The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[OzSpen]

That source is also wrong. Infer and imply are opposites in meaning.

dictionary.com:



This proves the original meaning is being altered by modern culture which is damaging to the word's original and true meaning.

So the Merriam-Webster dictionary is wrong and you are correct. What arrogance!

 

[OzSpen]

It depends on it's definition.

Do you know the meaning of "it's"?

 

[OzSpen]

yeseth!

Thou hast super abundant confidence! :wacko:

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, to understand WHO Jesus IS, is at the core of accepting Him as our savior. If one does not CONFESS Jesus as the Christ, Son of God, Savior based on what ALL scripture reveals, then they don't confess the TRUE Christ.

The ROCK, was Peter's confession, NOT himself. Peter confessed who Jesus was, not having been told by anyone other than the Holy Spirit. Matt 16:14-16
If one does not understand what Jesus said here then one does not understand who God is. The LIVING God, is Jesus Christ.

Stan,

Do you see what is happening in this discussion on this thread?

1. To understand who Jesus is relates to his nature and place in the Godhead. If we don't get this settled, we could end up with this understanding of Jesus:

"ALLAH is HE besides Whom there is none worthy of worship, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. HE has sent down to thee the Book containing the truth and fulfilling that which precedes it; and HE has sent down the Torah (Law of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guidance to the people; and HE has sent down the Discrimination (judgement between right and wrong)." (Qur'an, Surah 3:3-4)

Is that who Jesus is, or is he the second person of the Trinity, the God-man, the Saviour of the world? Unless this is made clear, any Jesus will be accepted. The one being promoted by a person on this forum has been the unitarian/Arian Jesus - which is a false Jesus.

2. The second thing that is happening in this thread relates to my exposing the false doctrine of the unitarian god and as a result a person has labelled me as being judgmental.

As I've pointed out, 1 John 4:1-3 (ESV) requires all of us to 'test the spirits to see whether they are from God'. My testing of the spirits found that the unitarian false god was being promoted.

Paul told Timothy what to do with those promoting a 'different doctrine' from that of God (i.e. the Trinitarian God - the only one revealed in the the Bible). Timothy was to 'charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine' (1 Tim 1:3 ESV). Correcting false doctrine is going to be the charge to Christian leaders and others until Jesus comes again. It will be a constant battle as we are finding on this forum.

At least two dynamics are happening here: (1) At least one person is promoting false doctrine, and (2) Another is going soft on that false doctrine and telling those (me especially) who expose it, that they are being judgmental and hating people (like murderers). This is not only a false accusation, but it is exposing the weak view of false doctrine of that person condemning me.

Until Jesus comes again, we will have to deal with this. Exposure on the Internet makes it so necessary that those who support orthodox evangelical doctrines (as you and I do) should stand up and be counted by refuting false doctrine. We will not be popular with the promoters of false doctrine and the compromisers, but it has to be done.

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

 

[ewq1938]

So the Merriam-Webster dictionary is wrong and you are correct. What arrogance!

Other sources prove what I have said so it's not any arrogance on my part at all. This is a matter of modern times is seeking to change the meaning of the word even dictionary.com admitted this.

 

[ewq1938]

You are correct. I did get it around the wrong way. An IT cannot be lied to with the effect of lying being acknowledged. An IT cannot be grieved by others and it cannot acknowledge that grief.

An "it" with an intelligence can be lied to and understand it's been lied to. To be a person requires more than this. Body soul and spirit is what makes up a person. A person who is mentally challenged that cannot understand they have been lied to is still a person because being lied to or being grieved is not what qualifies something as a person.

 

[OzSpen]

Other sources prove what I have said so it's not any arrogance on my part at all. This is a matter of modern times is seeking to change the meaning of the word even dictionary.com admitted this.

Nice try!

 

[OzSpen]

An "it" with an intelligence can be lied to and understand it's been lied to.

Please give examples. Your assertions are inadequate to establish validity.

 

[OzSpen]

An "it" with an intelligence can be lied to and understand it's been lied to. To be a person requires more than this. Body soul and spirit is what makes up a person. A person who is mentally challenged that cannot understand they have been lied to is still a person because being lied to or being grieved is not what qualifies something as a person.

