Give us these kind of men

[Stephen63]

this is disappointing Lynn

truly

you are simply bashing someone you don't really know

I think you have gone beyond what you know to try to make a point

you would not want to be judged the way you have just judged

I think I will just leave it at that because it seems you are getting...er...heated up and might be sorry for some things you said later

there are personality clashes going on here far past any sort of reasonable exchange regarding scripture

and the sock puppets agree

that is all that is going on here. yes, sock puppets like my posts and I as a sock puppet do the same

you have no idea whether I look at myself or not

unreasonable and sadly so

It's not often we see a confession like that.

 

[Susanna]

It's funny, but hence a sock puppet is a false internet identity created to promote an agenda, this site has a lot of false sock puppets (other people acting like sock puppets) lol.

 

[Depleted]

Oh, give me a break bro, you've done this in several threads and we all know it is aimed at an individual. Stop trying to act innocent. I called you on your hypocrisy, and have shown you that you do the exact same thing you accuse in others.

In fact, you've been called on your hypocrisy for doing it by several people that have called you on the carpet. You're being dishonest and you have a double standard. Man up and own it.

I've never seen him call anyone anything negative. (Annoying, really, Grace. )

I disagree with quite a bit of what he teaches, but he is one of the least hypocritical person on this site. (Also annoying. )

And why should he man up when he already does man up, and you don't?

AND, do you want me to go all feminist on you with the "man up" thing? (What is woman up? Is it different than man up? Can guys man down? Mostly, where did we ever pick up that phrase? Oh, sorry. I went feminist anyway. )

 

[phil36]

Health,wealth & prosperity --- word of faith gospels = No gospel at all.


The fact that they may call their teachings Christian does not make it Christian. We live in a time when men and women want their ears tickled and bellies filled to bursting with a topping of something resembling spirituality to help ease their conscience. The health, wealth/word of faith teachers fill all these people's bellies, they are people pleasers, not God pleasers!

Paul says it well:

No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.

 

[Depleted]

THIS is how I feel!

My mom came off as a simple woman, but she harbored much wisdom. And one of her sayings to us kids was "If you don't have something good to say about someone don't say anything at all".

You would think this would be Christianity 101.

I do not trust those who insist on bashing other people. Why not just speak truth, WITHOUT naming ANYBODY, and let the Holy Spirit speak to people with that truth?

Imagine a public swimming pool in August with a cage in it and a guy in that cage. And the guy in the cage has a megaphone that's very loud. It's your typical swimming pool, complete with deep end and shallow end. And it's full of people of all swimming skills, including those who can't swim or aren't strong swimmers. Got that imagined?

Good. Now the dude in the cage is shouting with his meagaphone to everyone that the deep end holds all glorious things -- life, happiness, goodness, puppies, unicorns, candy, money, and wonders to be had just by swimming into it.

What should the strong swimmers do? What should the ones on the side of the pool with life preservers and poles do? They can't get into that cage to take him away to protect the ones duped. Are they just supposed to quietly go into the deep end to save the ones who believed Caged Dude? And then repeat, repeat, repeat? (Because seriously, the word gets out, so more and more are coming.) But do so quietly as to not disrupt Cage Dude? Apparently, they aren't supposed to bash him either, so what are they supposed to do?

I don't trust those who just watch.

 

[Depleted]

A big problem seems to be that people give themselves permission to be highly critical of others but then complain bitterly when criticism is turned on them even in the slightest. They can go up and down all sides of a person and think nothing of it beyond how justified they are in their opinions regardless of whether or not their imaginings are based in fact or not, because fact has little to do with how they rationalize their behavior.

A much bigger problem on this site is how often people say things like that and yet can't imagine it describes them too.

 

[Stephen63]

And, nope. I've got no idea what you were talking about with sock puppets.

I'll be glad to help you with that one.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[SUP][2][/SUP] to manipulate public opinion,[SUP][3][/SUP] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[SUP][4][/SUP] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.


History

The term "sockpuppet" was used as early as July 9, 1993,[SUP][5][/SUP] but did not become common in USENET groups until 1996. The first Oxford English Dictionary example of the term, defined as "a person whose actions are controlled by another; a minion," is taken from U.S. News and World Report, March 27, 2000
Strawman sockpuppet[edit]

A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position.[SUP][13][/SUP] Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to Internet trolls.
A particular case is the Concern troll, a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD) within the group.

