now is still both God and man.


    Now, before I answer any more objections I would ask that someone at least respond to my premises by showing me how what I have said is error or heresy and how it isn't logical. If I am wrong then show me how.

  6. #46
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by mlqurgw
    Your rules presented a false delimma in that you state them is such a way as to make any other view impossible. I do not have to prove anything. I have given Scripture both Old and New but you have not answered one of them. You simply make the claim it cannot be but I believe I have shown that it can very logically be. Show me how "He knew no sin" must mean that He never knew sin. Show me how Him bearing our sin in His body means that He didn't actually bear it. Show me how sin beig laid on Him means that it wasn't actually laid on Him. Answer the Scriptures I have given you. You wanted a logical argument and I believe I have given you one. I believe I have already stated that I will not nor can I speak for Don or anyone else. These are my views. BTW; this my thread so what right do you have to set the rules? If your emotion will not allow you to see what I am saying then what can I do? I ask that you do not read into these words any malice or anger or any other thing other than what they simply say. I certainly am not mad at you and do understand your reluctance to see what I am saying.
    This is ridiculous. I'm completely speechless... lol

    You won't even address the issue. Do you even understand the difference between imputation/impartation?

    Was Jesus righteousness imparted to you, or imputed to you?

    Something for you to think about while you come up with a new name for your next thread...

    BTW: How's this for rules?

    Thread closed!

  7. #47
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    154
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    All,

    It's plain to me the mlqurgw believes and teaches that Jesus Christ actually took upon sin at some point in his life. This is something that is unacceptable to us at 5solas, and we look upon the doctrine as anti-gospel.

    I've had to break off from many people that I respected due to their position on this vital topic. This included Don Fortner and the various churches that are affiliated with him. I've enjoyed listening and reading of him while I knew him. I even met him recently at a conference earlier this year in Louisville. However, my loyalty belongs to a greater man, the GOD MAN.

    I was affiliated with New Focus Magazine and even recently saw an article of mine published there. Sadly, I must pull my endorsement from New Focus Magazine due to their propagation of this doctrine that would make Christ a sinner.

    I don't rejoice in these decisions, but it's something I must do, for I personally cannot allow a teaching like this to be published in my presence. The men that are involved with this awful doctrine, Lord willing, I hope that they will come to a knowledge of the truth regarding the sinlessness of Christ. In the meantime, however, I will stand against them. And yes, it is personal.

    Brandan
    This is my signature.

  8. #48
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,840
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    154
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    94
    Thanked in
    62 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    I am going to reopen this thread and give mlqurqw an opportunity to continue to explain himself. I hope you don't mind Scott, but I think more can be said on this topic.

    - Brandan
    This is my signature.

  9. #49
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Not at all.

    I will admit I was a too hasty in closing it.

  10. #50
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    I would also like to apologize to mlqurqw (Ron?) for not allowing him to fully present his position on the matter.

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill
    I am going to reopen this thread and give mlqurqw an opportunity to continue to explain himself. I hope you don't mind Scott, but I think more can be said on this topic.

    - Brandan
    I thank you. In truth I am not here to debate or to defend. I have honestly sought to answer the questions asked of me concerning this doctrine. If someone could show me how what I have said is unscriptural or illogical I would be pleased to continue. But I cannot accept a "this is wrong" without showing me why. I will admit that there was one post I didn't answer but it was only by mistake in having not seen it until after the thread was closed.

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    I would also like to apologize to mlqurqw (Ron?) for not allowing him to fully present his position on the matter.
    No apology is necessary. As I said I fully understand how things can get heated and become frustrating. I apologize also if anything I said offended you. It wasn't meant to.


    BTW; My name is Ron and I have no problem with anyone using it. It is much eaiser to type than mlqurgw.

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    This is the post I missed by mistake. If I may I will try to answer it now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    The lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world...