You have again invented your own theology: 'Body soul and spirit is (sic) what makes up a person'.

These links provide evidence to refute your position and to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is a person:

1. 'Is the Holy Spirit a person?'
2. 'Holy Spirit - Person or Force?'
3. 'The Person of the Holy Spirit'
4. 'The Holy Spirit is a person'
5. 'Knowing the Person of the Holy Spirit'
6. 'Verses showing identity, ministry, and personhood of the Holy Spirit'
7. 'The Personality of the Holy Spirit'
8. 'The Personality & Deity of the Holy Spirit proven from the Bible'
9. 'Who is the Holy Spirit?'
10. 'The Personality of the Holy Ghost'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

To judge a brother or sister in Christ as not in Christ over a non-salvational issue is related to what those verses are talking about.

It WAS a salvation issue - the nature of God. Non-Trinitarians have been regarded as promoting unorthodox doctrine since kingdom come. It is you who should get in line with biblical teaching on the nature of God who offers salvation.

 

[justaname]

Once a person decides to call another judgmental they become exactly what they accuse...

Also I completely agree we are to refute false doctrine...those who promote false doctrine promote a false god...

Although I do not believe we can judge the final outcome of those who have a skewed view of the Christ, I do believe we are not to consider them apportioned to the body of Christ.

May God have mercy upon them at the judgement...

 

[Deborah_]

An "it" with an intelligence can be lied to and understand it's been lied to. To be a person requires more than this. Body soul and spirit is what makes up a person. A person who is mentally challenged that cannot understand they have been lied to is still a person because being lied to or being grieved is not what qualifies something as a person.

So is God not a person? (Because He has no body)

It is perfectly possible to lie to and grieve a mentally challenged person (whether they understand what you have done or not). Is a lie only a lie when the hearer is aware of it?

We don't lie to inanimate objects because truths and untruths are of no relevance to them and cannot affect them. Nor can they feel grief or pain. This is what is meant by 'not personal'.

 

[zeke25]

zeke,

Thanks for your well thought-out response.


I agree with the law of non-contradiction as it applies to the Bible. However, your example does not fit this category. I will explain below:




First, it is important to understand that we should draw our understanding about the meaning and significance of baptism from the didactic passages. Passages that give clear teaching about what baptism means should be our guide for understanding how the NT church understood it. We need to be very cautious about using narratives as a means of defining the conversion process. As I am sure you know, the narratives in the NT are seldom to be considered "normative" in the life of the church. Otherwise, we should all expect to be healing each other with hankys and shadows.

So lets look at Acts 8:12. Yes, belief comes prior to baptism. Why would anyone baptize an unbeliever? This still doesnt change the meaning and significance of baptism. Clearly, in the context of Acts 2:38, the audience believes the message Peter preached about Jesus. If not, they wouldnt have been "cut to the heart." Yet their belief did not prevent Peter from also calling them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to be saved from "a wicked and corrupt generation." Obviously, if they had not believed, I doubt they would have asked "What shall we do?" and I doubt Peter would have called them to repent and be baptized.

Also, if we are going to look at Acts 8:12 as a guide for how things normally work in the conversion process, then you must conclude that someone does not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit either at belief or baptism. In fact, the NT teaches that if "someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (cf. Rom. 8). We see that the Samaritans do not recieve the Holy Spirit until Peter arrives and lays his hands on them in Acts 8:15. So, if we use this narrative as a guide, we are both wrong and salvation only comes at the laying on of an Apostles hands. I think what is evident from the book of Acts as a whole is that God uses Peter to bring in outside people groups initially. Peter is the one who is there to accept the Samaritans and he is also there to be the first one to accept the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, in my estimation, this is not a normative process, just as Pentecost is not normative. The normal way God gives the Spirit is not by swooping down in tongues of fire, or having an Apostle lay on hands. These are unusual events that mark something new and significant in the life of the church (the bestowal of the Spirit to the Apostles, the grafting in of the Samaritans into the church (Acts 8), the grafting in of the Gentiles into the church (Acts 10)). In my estimation, it is not wise to use these unusual and miraculous scenarios to determine the normative practices of the early Church. We should use the teaching of Peter and Paul for that, and we find that teaching in passages like Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:1-3, etc.