See anyone you know yet?


Meatpuppet

The term "meatpuppet" (or "meat puppet") is used as a pejorative description of various online behaviors. The term was in use before the Internet gained public awareness, including references in Ursula K. Le Guin's science fiction story "The Diary of the Rose" (1976),[SUP][14][/SUP] the alternative rock band Meat Puppets, and the cyberpunk novelist William Gibson's Neuromancer (1984).[SUP][15][/SUP] Editors of Wikipedia use the term to label contributions of new community members if suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position.[SUP][16][/SUP] Such a recruited member is considered analogous to a sockpuppet even though he/she is actually a separate individual (i.e. "meat") rather than a fictitious creation. Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg put "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," defining the term as "a person who disagrees with you."[SUP][17]

[/SUP]Nevertheless, other online sources use the term "meatpuppet" to describe sockpuppet behaviors. For example, according to one online encyclopedia, a meat puppet "publishes comments on blogs, wikis and other public venues about some phenomenon or product in order to generate public interest and buzz"—that is, he/she is engaged in behavior more widely known as "astroturfing."[SUP][18][/SUP] A 2006 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education defined a meat puppet as "a peculiar inhabitant of the digital world—a fictional character that passes for a real person online."[SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP][SUP]

When I first found out what a sockpuppet was, the puzzle pieces started falling into place.

Here's the real power behind sockpuppets: when a person is hired to be one, the are usually given enough computer equipment to log on as several people at once! They use programs to make them look they're from different states & countries.

When you're arguing with 6-7 people at once in the BDF, you may be really arguing with one or two.[/SUP]

One might think joseph prince has sockpuppets in here because of how fast they will jump you for even questioning him.

Imagine that.

Selah.

 

[Depleted]

This has not been done. There is no proof. I think this is a prime example of how "slandering others" manifests itself and reveals itself for what it really is.

I will not interact with those that continue to exhibit this kind of bad behavior as it is deceitful and does no good for anyone.

Any of us can fall for this type of behavior and we can try to justify it but it is the flesh acting up. Brethren I encourage us all to not walk in this type of behavior as it has the real potential to defile us and it creates strife and division amongst us.

There is a way of speaking forth the gospel of the grace of God without the malice and slandering others that have a different ministry then we do. Let's endeavor to do that very thing and bring glory to our Lord.

Paul says - none of us know all things as we ought to know it. We need each other and each other has a part to play in the body of Christ. Not all are the same body part nor have the same function. He is the head - He will direct us in the way that we are to go.

Okay, so technically it's libel, not slander. (Slander is speaking. Libel is published. Everything we write on here is published. Sorry -- word nerd. Can't help it. lol)

Osteen was neither slandered nor libeled, because it is the truth. (He gets both words because Lawson talked, instead of wrote.)

You, however, were libeled on this thread.

AND, still, the gospel is God, not grace. (Just to remind you what else we disagree with.)

 

[notmyown]

a note to all:

i have heard Mr. Osteen preach, not dozens but several (honestly can't recall the number and eventually my husband turned off the tv in disgust).

and not meaning to attack Osteen's person, but his teaching.
he does not teach the whole Gospel because he feels people are already weighed down and need to be lifted up (my paraphrase). there is some truth in that for some people, but!

if we consider, as i do, the book of Romans to be God's treatise on the whole Gospel, let's take a quick look.

Romans 1-3 contains the message that God is Holy and people are sinners. our dilemma. our indictment.

Romans (well, the end of chapter 3 and) 4-11 explain how God saves those who believe in Christ.

Romans 12-16 tell the believers how they are now to live in light of so great a salvation.

that's the whole Gospel, right? before the Good News, it's bad news, and we must get the bad news about ourselves.
prosperity "gospel" aside, Joel talks to his congregation as though everyone attending is in Christ, and there's danger there. perhaps he does, but i've never heard him speak about our duties as bondservants of the Lord, either. and that's part of the Gospel, isn't it? (honest question, isn't it??)
because God in Christ has done 'this' (Rom 4-11) (indicative) we are now empowered to obey Him (Rom 12-16) (imperative).

idk.... i hope you know i love you. i fear for those who flock to Osteen's type of teaching because it is, if not totally false, certainly incomplete when it comes to salvation. each time i've heard him, all i can think about is:

Let your manner of life be without covetousness, being satisfied with the present; for He Himself has said: "Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you." (Heb 13:5 Berean Literal Bible)

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Prov 17:15 NASB)

i pray i'm doing neither.