    Do you see the reasoning behind this? In order for Him to have taken away the sins of the world HE had to BE SPOTLESS. This is clearly outlined in the precepts of the verses I posted above. A spotless lamb was required of God to be a propitiation. This is atonement 101.
    I absolutely understand and believe this. He could have no sin of His own, that is by His own acts. He was and is now spotless. But I would posit that for Him to actually bear the penalty for sin it must become His in some way. It must be more than symbolic. Imputation as it is commonly viewed is really not adequate to explain the transaction. If I understand the view it is seen as only being accounted as His but didn't really become His. If that is the case I can't reconcile that with the perfect righteous and justness of God in putting Him to death. If He didn't die as a sinner then there was no justice in His death. His spotless enabled Him to bear the sins of many and to effectually satisfy justice.

    Nowhere does the bible teach that He was spotless momentarily, only to have become a sinner like every other man. His perfect righteousness is what made Him spotless. To take away from that takes away from the clear teaching of Him being God in the flesh.

    At what point does God sin?
    Of course the Scriptures do not say anywhere that God sinned nor is that what I am saying. I am simply saying that He was made sin, not His own acts but those of His people. He took my sin, made it His own and died because of it. I do not intend to seperate His manhood from His Godhood but God can't die yet He did. I would submit that in some way He was made sin in His nature as a man. A perfect man who by virtue of His Godhood was able to bear the full brunt of the wrath of God against the sin He bore.

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Was Jesus righteousness imparted to you, or imputed to you?
    Actually I believe it was both. I do not think we would have a disagreement on the issue of imputation of it but I believe we also have the righteousness of Christ imparted to us in the new birth. 1John 3:9

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    I have now taken the time to read a major portion of the discussions, or harangues, on this board of the subject. As I am certainly not as well equiped intellectually as most of those who spoke in defense of what I honestly believe to be truth I will not continue to just say the same things over again that have already been said. Whether it is in truth a different Gospel I will leave to God to decide. As I can't offer anything new to the discussion I will leave it. In all honesty what I have read here, not just about the subject of Christ being made sin, has left me with the impression that this site is not all that much different than Marc Carpenter's. As I do not know any of you personnaly, at least I don't think I do, I am not attacking anyone but am only speaking of my heartfelt disappointment at the taste I have been left with here. I will continue to pray for you all, Ron.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by mlqurgw
    If He didn't die as a sinner then there was no justice in His death. His spotless enabled Him to bear the sins of many and to effectually satisfy justice.

    .
    Hello Ron:

    My main contention in this issue is looking at the OT sacrafice system. Did the animal become a sinner by more than imputation? THis parallel has not been covered to well and I believe could shed light on the issue.

    You stated earlier:

    His sacrifice was more than symbolic. An animal cannot be a sinner in any sense because it is an animal. The symbolism is in the picture of Christ's one great sacrifice. It stops there. Christ is the object pointed to in the picture. His sacrifice wasn't symbolic and therefore was a real atonement for sin.


    I do not believe the OT sacrafice was symbollic. It actually atoned did it not? IT was a shadow of the one true sacrafice of Christ, but it was more than just symbollic. For God required it, and what He requires, He will provide.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Dear Ron:

    I don't know if you found my reply to a PM you sent me. Let me just say this to you here in public:

    Some of the "inputs" from the defenders of the doctrine labeled here "Christ was a sinner" so many times, were the ones who were leveling harsh accusations against the moderators of this forum, privately and otherwise, stating that if they would not believe such a doctrine, to wit, that "Christ was a sinner at the cross", not only bearing our sins, they would not be saved. Many other things were said not in so many words, but to the effect that one side or the other could not be deemed a "brother or a sister" if one believes in such a message. As I said, many of the "inputs" caused the "outputs" and the discussion went down the drain.