It is important to note that verse 37 was likely not penned by Luke. In fact, the earliest this verse appears is not until about 600AD. We have a great many texts that date before this time and none of them have this verse. Therefore, it seems this was added in because of someones theological concerns which do not reflect the inspired text. However, this passage is indeed important. It reflects that in a short period of time that Philip has this evangelistic encounter on this journey, he instructs the man about baptism. Why would the Ethiopian want so badly to be baptized and why would it even have been brought up in this conversation if it was merely an outward sign that had no real value or purpose in the disciple-making process?


Sure, thats good. However, I think the Bible not only commands us to do it, but explains why we do it. We do it to recieve forgiveness of sins, be clothed with Christ, die and be raised with Christ, and plead to God for a clean conscience. Those are the reasons given for baptism in the Bible. Moreover, saying, "We should do it because God commands it, but it doesnt actually have any role in making a disciple...its only a display of something that has already occurred" is a dangerous position in my view. After all, doesnt God command us to not lie? Doesnt he command us to not covet? Yes, we try to not lie or covet...but if we do, God's grace is there. People take this same mentality with baptism when they take the view you are implying. They make baptism some part of a legal code that is "commanded" and therefore becomes some sort of "law." Because we cant be saved by law, then it is viewed as a "work" and as a result is seen as trying to "add to" our salvation and is often discredited as a result. Also, I think we miss out on some real blessings God intends in baptism when we strip it of its power and make it merely a sign. Rather than looking at God's work at a particular time on a particular day to cleanse us and give us new life....we try to remember when we really believed and perhaps second guess during difficult times if we "really believed" with "saving faith." The power of baptism is that it places our trust in God's promises rather than the sincerity of our own inner convictions.

Probably a good idea :)


Look, I am not about defending Creeds. I think they are a bad idea because they make a standard for belief in something contrived by man rather than the Word of God. However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Obviously the blood of Jesus is the focus of our faith. I think the creed is simply quoting Acts 2:38. I dont know how quoting Scripture is an affront against the blood of Christ. I think your issue is more with Acts 2:38 than the creed.

Wormwood,

Wormwood said in blue,

First, it is important to understand that we should draw our understanding about the meaning and significance of baptism from the didactic passages.

Are you suggesting that some verses are not instructive? I cannot think of any, right now, that I would want to throw under the bus.

Passages that give clear teaching about what baptism means should be our guide for understanding how the NT church understood it.

This may be a point of contention as well later on. I get my doctrine from the pages of Scriptures. The same place the early “so called” authorities should have gotten their’s as well. If they could better understand the Scriptures than anyone today, then why would be need the Bible. These elders were prone to errors every bit as much as people are today. Besides, which theological camp do we choose these ancient scholars from?

We need to be very cautious about using narratives as a means of defining the conversion process. As I am sure you know, the narratives in the NT are seldom to be considered "normative" in the life of the church.

Then you are suggesting that we delete those Scriptures that do not support your position. Can I delete the ones that do not support my position? Actually though, I do not want to. I need them all.


Otherwise, we should all expect to be healing each other with hankys and shadows.

I’m looking forward to seeing those miracles again.

So lets look at Acts 8:12. Yes, belief comes prior to baptism. Why would anyone baptize an unbeliever? This still doesnt change the meaning and significance of baptism. Clearly, in the context of Acts 2:38, the audience believes the message Peter preached about Jesus. If not, they wouldnt have been "cut to the heart." Yet their belief did not prevent Peter from also calling them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to be saved from "a wicked and corrupt generation." Obviously, if they had not believed, I doubt they would have asked "What shall we do?" and I doubt Peter would have called them to repent and be baptized.

You have just affirmed that belief preceded baptism. In other words, salvation preceded bapism.

Also, if we are going to look at Acts 8:12 as a guide for how things normally work in the conversion process, then you must conclude that someone does not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit either at belief or baptism. In fact, the NT teaches that if "someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (cf. Rom. 8). We see that the Samaritans do not recieve the Holy Spirit until Peter arrives and lays his hands on them in Acts 8:15.

