|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Apr 24, 2006 8:11:57 GMT -5
Corner is false, heretical and I'll show it with his own words and doctrines, all kept in context and in exegetical Biblically correct standing. The posts that you put on the "Random Posts" are only someone's opinion that do not refute his teaching scripturally. I welcome the response as does brother Corner to refute his Scriptural stance by use of Scripture. As you have said. The fact of matter is brother Dan uses nothing but Scripture to retute R.C. Standing on the truth of the Word!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 24, 2006 9:43:26 GMT -5
While I may not support everything Dan Corner says or does, he does make some really good points and has some good stuff on conditional security. I haven't read all of his book, but everytime I pick it up it jacks me up. I think he may write off too many people a little too quickly but I believe he is a sincere brother who truly does not want to see people decieved and end up in hell. His writings sure made me think. I have to admit, when I first saw his site I initially wrote him off as a little nuts. My opinion of him has changed since then.
Miles
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 9:53:48 GMT -5
Dr James White shows Corner to be a man without integrity and one who has lied far too many times to go unaccounted for.
If you cannot see Corner's hyprocisy in the letter then shame on you.
You cannot defend the "undefendable".
Again, within a week, i will take Corner's own words and show he preaches a false gospel.
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Apr 24, 2006 14:34:16 GMT -5
Miles, There are somethings I don't necessarily agree all the way on with Dan Corner. I like his teaching because it is the whole Word without pulling any punches. I agree with your assessment about him being very genuinely concerned for people's eternal state. That is why he is so adamant with the use of the Word and nothing else. This is a big reason why a lot of folks don't like him, not him, but the Word. The Word cuts to the core and makes people squirm.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 14:39:54 GMT -5
To equate not liking false prophet Corner's ministry to hating the Word is a statement which I'm sure you should press "edit" on
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Apr 24, 2006 14:47:20 GMT -5
I love you in the name of Jesus, thumper.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 24, 2006 15:50:27 GMT -5
Deleted By BibleThumper at the conviction of the Spirit of God
|
|
|
Post by darcfollowingjesus on Apr 25, 2006 6:52:33 GMT -5
you love me here but in private pm you tell me otherwise in pm. I'm not going to entertain your words i forgive you thumper
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 26, 2006 8:27:50 GMT -5
just a thought:
What happened to all the Catholics between the time when Peter (I think it was Peter who founded the RCC) founded the church and the time when Martin Luther condemned it? Are all those Christians in Hell? I mean, most of them were illiterate and only had bits of the Bible committed to memory? Are they all in Hell because no one knew the "correct doctrine" of the Christian faith?
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Apr 26, 2006 8:34:44 GMT -5
I thank God, not for the RCC, but for those within that institution who I can call my Brethren, Amen! Praise God that our Salvation rests in the Atonement of Jesus Christ and not in a gospel of works or on which seat we sit in Sunday after Sunday ....
David Wilkerson, a man of international repute, character, godliness and integrity, also shares this same sentiment in his sermon "The Vision".
Praise God that some know that the Grace of God reaches out even to RC's!
Amen
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 26, 2006 20:31:37 GMT -5
Peter did not start the RCC. Peter never started any church. Jesus Christ was the Rock which God built His Church upon. The Church is not any physical institution but is a spiritual fellowship of born again believers.
But here have been Roman Catholics that have been saved, though I wonder how many. A Catholic can be a Christian so long as they reject certain Catholic doctrines - salvation by works, salvation by rosery, the co-redemptive power of Mary, praying to the dead, etc etc. And believe in biblical doctrines - being born again (turning from sin and turning to Christ) and salvation by grace through faith.
I was a Catholic for 15 years and then I was born again and met the Lord. Unfortinately the majority of my family are still in the Catholic cult. But after I met the Lord and read the bible I saw no need to continue in the RCC. It's the greatest counterfiet the devil has ever made and I decided not to follow it to hell.
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on Apr 26, 2006 21:15:27 GMT -5
Neither of you answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Apr 26, 2006 21:19:47 GMT -5
It's not really about "correct doctrine" persay Elwing. It is about having the right means of being saved and being saved by the right Jesus. Mormons, JW's, Muslims and RCC's don't have the right Jesus by doctrine. If someone believes in the doctrine of the RCC, then they can't be saved because they have the wrong Jesus (one who has never existed) and because they think they can be saved by works instead of by the Grace of God through Faith in His Son. Hope that answers your questions...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 26, 2006 21:26:03 GMT -5
It's not whether or not you are in this church or that church as much as it is whether or not you are in Christ. Certainly there were men in Christ long before Martin Luther. Martin Luther was not the first to desire a reform in the Catholic Church. Other men before Luther knew God and knew their bibles and recognized the heresies of the Church.
|
|