Sunday, October 11, 2009

A Change Of Course

I've learned some things this week.

Something like a month ago one poster, Luke (I believe) who goes by the handle "Look Up" rebuked me for engaging in pointless discussions and debates. He said I should be "preaching the Word" only. I saw some value in what he said, even if I did think his view was greatly limited.

Well here's a change of course for this blog. I'm done "debating" people who have opposing theology from mine. If we are on the same course, then "iron sharpens iron" and we can discuss and even debate the finer issues. However, I will no longer seek to win over those in heresy through the means of debate and discussion. Because it is "iron" that sharpens iron. It is plainly abusive of me to be sharpening myself against those who are outside of fellowship.

Those who are preaching fallacy will be marked as such. They can read whatever work I present and accept it or not. If they disagree they can surely say so. However, I will not engage in point for point discussions with them.

As I explain in the chapter entitled "Ground Rules" of Fail-Safe For Fallacy true teaching on the issues of fallacy (False Prophets, False Teachers, False Conversion Experiences, False Doctrine....) is only helpful if it helps people come to truth. Pointing out the evils of another man is plainly silly if it is only directed at pointing out his evils... So I won't be focusing on how bad this or that person is... unless it is to help someone specific. I will be focusing on my on-going journey toward He who is the Truth.

A word of warning now for all who visit and intend to post. Posts that I BELIEVE (even if it is not absolutely so) are criminal in nature SHALL be reported to the VARIOUS proper authorities without exception. You who read and post are free to play "hard ball" but you are not free to commit liable or other criminal offences. I have seen enough of this in the past week.

I pray often for the people who visit, read and post at this blog. Those who agree with me and those who do not all the same. You are precious to the Lord God Almighty, and through His love you are precious to me. However, you are not all lambs and sheep whom the Lord has given me care for. Many of you are simply passers by. It is not my position to have oversight over you. Therefore if you are harming those who I do have care for, you will be banned.

I have to say that almost always everyone who posts here has shown great care for the character of those they disagree with. When this has not been the case I have never once seen the person step so far over the line as to go into the realm of criminal activity. I hope that will never be the case here. I'm posting this now based on things I've seen at other areas I frequent on the net recently. Such behavior will not be allowed to spread to my blog.

10 comments:

Jan said...

Good for you Kev! I completely agree with you.

BTW Look up is a different commenter than Luke. It was Look up that made that comment.

(Though I suppose Look up's name could be Luke too.)

JanH

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

You’ve taken an important step here.

Over a year ago I pretty much put the clamps on allowing for those who hold to aberrant theology, such as Lordship Salvation and the GES Crossless gospel to propagate their errors at my blog. I do not mind some debate and discussion, but I am quick with the delete and/or ban button if the line is crossed. The thing about blogs is that the administrator is the emperor, maybe a benevolent dictator and he/she draws the line.

As for, “the realm of criminal activity,” it was Sept. 2007 that my blog was used by a GES person to perpetrate a heinous criminal libel and defamation against a brother in Christ. You are fully aware of who it was and what was done so I won’t repeat it here. Equally disturbing what the GES person’s friend(s) were happy to run interference for his criminal actions, and went on to commit criminal actions of their own own. Again, you know what friends I refer to.

The role I have taken is to put the emphasis on, “contending for the faith once delivered” (Jude 3), not debating what the faith is. I used to do both debate/contend about 50/50. Now it is contend upwards of 90%. May I suggest that you contend when the need for is plain. You are a valuable resource for the proclamation and defense of the Gospel

Well, I do look forward to you new manner of administration.

God bless you,


Lou

Fred R. Lybrand said...

Kev,

I certainly get your drift and am cheering for you! Unfortunately, controversy makes for a more popular blog (sadly?).

I think this is something people must settle in their own hearts...on occasion like with philosophy...some are called to fiddle with it, but most are better without it.

My own interactions (as with Jim just now) really doesn't have in it a hope or focus on convincing him (though that would be cool...or, if he 'fixes' me, that would be cool too). I just want to understand and address my understandng...and move along.

I'm much more interested in future disciples who need to learn about grace.

God bless you,

Fred

Lou Martuneac said...

Fred:

You wrote, “My own interactions (as with Jim just now) really doesn't have in it a hope or focus on convincing him (though that would be cool...or, if he 'fixes' me, that would be cool too). I just want to understand and address my understanding...and move along.

Just a few observations:

1) What could possibly be “cool” about having Jim Reitman, or any apologist for the GES reductionist assault on the Gospel like Gary Edmondson, Tim Nichols or Michele convincing or fixing anybody’s theology? You don’t have to answer that.

2) You said your effort “…really doesn’t have in it a hope or focus on convincing him… and move along.

Gratified to read that. Now that you have concluded that Jim Reitman cannot be recovered from the Crossless gospel heresy you can make a personal application of the biblical mandates for just this sort of situation. Those mandates include: admonishment, rejection, marking and avoiding.

Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3:15).

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.,” (Titus 3:10).

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple,” (Rom. 16:17-18).

Kind regards,


Lou

Luke said...

Yep, I am not Look up - I am a free grace dispensationalist

Fred R. Lybrand said...

Lou and all,

Sorry, I didn't get the notice until now (it's on a different computer). The 'cool' part is if I find out the truth and live by it.

Frankly, I am convince of my understanding of God's Word (some parts with more confidence than others)...but I'm very open to being proved wrong. This openness helps me all the more stay focused on being teachable before the Lord.

The funny thing is that is actually deepens my appreciation (usually) for what God has kindly shown me.

All I meant was wherever I find truth and can replace my misunderstands...it is cool!

Of course, I could be wrong ;-),

FRL

Kevl said...

Luke, oops!

Fred, I agree that being teachable ends up building thankfulness.


All, I hope no one is going to expect me to soften my stance on the Gospel. :)

In fact, the first article I've got planned will be in response to something someone posted on another blog... I'm not going to argue with the man, but I am going to show the difference between speculation and truth.

Kev

Lou Martuneac said...

Kev:

Looking forward to that article(s). You've been a blessing in defense of the Gospel against the twin assaults of Lordship Salvation and the GES Crossless gospel and the poor behavior choices of its advocates and sympathizers.


Lou

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I'm not sure what to make of this Kevin. I'm not a follower of MacArthur or any of those other self-styled prophets you sometimes denounce. My general response to anyone handing me a tract is "Thank you, I prefer to read the original for myself," much less a whole book by someone who thinks they have suddenly discovered the "true meaning" of Scripture. (I still recall the young man who looked around in bewilderment and asked me, sincerely, "What's the original?")

On the other hand, you and I met by locking horns at thinkchrisian.net. I came to your site because I thought there must be more to you than the one point we argued about. There was. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't. I don't leave comments to debate at length, but it is good for me to test my understanding again yours, and perhaps I serve the same purpose for you. Nothing illegal of course.

Kevl said...

Hi Siarlys,

I learn from testing my views against others as well. I also agree with you with regard to reading whole books by people who think they've suddenly discovered the "true" meaning of Scripture after all these ages...

I will no doubt continue to debate in other arenas where I will be able to stop if it approaches disgrace to our Lord. Inviting debate here has proved to be hard to manage. I don't want my blog to be a place where God isn't honoured.

Kev