I do not see this as an accurate statement. They had received and been sealed already by the Holy Ghost when they believed. The verses even confirm that they had been baptized into the Name of Yahoshua. Peter and John wanted to know if the Holy Spirit had fallen on any of them. He was speaking of a Pentecost experience. Other terms used to describe this experience are being filled with the Spirit and being baptized in the Holy Ghost. This is a subsequent experience (although it can happen simultaneously with conversion) that believers can go through, and some have never gone through this experience. This experience empowers a believer to do signs and wonders. One common manifestation of this experience is frequently accompanied by someone speaking in tongues (a language they themselves do not understand). There are a few verses that describe these very events.

So, if we use this narrative as a guide, we are both wrong and salvation only comes at the laying on of an Apostles hands.

Salvation does not come by the laying on of hands by anyone. Salvation is an experience, a change of heart, between the individual and God. No one else can be a part of that, nor would anyone else ever have the power to lay hands on someone and give them salvation.


I think what is evident from the book of Acts as a whole is that God uses Peter to bring in outside people groups initially. Peter is the one who is there to accept the Samaritans and he is also there to be the first one to accept the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, in my estimation, this is not a normative process, just as Pentecost is not normative. The normal way God gives the Spirit is not by swooping down in tongues of fire, or having an Apostle lay on hands. These are unusual events that mark something new and significant in the life of the church (the bestowal of the Spirit to the Apostles, the grafting in of the Samaritans into the church (Acts 8), the grafting in of the Gentiles into the church (Acts 10)). In my estimation, it is not wise to use these unusual and miraculous scenarios to determine the normative practices of the early Church. We should use the teaching of Peter and Paul for that, and we find that teaching in passages like Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:1-3, etc.

It is important to note that verse 37 was likely not penned by Luke. In fact, the earliest this verse appears is not until about 600AD. We have a great many texts that date before this time and none of them have this verse. Therefore, it seems this was added in because of someones theological concerns which do not reflect the inspired text.

Regarding Acts 8:37, this is not a closed case. There were writers that knew of this verse as far back 180. So, just because the Alexandrian text base omitted it, doesn’t mean that God has not spoken it.





However, this passage is indeed important. It reflects that in a short period of time that Philip has this evangelistic encounter on this journey, he instructs the man about baptism. Why would the Ethiopian want so badly to be baptized and why would it even have been brought up in this conversation if it was merely an outward sign that had no real value or purpose in the disciple-making process?

Quote
I don’t agree that baptism is meaningless. We are commanded to do it, and we should for that reason alone. Also, this is one way to declare you belief in Christ before all men. We don’t want to be closet Christians. Our belief is a testimony to others.


Sure, thats good. However, I think the Bible not only commands us to do it, but explains why we do it. We do it to recieve forgiveness of sins, be clothed with Christ, die and be raised with Christ, and plead to God for a clean conscience. Those are the reasons given for baptism in the Bible. Moreover, saying, "We should do it because God commands it, but it doesnt actually have any role in making a disciple...its only a display of something that has already occurred" is a dangerous position in my view. After all, doesnt God command us to not lie? Doesnt he command us to not covet? Yes, we try to not lie or covet...but if we do, God's grace is there. People take this same mentality with baptism when they take the view you are implying. They make baptism some part of a legal code that is "commanded" and therefore becomes some sort of "law." Because we cant be saved by law, then it is viewed as a "work" and as a result is seen as trying to "add to" our salvation and is often discredited as a result. Also, I think we miss out on some real blessings God intends in baptism when we strip it of its power and make it merely a sign. Rather than looking at God's work at a particular time on a particular day to cleanse us and give us new life....we try to remember when we really believed and perhaps second guess during difficult times if we "really believed" with "saving faith." The power of baptism is that it places our trust in God's promises rather than the sincerity of our own inner convictions.
Quote
I think I would be opening up a whole other teaching if I responded to this. I’ve got enough on my plate right now. Let’s see where the first part leads us before we expand too much.