    Let me use this occasion to point out to you that I was appalled that someone as Don Fortner, whom I don't know and whose sermons I never heard except by one recommended by Brandan (Darth Gill), would make a "para-doctrine" or something equivalent to a doctrine on something that is going beyond what the Bible reveals. Yes, the Bible reveals that Christ was "made sin" but it does not point anywhere that Christ lost his "spotlessness" in the cross nor that he became this mysterious hybrid humanoid who was both a "sinner" and a "saint". The Bible simply says that He was made sin as it says that he bore our infirmities. We can't say that Christ was sick in the cross so I believe we can't say that he was a sinner either. Also if Christ was made a real sinner, then He deserved to die, thus making void and null the idea of a sacrifice. As the escape goat was a animal who was a substitute for the sins of the people, Christ was the substitute for our sins without having ever sinned, nor before, or during or after the cross. The charismatics go even farther and teach that He was a sinner and went to hell. I don't accept this teaching and I could never agree that this is a doctrine.

    I don't want to get into the merit of the issue anymore; I wanted simply to state my position for you to know where I am in this discussion.

    What I want to say is that Marc Carpenter has become the "Borg man" of "christian" Web Sites. Everyone who is "bad" is compared to him and I am guilty of making this comparison as well. We are NOT, however as He is! We attempted to reason with the defenders of the "Christ was a sinner at the cross" doctrine every which way we could. We even attempted to end the discussion and placed evidence that the ensuing persecution on those who left Fortner was unwarranted (if there is such a thing as a warranted persecution).

    I believed that you coming here and raising the issue again would bring a way for some understanding (not and NEVER agreement). But I believe that the way the first thread about the issue was carried forth really contaminated your thinking about us.

    I hope you stay here! If you remain as reasonable as you have so far, I believe that we will be able to respond reasonably as well and perhaps dissuade you from believing the way you do about "Christ was a sinner at the cross" without calling anyone names or comparing anyone to that which is the worst in "christian" Web Sites.

    I would, then, ask you to stay a little longer and see our arguments for what they are and not for what we propose responding to unjust "inputs".

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron
    His sacrifice was more than symbolic.
    Ron, Of course! If anyone believes it was symbolic, they should take a good look at the cross!

    That has a vast distance from believing that in order for His work to be complete on the cross he had to "become" a sinner. His sacrifice was indeed gory and painful, "O sacred head now wounded" as Bach put it in a hymn; that demonstrated what we deserved and His undeserving of that agony, anguish was fully real but it was UNDESERVED to the end. He did not deserve it in the cross for becoming a sinner. That's what we defend here! We are not of those who think that the "cross" is pure poetry and have no idea of the sacrifice Jesus paid for our sins (neither you are saying that we belong to this group).

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    499
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Originally Posted by Ron His sacrifice was more than symbolic.
    Ron, Of course! If anyone believes it was symbolic, they should take a good look at the cross!
    Hi Milt. I also concur.
    It was actually the OT prophecies depicted as "types/shadows/signs" of what was to come, the true reality of Christ Crucified? It is more that the OT is "symbolic" than the NT, as the "symbolic/shadow" of the OT was fulfilled by the True living one in the NT. This is where Christianity completely seperates from Judaism.

    Another words, we can picture the Passover lamb being slain in Egypt and its blood put on the posts and beam.

    The jews are suppose to be doing this as an "everlasting" ordinance to this day[amongst a host of other ordinances], but I haven't seen it performed lately. Could it be because the jewish religion fails to see the OT as a "sign/type" of the coming of the True passover lamb?
    Thank Lord Jesus!!!!
    Steve

    Gala 4:24 which things are an an allegory [#238]...

    Coll 2:17 which[p] is a shadow of being about [p][to come], even the body of the anointed

    Exodus 12:13 'Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you [are.] And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy [you] when I strike the land of Egypt. 14 'So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance
    "There are Signs of a new upsurge of interest in the Study of Scriptures: a New Readiness to Test Traditions, Search the Scriptures and Rightly Divide the Word "I am the WAY the TRUTH the LIFE and the RESURRECTION and no man can come to the FATHER but by ME"

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A mistake

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    Dear Ron:

    I don't know if you found my reply to a PM you sent me. Let me just say this to you here in public:

    Some of the "inputs" from the defenders of the doctrine labeled here "Christ was a sinner" so many times, were the ones who were leveling harsh accusations against the moderators of this forum, privately and otherwise, stating that if they would not believe such a doctrine, to wit, that "Christ was a sinner at the cross", not only bearing our sins, they would not be saved. Many other things were said not in so many words, but to the effect that one side or the other could not be deemed a "brother or a sister" if one believes in such a message. As I said, many of the "inputs" caused the "outputs" and the discussion went down the drain.