 

[Depleted]

Actually it has been done. The prosperity gospel is heresy, and you embrace it as yours.

Have you even watched the video? Compared it to Scripture? Compared Osteens heresy to Scripture?

Slander means to lie, so, either, show us all the lie, or stop lying yourself.

Anytime your personal beliefs are brought up, things you say you believe, you then call the one doing it a slanderer. You simply don't know what you're talking about or what the term means and are in fact lying when you falsely accuse of slander.



Soooo...when we are called to reprove and rebuke false teachers by name in Scripture, commanded to do so, it is the flesh acting up, eh?

That's utterly ridiculous and a slam on the truth.

Is it your flesh acting up when you rant about the false teachers and pharisees here?




Yes folks, don't obey the Word, obey grace777. When the Word of God shows us to reprove and rebuke false teaching, ignore it, and pay no mind to when grace777 rebukes pharisees and false teazchers in threads here, he's allowed to, he has a double standard.



No one has slandered, you've been shown that. Glorify the LORD? Yes, do that, by obeying Scripture and exposing the false teachers.



What a lame excuse and misuse of, and paraphrasing of, Paul out of context. Those passages do not address this issue whatsoever. Looking at that it is no wonder you're a fan of Osteen, he also rips passages out of context.

Pure bupkis! Grace asked you to prove that he has slandered anyone -- has said anything nasty about anyone -- AFTER you said he did. Instead of proving yourself, you took this back to talking about Olsteen instead of facing up to what YOU said -- to either prove it or to ask for forgiveness.

You're the one ripping passages out of context. And proof? Reread the exchange between you and Grace. It's on this thread, so not even much effort.

Man up!

 

[Depleted]

again

YOUR truth and acceptance of a certain preacher's subjective interpretation; a teacher who advises us that salvation is a gift that must be purchased by our own good behavior

that is an interpretation and not the facts of what is presented in the Bible

the gospel according to lordship salvation actually places the individual at the helm of their own little rowboat when Jesus has presented Himself as captain of the ship

you insist on calling Jesus Lord when in actual fact, you make Him less so by constantly trying to be good enough to be saved

you wish to present a cheap facsimile of the real invitation and those of us who see through that and bring attention to it, are vilified by people who I do not believe actually understand the teaching they supposedly champion

the part you play, is judging those who question what he teaches. the name calling and apparent disdain and desired segregation from those of us who point out the error, do not reflect the gospel because you teach anything BUT whosoever will may come.

you cannot offer any sort of justification of the names you call others or the decision on your part to apply scripture where convenient to you, to the detriment of others that you have decided fit into a certain narrow and prejudiced doctrine that is actually the little throne room from which those who find fault and judge all others by their own actions, occupy. in case you could not follow that, you exclude which is not the invitation that has gone out from the throne room of God

this thread is like every other thread in the forum with some notable exceptions

you simply wish to make a point that is not shared with at least half or more of the people who regularly participate in said forums, a fact that is quickly picked up by people with as little as one months' membership here

that does not make your thread holy or just or righteous no matter how much you wish it to do so

having failed at creating legitimacy for your approach to why the rest of us should thank you for demanding we participate the way you say, you resort to name calling and personal attack

how very original

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Skip who Lawson is. (I already said I don't like him because he's nasty.) The way he said it was wrong, but was what he said wrong?

 

[Depleted]

I have to apologize to Lynn. I have NEVER used the term "Christianity 101" and I didn't have a chance to read the thread beyond the quote Sevenseas said on page 1.

I was NOT using it as some backhanded way to address any posts she made. As I now read through more, I see that Lynn used that term several times.

Pretty cool coincidence! Sorry Lynn.

Also, I am neither endorsing Olsteen or condemning him, or anybody else for that matter.

I was merely saying that if WE give the Truth of the Gospel that will by default discredit any heretical gospel. We can do that without tearing an individual down.

I like this quote:“Truth without love is brutality, and love without truth is hypocrisy.”

We need to give the Truth in LOVE. That, after all, is what distinguishes us as Christians.