Probably a good idea

Quote
Since the shed Blood of Christ and the full meaning behind that is what Christianity is all about, at a minimum that should be the focus of any creed. But it goes beyond that - and I return to the OP - saying that water baptism forgives sin is to me a direct affront against the shed Blood of Christ. An attack on the Blood is an attack on the Body of Christ and Christianity.


Look, I am not about defending Creeds. I think they are a bad idea because they make a standard for belief in something contrived by man rather than the Word of God. However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Obviously the blood of Jesus is the focus of our faith. I think the creed is simply quoting Acts 2:38. I dont know how quoting Scripture is an affront against the blood of Christ. I think your issue is more with Acts 2:38 than the creed.

I haven’t a problem with Acts 2:38. I have a problem with Acts 2:38 presumed to support the NC when it does not.

I can see that we are not going to make much headway here. You have brazenly proposed that we can choose to adhere to the instructions that some Scriptures give and ignore others, and this by simply labeling some as normative or narrative. Other theological camps do the same thing, but put different labels on those Scriptures that do not support their agenda. I, on the other hand, consider the full counsel of God.

It would have been helpful if you had chosen to answer the questions I asked. What theological background or teachers taught you to think this way about the Bible? I do not consider it a spiritually healthy or an informed approach. I hope you choose to answer those questions now. I don’t want to put my own, possibly erroneous label on them. It would be better to hear your forthright answer.

Zeke25

 

[zeke25]

That's not the point, Zeke. We have a facility on this forum so that you can write, say, John 3:16 (KJV) or John 3:16 (ESV) and these verses are automatically available in that translation. Therefore, there is no reason to quote your verses at length.

I know that this material was from somewhere else as point #8 stated, but I didn't know who that person was and couldn't locate the material online with Google.

Oz

Oz,

I'm sorry for the confusion. #8 identifies myself and my wife. We study and research these doctrines ourselves from the Scriptures. Rarely do we take information from other writers, ancient or contemporary. When credit is due to someone else, then we identify our source. This is why there are no credits given at the end of the teaching. My philosophy is that the Bible is true and can be depended upon. If ancient writers have found the truth in the Bible and correctly interpreted it, then I don't need their writings. I can follow the same path and with prayer and the Holy Ghost as my guide I can locate the same truths. This doesn't mean that others do not write the same material and the two of us are in agreement. It just means they arrived at the same conclusion as me from their own sources.

We do not have a website, possibly some day. In the meantime you can locate some of my treatises by googling a general subject area, or googling the exact title. For example "A Day Begins At Sunrise" or "Between the Evenings" or "Counting Hours (Mark 15:25 and John 19:14 exegesis)", etc. Frequently, it will give a link to some forum - including this one. Typing in my email address of [email protected] into a search engine will also net some doctrines. The only disadvantage is that when I update a treatise or correct an error, I cannot go back and correct it directly on a forum. I cannot afford my own website at this time. I surprise myself at times when I google my own information, "Oh, I forgot that was there." I figure when a google search brings someone to a forum I posted on, it helps bring more business and participants to that forum.

zeke25

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

Do you see what is happening in this discussion on this thread?

1. To understand who Jesus is relates to his nature and place in the Godhead. If we don't get this settled, we could end up with this understanding of Jesus:

Is that who Jesus is, or is he the second person of the Trinity, the God-man, the Saviour of the world? Unless this is made clear, any Jesus will be accepted. The one being promoted by a person on this forum has been the unitarian/Arian Jesus - which is a false Jesus.

2. The second thing that is happening in this thread relates to my exposing the false doctrine of the unitarian god and as a result a person has labelled me as being judgmental.

As I've pointed out, 1 John 4:1-3 (ESV) requires all of us to 'test the spirits to see whether they are from God'. My testing of the spirits found that the unitarian false god was being promoted.

Paul told Timothy what to do with those promoting a 'different doctrine' from that of God (i.e. the Trinitarian God - the only one revealed in the the Bible). Timothy was to 'charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine' (1 Tim 1:3 ESV). Correcting false doctrine is going to be the charge to Christian leaders and others until Jesus comes again. It will be a constant battle as we are finding on this forum.