    Let me use this occasion to point out to you that I was appalled that someone as Don Fortner, whom I don't know and whose sermons I never heard except by one recommended by Brandan (Darth Gill), would make a "para-doctrine" or something equivalent to a doctrine on something that is going beyond what the Bible reveals. Yes, the Bible reveals that Christ was "made sin" but it does not point anywhere that Christ lost his "spotlessness" in the cross nor that he became this mysterious hybrid humanoid who was both a "sinner" and a "saint". The Bible simply says that He was made sin as it says that he bore our infirmities. We can't say that Christ was sick in the cross so I believe we can't say that he was a sinner either. Also if Christ was made a real sinner, then He deserved to die, thus making void and null the idea of a sacrifice. As the escape goat was a animal who was a substitute for the sins of the people, Christ was the substitute for our sins without having ever sinned, nor before, or during or after the cross. The charismatics go even farther and teach that He was a sinner and went to hell. I don't accept this teaching and I could never agree that this is a doctrine.

    I don't want to get into the merit of the issue anymore; I wanted simply to state my position for you to know where I am in this discussion.

    What I want to say is that Marc Carpenter has become the "Borg man" of "christian" Web Sites. Everyone who is "bad" is compared to him and I am guilty of making this comparison as well. We are NOT, however as He is! We attempted to reason with the defenders of the "Christ was a sinner at the cross" doctrine every which way we could. We even attempted to end the discussion and placed evidence that the ensuing persecution on those who left Fortner was unwarranted (if there is such a thing as a warranted persecution).

    I believed that you coming here and raising the issue again would bring a way for some understanding (not and NEVER agreement). But I believe that the way the first thread about the issue was carried forth really contaminated your thinking about us.

    I hope you stay here! If you remain as reasonable as you have so far, I believe that we will be able to respond reasonably as well and perhaps dissuade you from believing the way you do about "Christ was a sinner at the cross" without calling anyone names or comparing anyone to that which is the worst in "christian" Web Sites.

    I would, then, ask you to stay a little longer and see our arguments for what they are and not for what we propose responding to unjust "inputs".

    Milt
    I fully admit that my last post was in reaction to many of the things I read on the previous discussions. I have not been mistreated here and should have made that clear. I apologize for the comment comparing this site to that of Marc Carpenter. As far as the persecution you speak of I believe it was only in the minds of those who felt persecuted on either side. I have spoken to Don on these things before and can tell you that he certainly doesn't feel persecuted nor does he intend to persecute any. I do believe the dismissal of Mark in Albany was a bit hasty and was greatly influenced by men who desire to be somebody. That, of course, is only my opinion. I believe the dismissal of a pastor is a very serious thing and should not be done hastily. Almost every church split I have heard of came from a personality conflict rather than a disagreement in truth. The doctrinal disagreement was only a means to an end. That is why I do not believe any should be hasty in calling someone as their pastor. That is all I am going to say on that subject.

    I do believe that much of the disagreement comes from either a misunderstanding of what is being said or misrepresentaion of it. I honestly believe there are both involved. We have been accused of saying that Christ was a sinner which I do not beileve has been done except in a sermon in which I believe he made clear what he meant. Would I have used those words. no. We have never once even implied that Christ committed sin. Yet that is some of what I have read here concerning the issue. I have no problem disagreeing with someone nor do I fear a debate but lets not be too quick to label. Many seem to want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

    BTW; yes I did get your PM and will write to you as I have time.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •