Martin Luther once remarked that wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy.  We live in an age that abhors controversy, and we are prone to avoid conflict.  How dissimilar this atmosphere is from that which marked the labor of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles...As much as Paul sought to live peaceably with all men, he found rare moments of peace and little respite from controversy.  [R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, pp. 19, 20]

The offense of the gospel, as expressed in the doctrines of grace, provides ample evidence that salvational truths are increasingly abhorred in our culture (even as in Jesus’ day). On the other hand, Dr. Sproul further adds that the religious tolerance in our midst today reflects that ”the gospel has been so compromised that it no longer provokes the conflict that true faith engenders.” Thus, it is little wonder that the importance of doctrinal purity is frequently downplayed.

Dennis Fischer

Recently (August 1, 2009), in the member’s only section of the FAF forum, there is an excellent thread on the weekly Sabbath.  In fact, some of the posts were so outstanding that I printed them out.  I couldn’t help but notice, however, that no one made any snide remarks like ”Didn’t we cover this topic already several years ago?” or
”I can hardly wait for this to be over with.” as typically found on FAF threads dealing with the doctrines of grace.  Truly, this reflects a very sad and serious bias.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis - 01 August 2009 11:07 PM

Recently (August 1, 2009), in the member’s only section of the FAF forum, there is an excellent thread on the weekly Sabbath.  In fact, some of the posts were so outstanding that I printed them out.  I couldn’t help but notice, however, that no one made any snide remarks like ”Didn’t we cover this topic already several years ago?” or
”I can hardly wait for this to be over with.” as typically found on FAF threads dealing with the doctrines of grace.  Truly, this reflects a very sad and serious bias.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis,
Could you please elaborate on the above post? I am not sure what you mean.  Thanks

Stan

Stan,

I was simply pointing out the frequency and acceptable treatment of certain topics (i.e., Sabbath, state of the dead, Ellen White, etc.) in stark contrast with topics that are loathed, ridiculed, and shunned (i.e., doctrines of grace) on the FAF forum.  It further reveals the contrasting CONDUCT (choice of words) toward those who post on acceptable topics versus those that are highly taboo.  Sadly, the choice of words sometimes selected are from the most ungodly variety.  Flaming is commonplace.

Yet the spurned topics repeatedly come up and receive alot of interest by many inquiring former Adventists. Some newer posters are not aware that such topics receive a very chilly reception on the FAF forum.  They simply have an intense desire to discover the truths of salvation for the very first time. Moreover, they are certainly not trying to bring out the worst behavior of some who post there.  As you already know, online etiquette on a discussion forum is largely determined by the moderator.

Dennis Fischer

Dennis - 02 August 2009 11:57 PM

Stan,

I was simply pointing out the frequency and acceptable treatment of certain topics (i.e., Sabbath, state of the dead, Ellen White, etc.) in stark contrast with topics that are loathed, ridiculed, and shunned (i.e., doctrines of grace) on the FAF forum.  It further reveals the contrasting CONDUCT (choice of words) toward those who post on acceptable topics versus those that are highly taboo.  Sadly, the choice of words sometimes selected are from the most ungodly variety.  Flaming is commonplace.

Yet the spurned topics repeatedly come up and receive alot of interest by many inquiring former Adventists. Some newer posters are not aware that such topics receive a very chilly reception on the FAF forum.  They simply have an intense desire to discover the truths of salvation for the very first time. Moreover, they are certainly not trying to bring out the worst behavior of some who post there.  As you already know, online etiquette on a discussion forum is largely determined by the moderator.

Dennis Fischer

Unfortunately the moderators take Reformation truths lightly. They haven’t read Calvin or Luther that I know of, and they don’t hold the Reformation in high esteem. Topic are controlled much the same way that James and Ellen would control topics.

Stan

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are some FAF posters who repeatedly feel comfortable and compelled to attack the doctrines of grace as something that has been debated for centuries without any consensus.  Thus, they wrongly reason that the topic was addressed several years ago and that should be highly sufficient for the foreseeable future. 

However, they totally ignore the fact that the popular FAF topics of the Jewish Sabbath, soul sleep, conditionalism, modes of baptism, nature of Christ, etc. have likewise been debated for centuries without any consensus by the opposing sides.  In short, it is indisputable that their bias against certain topics is showing big time.

Dennis Fischer

GABRIEL PROKSCH - 15 April 2009 09:18 AM

God will elect a certain number of people (Unconditional Election), Jesus will die for the same group (Limited Atonement)

I am not sure why some must promote such.

“the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it.”—John 5 <===Christ Doctrine
“the Son quickeneth whom he will.”
“the Son gives life to whom he will.”

God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. 2Cor 5

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1John 2

These passages are NOT divorced from another Christ doctrine:

When He comes, He will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:  about sin, because people do not believe in Me —John 16

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.  Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John

(many people in 1844 ran ahead, not staying in His teachings. They did not have God it says.)

Dennis - 05 August 2009 07:57 AM

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are some FAF posters who repeatedly feel comfortable and compelled to attack the doctrines of grace as something that has been debated for centuries without any consensus.  Thus, they wrongly reason that the topic was addressed several years ago and that should be highly sufficient for the foreseeable future. 

However, they totally ignore the fact that the popular FAF topics of the Jewish Sabbath, soul sleep, conditionalism, modes of baptism, nature of Christ, etc. have likewise been debated for centuries without any consensus by the opposing sides.  In short, it is indisputable that their bias against certain topics is showing big time.

Dennis Fischer

It is as if they use the Limited atonement strawman as an escuse to not deny self.

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Stan Ermshar - 03 August 2009 12:51 AM

Topic are controlled much the same way that James and Ellen would control topics.

Stan

The Whites ended up using the strawman argument of Rome changing sabbath to Sunday as their proof that what they held was correct.

Real Christians understand better about such:

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 2 Thess 2

There was no truth in either 1843 or 1844. They surely delighted in their wickedness!