At least two dynamics are happening here: (1) At least one person is promoting false doctrine, and (2) Another is going soft on that false doctrine and telling those (me especially) who expose it, that they are being judgmental and hating people (like murderers). This is not only a false accusation, but it is exposing the weak view of false doctrine of that person condemning me.

Until Jesus comes again, we will have to deal with this. Exposure on the Internet makes it so necessary that those who support orthodox evangelical doctrines (as you and I do) should stand up and be counted by refuting false doctrine. We will not be popular with the promoters of false doctrine and the compromisers, but it has to be done.

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

Yes I indeed do Oz, and this is about the oldest false teaching in Christianity. IMO it was highly influenced by the pollution of the early church with Judeo converts who could not accept the triune nature of God as clearly revealed in Jesus. Although the OT, and even the Hebrew word Elohim, clearly connoted a plurality in God, some could not get away from that incomplete monotheistic perspective. Indeed Arius was the most vocal, ad are many of his followers today.
There is NO doubt in my view, that the Bible clearly depicts the triune nature of God, which is why so many Jews condemned Jesus in His day, as they understood His claim of divinity.
I am on another forum where Unis abound, as they are not restricted, although lately they have been told to NOT initiate anymore threads on the subject. They are indeed a tenacious bunch, but then again so are most who spread false teaching. Again, IMO, these who do so are apostate, having left their initial understanding of who Jesus was as their savior.
The main tool they use is condescending and dismissive responses, no different than JWs use, as they are very closely aligned to them.

The history of this site is that they don't last long and are pretty much restricted to one sub forum. Again IMO, they should not be allowed to label themselves as Christian, but I don't make the rules.

Blessings.

 

[ewq1938]

So is God not a person? (Because He has no body)

God the Father and God the Son both have bodies. God the Holy Spirit has not flesh and bones (a body).

It is perfectly possible to lie to and grieve a mentally challenged person (whether they understand what you have done or not). Is a lie only a lie when the hearer is aware of it?

That was another posters belief.

We don't lie to inanimate objects because truths and untruths are of no relevance to them and cannot affect them. Nor can they feel grief or pain. This is what is meant by 'not personal'.

The point is a spirit is part of a person not a person itself.

 

[OzSpen]

Once a person decides to call another judgmental they become exactly what they accuse...

Also I completely agree we are to refute false doctrine...those who promote false doctrine promote a false god...

Although I do not believe we can judge the final outcome of those who have a skewed view of the Christ, I do believe we are not to consider them apportioned to the body of Christ.

May God have mercy upon them at the judgement...

Thank you for your affirmation of sound doctrine, refutation of false doctrine, and leaving the final judgement with God Himself.

 

[OzSpen]

So is God not a person? (Because He has no body)

It is perfectly possible to lie to and grieve a mentally challenged person (whether they understand what you have done or not). Is a lie only a lie when the hearer is aware of it?

We don't lie to inanimate objects because truths and untruths are of no relevance to them and cannot affect them. Nor can they feel grief or pain. This is what is meant by 'not personal'.

Deborah,

Thank you for putting this in such an easy to understand statement in your confirming God (I presume you refer to Father, Son & Holy Spirit) as a person.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

I'm sorry for the confusion. #8 identifies myself and my wife. We study and research these doctrines ourselves from the Scriptures. Rarely do we take information from other writers, ancient or contemporary. When credit is due to someone else, then we identify our source. This is why there are no credits given at the end of the teaching. My philosophy is that the Bible is true and can be depended upon. If ancient writers have found the truth in the Bible and correctly interpreted it, then I don't need their writings. I can follow the same path and with prayer and the Holy Ghost as my guide I can locate the same truths. This doesn't mean that others do not write the same material and the two of us are in agreement. It just means they arrived at the same conclusion as me from their own sources.

We do not have a website, possibly some day. In the meantime you can locate some of my treatises by googling a general subject area, or googling the exact title. For example "A Day Begins At Sunrise" or "Between the Evenings" or "Counting Hours (Mark 15:25 and John 19:14 exegesis)", etc. Frequently, it will give a link to some forum - including this one. Typing in my email address of [email protected] into a search engine will also net some doctrines. The only disadvantage is that when I update a treatise or correct an error, I cannot go back and correct it directly on a forum. I cannot afford my own website at this time. I surprise myself at times when I google my own information, "Oh, I forgot that was there." I figure when a google search brings someone to a forum I posted on, it helps bring more business and participants to that forum.

zeke25

Zeke25,

Titus 2:7-8 (ESV) teaches us: 'Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us'.