I didn't even get the connection to me with "Christianity 101." "101" is a colloquialism used often in our neck of the woods, so we're bound to use it when we talk often enough. No need to apologize, and I truly think people get we aren't the same people so would use it however we individually use it. lol

 

[Depleted]

Our message is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the message of salvation through His person and work. That sounds simple enough, but it is not nearly as simple as it sounds. The simple message, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved,” has been assaulted from early on. Since the message is crucial to salvation, since anathema is pronounced on those who misrepresent it or change it (Gal. 1:6-9), we need to know the message. If we are to be true to the Bible and to the grace of our Lord, we need to be able to share the gospel clearly and avoid the distortions.

Outside the doctrines related to the Person and work of Christ, there is no truth more far-reaching in its implications and no fact more to be defended than that salvation in all its limitless magnitude is secured, so far as human responsibility is concerned, by believing on Christ as Savior. To this one requirement no other obligation may be added without violence to the Scriptures and total disruption of the essential doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Only ignorance or reprehensible inattention to the structure of a right Soteriology will attempt to intrude some form of human works with its supposed merit into that which, if done at all, must, by the very nature of the case, be wrought by God alone and on the principle of sovereign grace.


source

let's address the above instead of just accepting the op's word for it that we all have itching ears and listen to false prophets

this is not about Joel Osteen

this is about the real message of Steve Lawson which is lordship salvation

I have noticed a few people now telling people in the forums to watch videos they post while neglecting to mention that the person in the video is taking the stance they are, because they believe in salvation PLUS

there is no plus to salvation. they will be quick to tell you they do not believe in works or working for salvation but at the same time, lordship salvation teaches that we must say certain things, believe certain things and do certain things that are in ADDITION to accepting Christ as our Savior

the article I linked to is well written, explains the dual nature of lordship salvation and presents the actual gospel with the purpose of clarifying what seems to have become an issue of debate never intended by those who originally presented the truth of God salvation plan through His Son

if this engenders further name calling and insult, to anyone, or is handily ignored, then discussion is not actually invited by the op, but rather blocked and submission to the teaching, through the video, is desired

anyone who examines what someone says should not be called names or put on a list with people who have eczema of the ears

the cure for itchy ears is the truth, not a misrepresentation of it by people who yell to make it seem they have the right to judge everyone who disagrees with them

Assault A
(And notice the five Assaults were 1-5, so no letters in that study at all)
"Believe whatever you want to believe."

The more I'm reading P4T, the more I agree with you that this isn't about truth so much for him as it is about being right.

But, again, even a broken clock is right twice a day. And to many of us this really is about Osteen teaching a foreign gospel.

I appreciate you answered a question that's been rattling around in the back of my brain -- "What's up with this Lawson guy?" Because of what you've written (And, of course I looked at the source lol), I now know I'd trust him like is trust _____. (Hey, I did say I'm not into calling out many, and the name in my head now is much loved by many, and that's okay, but I see problems with him like you and I see problems with Lawson. So let's just leave it at he's one of the variations listed in that "Assault List." Someone I don't trust.) I won't trust Lawson either.

But that doesn't make Osteen any better. I still see him as much worse. To me Lawson is thin ice. Osteen is like Devil's Snare in Harry Potter. There are two choices:
-- relax and let it sink you into the dark depths of humanism.
-- Have the Light destroy it.

This thread seems to be between the two choices. Do we relax and let Olsteen take out whoever he wants, or do we shine God's light?

 

[Depleted]

Yupppp...trollish, hypocritical behavior on her part. Then takes opportunity to say I don't preach the gospel. Very callow behavior on her part.

Might want to search out what the word troll means on the Internet, because you're the one going there.

 

[Depleted]

What you sought to do was call names, and lie about a persons Gospel message, and offer slander upon persons for showing the false gospel of Osteen. You then commenced to calling names, slander and frankly lied about the Gospel I preach.

That was your objective, but you're still trying to mop up your mess by not owning up to what you've done.

This thread is for those who love and stand for the truth, so, it isn't for you.

Seriously, dude? If this is your version of love and stand, you're really going to have to start studying the Bible. Because your version is neither loving nor standing for truth.

 

[PennEd]

God gives us the light work. He does the heavy lifting.

