Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Senior Member Username: Heinrich Post Number: 2193 Registered: 11-2004 |
Rev. David R. Boisclair: "I believe that all that have communicated in this thread to Mr. Brett Meyer have done so in a sincere desire to get through to him what they firmly believe to be the truth." When Brett Meyer made erroneous statements regarding the content of the BOC, I corrected him. I did not judge him, demonize him, or consign him to hell. Brett Meyer has communicated what he firmly believes to be the truth. I appreciate his willingness to engage with me in this internet forum. | ||
     Franz Linden (Franz_mann) Senior Member Username: Franz_mann Post Number: 1909 Registered: 12-2004 |
Daniel Gorman writes: When Brett Meyer made erroneous statements regarding the content of the BOC, I corrected him. I did not judge him, demonize him, or consign him to hell. Well, good for you, Mr. Gorman. Personally, I think one who espouses such beliefs as does Mr. Meyer is in great danger of hell, as are the ones who hear what he has to say. His false beliefs are a direct assault on the very doctrine that saves. If he truly does "firmly believe" his error, his firm belief is what consigns him to hell. One cannot "firmly believe" an error that is a denial of the central article of Holy Scripture and be saved, can he? Franz | ||
| Daniel Gorman (Heinrich) Senior Member Username: Heinrich Post Number: 2194 Registered: 11-2004 |
Franz Linden: "Personally, I think one who espouses such beliefs as does Mr. Meyer is in great danger of hell, as are the ones who hear what he has to say. His false beliefs are a direct assault on the very doctrine that saves. If he truly does "firmly believe" his error, his firm belief is what consigns him to hell." Personally, I think LQ guidelines forbid consigning other posters to hell. Franz Linden: "One cannot "firmly believe" an error that is a denial of the central article of Holy Scripture and be saved, can he?" A baptized person who stubbornly denies the central article of Holy Scripture is consigned to hell by his Christian congregation not by internet posters. | ||
| David Breitenfeld (Dbreitenfeld) Advanced Member Username: Dbreitenfeld Post Number: 866 Registered: 10-2004 |
How can anyone have a discussion, or debate when one side accuses you of false teaching based on false "evidence" or on a false charge, emphatically says you believe this to be your true position, then tries to show how your "false" teaching goes against Scripture and the BOC? Even when ELDoNA's conclusion of essentially condemning those who believe in OJ/SJ based on a false charge: changing "Man's sins are forgiven by God through Christ's atonement" to "mankind is now seen as sinless apart from or prior to faith.." is wrong and unjust. They like to leave out facts and truths, will not tolerate other doctrines to be entered into the discussion, but only just a few ideas they want to present, to keep a circular argument and conclusion? The people defending Justification by faith, like the ones here, brought up other related doctrines, pointed out Scripture out of context, and the errors of ELDoNA, but those were just ignored and dismissed. Even ELDoNA cancels out God's reconciliation/justification for people because some are not reconciled/justified. This would be like saying, Baptism does not save a person, since some who were baptized does save a person). Baptism or Justification it is all God's work. Faith is God's work too, but with ELDoNA it is being treated as something from man to God in order for God's work to be true. Even for Brett, I see him keeping to a script that dose not allow other teachings or doctrines to be entered, for ELDoNA Thesis doesn't permit this type of thinking. It is easy for them to attack a word "OJ" then try to find 1 wrong teaching to be used to show everything is "false." The idea is you (defenders of OJ) can not retort back on those who are "defending" "Justification by Faith" because that would look like you are attacking the central teaching of Christianity and are promoting works. |