James 3:1-2 (ESV) reminds us that 'Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body'.

Romans 12:6-7 (ESV) teaches us: 'Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching'.

Therefore, a teacher, whether he be Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Tozer, Zacharias, Mohler, Zeke or Oz should use his gift of teaching in serving one another. The Bible actually teaches a view contrary to yours: that a teacher of Scripture is given by God for the serving of others. It is to your advantage and mine to refer to other Bible teachers in the past or present. I consider it myopic of you not to refer to other teachers to check out your teaching and wisdom. Zeke and his wife are not the fountain heads of all godly wisdom. Many, many wise teachers have gone before us and God has given them to the church for our edification and help.

Other teachers have taught error and that error - that influences the churches - should be refuted. You can't refute it if you are not reading these false teachers.

In fact, if you dared to check out a few other Bible teachers, you would find that your fixation with the KJV would be challenged BIG TIME.

Oz

 

[zeke25]

Zeke25,

Titus 2:7-8 (ESV) teaches us: 'Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us'.

James 3:1-2 (ESV) reminds us that 'Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body'.

Romans 12:6-7 (ESV) teaches us: 'Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching'.

Therefore, a teacher, whether he be Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Tozer, Zacharias, Mohler, Zeke or Oz should use his gift of teaching in serving one another. The Bible actually teaches a view contrary to yours: that a teacher of Scripture is given by God for the serving of others. It is to your advantage and mine to refer to other Bible teachers in the past or present. I consider it myopic of you not to refer to other teachers to check out your teaching and wisdom. Zeke and his wife are not the fountain heads of all godly wisdom. Many, many wise teachers have gone before us and God has given them to the church for our edification and help.

Other teachers have taught error and that error - that influences the churches - should be refuted. You can't refute it if you are not reading these false teachers.

In fact, if you dared to check out a few other Bible teachers, you would find that your fixation with the KJV would be challenged BIG TIME.

Oz

Oz,

oz said: I consider it myopic of you not to refer to other teachers to check out your teaching and wisdom.

zeke25: I do. I check out Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.



oz: Zeke and his wife are not the fountain heads of all godly wisdom.

zeke25: I'm glad we can agree on this. But I must admit I detect sarcasm and pillow dreams that you brought with you to this response. You sure didn't get this from anything I said. Your only source is your wild imagination.



oz: Many, many wise teachers have gone before us and God has given them to the church for our edification and help.

zeke25: Many theological camps claim to have a myriad of wise teachers. Most that I check out have prejudices and a fallen nature - these teachers are of no value to me, or you, or anyone else. But they are still banners waved by other fallen heads. Once again, you want a list, or you want to make a list, and claim how great they are. I haven't seen it. I have seen the opposite. So, what now? Do we start debating teachers through the centuries or do we just stick with the Bible? Are there some great teachers, yes I agree. Are there many, not in a New York minute? This is the problem with exalting teachers (as Paul warns us against), pride rears its ugly head. So, if you want to brag about your education or your vast knowledge of various teachers you will not find an agreeing ear plastered on the side of my head. Instead, I will mock your presumption, which it so richly deserves.



oz: Other teachers have taught error and that error - that influences the churches - should be refuted. You can't refute it if you are not reading these false teachers.

zeke: I refute them all the time, but mostly their heresy. Do you really think you have been exposed to my teachings on an exhaustive scale? Really, what is your hang up? I think maybe you should take an asprin, settle down, and go back to refuting the heretics on this thread, which you have been doing a better job of than the average. I'm not very gentle when it comes to dealing with pridefulness and mind readers.




oz: In fact, if you dared to check out a few other Bible teachers, you would find that your fixation with the KJV would be challenged BIG TIME.

zeke: This one sure came out of left field. If you've got a problem with the KJV, what does that have to do with me? Go take it up with your shrink, I haven't time to play games that you make up in your head.


Zeke25