I believe God wants us to deal with heretics and hypocrites as they cross our path. We don't need to go out and hunt them. They tend to hunt us. That is why they are called wolves in sheep clothing.

Not a hidden jab, because though I don't like Stephen, I believe I read one post about 3 months ago that might have had the gospel message in it.

Since I don't stalk him, I would hope he does more than attack people, though rhats about all I have seen.

Might just be a sheep with scrapie...gonna let God take care of that one.

Hey Ariel,

I think you've touched on something here that is an issue with many Christians. The idea that God is too busy with the BIG problems of our lives and world to bother Him with what WE think are light or small issues. Therefore WE need to step in and help Him out.

Why can't the Truth of the Gospel stand on it's own? Why does it need our help to point out what ISN'T the Truth? Again, Paul went after false DOCTRINES not individuals. In Colossians for instance. He laid out the false gnostic gospel and kept hammering away that Christ is sufficient. Addressing the brethren with gentleness and love. Even those who never saw his face.

 

[Magenta]

The sin of individuals was pointed out by Paul.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping
with his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather
have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship
the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am
not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is
present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment
in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.

 

[Depleted]

Allow me to reiterate that Paul, Peter, Christ, The OT prophets, Jude among many others, stood and openly rebuked false teachers.

Some of them by their names.

And again, Paul only had one letter wherein he didn't rebuke false teaching and/or false teachers.

What I am gathering, and it is the truth, is that there are several in this thread and forum who would call out the aforementioned as "witch hunters," "negative", "don't preach the Gospel", and "slanderers" for their stance for truth and opposition of false teachers. And that is a fact because they would have to be consistent in their application if what they are saying is true. But it isn't true, they are against biblical mandates.

In fact, you all are calling them this, as they initiated by the Word of God that this is the stance we are to take, and those of us being called this here stand with very, very, very good company.

Here is the bottom line - Osteen is a false teacher, he is in fact a heretic, preaching a bankrupt gospel where he has become rich; 2 Peter 2:3, and preaches nothing less than covetousness, self love and the so-called prosperity gospel.

Therefore, the negative and unbiblical responses to those standing on truth against error such as preached by Osteen and others are the epitome of what it looks like to not endure sound doctrine.

And then after you learn what troll means, and then love and stand for truth means, THEN it's time to see the examples JESUS, then Paul, then Peter gave, because this is
Z. None of the above.

I'm just figuring something out. A good portion of the church has been teaching haughty is a fruit of the Spirit, hasn't it? And you've been taught that for quite some time. (Which now makes me understand why you like Lawson.) Check out Romans 1. It give the full list of sin/bad fruit, and haughty is in there.

Now I understand why the young people are haughty. They learned it from the elders.

(I also see why God was gracious enough to never let us have kids. Man! Our kids would have learned haughty! It's tough getting rid of the habit of haughty.)

 

[PennEd]

Imagine a public swimming pool in August with a cage in it and a guy in that cage. And the guy in the cage has a megaphone that's very loud. It's your typical swimming pool, complete with deep end and shallow end. And it's full of people of all swimming skills, including those who can't swim or aren't strong swimmers. Got that imagined?

Good. Now the dude in the cage is shouting with his meagaphone to everyone that the deep end holds all glorious things -- life, happiness, goodness, puppies, unicorns, candy, money, and wonders to be had just by swimming into it.

What should the strong swimmers do? What should the ones on the side of the pool with life preservers and poles do? They can't get into that cage to take him away to protect the ones duped. Are they just supposed to quietly go into the deep end to save the ones who believed Caged Dude? And then repeat, repeat, repeat? (Because seriously, the word gets out, so more and more are coming.) But do so quietly as to not disrupt Cage Dude? Apparently, they aren't supposed to bash him either, so what are they supposed to do?

I don't trust those who just watch.

I wouldn't trust those that watched either! LOl

Instead, I'd trust the ones telling the truth, in love, that neither drowned the liar, nor agreed with him, and let the OWNER of the pool deal with him.

 

[PennEd]

The sin of individuals was pointed out by Paul.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you,
and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping
with his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather
have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship
the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am
not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is
present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment
in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.

What was the name of the individual Paul was talking about? And what was the result of this man's sin? Was this man preaching a false gospel, and didn't another power inflict judgement on his body but not his soul?