What makes a doctrine false?

[quietthinker]

Nice try, Quiet, but aligning me with Jack was careless on your part. You’re free to speculate as much as you like, but it changes nothing about your situation.

Where did you get the idea that I hold to penal substitutionary atonement?

It seems you are reaching again, first with Jack, and now in trying to define what I believe without genuinely asking or seeking to understand.

But something has just become clear, you have misinterpreted Acts 2:23. Not only does the meaning of that verse remain hidden from you, it also appears that the true principles of atonement are unfamiliar to you also.

Isn't it odd Hidden that when I read your explanations I conclude you don't understand what you are talking about....even Acts 2:23 which you quote so confidently has evaded your understanding. As far as the penal substitution idea, your language sings its tune.

It reminds me of Jesus as he prayed for the soldiers who pinned him up and were now gambling for his few clothes; they hadn't a clue what they were doing according to Jesus although had you asked them, I'm almost certain they would have said they did.

 

[quietthinker]

I'll give you and @quietthinker an example.

Isaiah 53 is considered to be one of the most Messianic chapters in the Bible.

Speaking of the suffering God would inflict on His Son:

Isaiah 53:10 “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”

Other translations state that its

Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief…”

How are we to understand the statement that it pleased God to bruise His Son?
What doctrinal truths flow from this verse?
Can the same teaching be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament?
Why did translators replace the phrase “it pleased the LORD” with “the will of the LORD”? Is there a meaningful distinction between the two?
For what purpose did God put His Son to grief?

If you both truly know God, you should be able to articulate what it is that gives Him pleasure.

You know Hidden, I would gladly explain what you think I don't understand re Isaiah 53 however past experience with your approach has taught me not to waste my time and effort. The scripture would describe it as not throwing your pearls to swine because they will trample them underfoot then turn around and attack you.
That quoted there is a high chance you will interpret this as me saying you are swine even when I a not. I don't think Jesus called anyone a swine either. He used this illustration to highlight two opposite values; to know the score and not be naive.
In any case, you are free to draw your conclusions anyway you draw them.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Isn't it odd Hidden that when I read your explanations I conclude you don't understand what you are talking about....even Acts 2:23 which you quote so confidently has evaded your understanding. As far as the penal substitution idea, your language sings its tune.

Theres an irony in this quiet - can you see it?

Imagine if it was reversed and I didn't take you at your word?

It reminds me of Jesus as he prayed for the soldiers who pinned him up and were now gambling for his few clothes; they hadn't a clue what they were doing according to Jesus although had you asked them, I'm almost certain they would have said they did.

Another diversion?

I have already stated that I do not hold to penal substitution theology, yet you continue to attribute that view to me for reasons that are unclear.

I asked you a series of questions on Isaiah 53:10, questions that are meant to lead to specific doctrinal truths. Please address those directly.

 

[Hiddenthings]

You know Hidden, I would gladly explain what you think I don't understand re Isaiah 53 however past experience with your approach has taught me not to waste my time and effort. The scripture would describe it as not throwing your pearls to swine because they will trample them underfoot then turn around and attack you.

Let's assume I could make the same claim as you shall we?

That quoted there is a high chance you will interpret this as me saying you are swine even when I a not. I don't think Jesus called anyone a swine either. He used this illustration to highlight two opposite values; to know the score and not be naive.
In any case, you are free to draw your conclusions anyway you draw them.

As I said in my previous reply, it seems you almost want me to hold to penal substitutionary atonement when I've repeatedly said I don't. All I am asking is for you to explain why Scripture says God took pleasure in bruising His Son.

If you think it's an invalid question or you are unable to answer, be straight!

While I think your inference about casting pearls before swine is misplaced, it is worth remembering how strong the Master’s language is in that verse. Dogs may be eager to devour anything set before them, yet they lack discernment and may later vomit up what they have consumed, only to turn and tear at others.

I doubt we have caused such tearing in our communications - a lot of rebuke, yes, but not tearing!

The Lord is warning against offering valuable spiritual truths to those who will not value them. He gives two reasons for this caution: first, the sacred things will be treated with contempt, the pearls will be trampled underfoot; second, those who offer them will suffer harm, they may be “torn to pieces.”

The question, then, is how we are to live out this instruction in practice?

 

[Hiddenthings]

You know Hidden, I would gladly explain what you think I don't understand re Isaiah 53 however past experience with your approach has taught me not to waste my time and effort. The scripture would describe it as not throwing your pearls to swine because they will trample them underfoot then turn around and attack you.
That quoted there is a high chance you will interpret this as me saying you are swine even when I a not. I don't think Jesus called anyone a swine either. He used this illustration to highlight two opposite values; to know the score and not be naive.
In any case, you are free to draw your conclusions anyway you draw them.

For everyone else reading Quiets reply it's a good opportunity to consider who qualifies as swine and dog.

I believe Peter provides an important clue: “It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘The dog returns to its own vomit,’ and, ‘The sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire’” (2 Peter 2:22).

Dogs and swine. The Lord warned us against giving precious spiritual things to such as these.

Can Peter help us identify who they are?

He is speaking of wicked backsliders. The entire chapter is devoted to describing them. They are those who have “forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor” (v. 15). Again, Peter writes: “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them” (vv. 20–21).

Hence, Peter concludes that what has happened to them accords precisely with the proverb: they return to what they once left behind, proving their unchanged nature.

Care is always needed when referencing such a one as it's possible to judge amiss and end up falling short of the command to preach in and out of season.

 

[St. SteVen]

For everyone else reading Quiets reply it's a good opportunity to consider who qualifies as swine and dog.

Someone needs to take a chill pill.

Care is always needed when referencing such a one as it's possible to judge amiss and end up falling short of the command to preach in and out of season.

LOL
Get over yourself.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Someone needs to take a chill pill.


LOL
Get over yourself.

Careless wisdom! Job 42:7 all the way...

 

[St. SteVen]

Careless wisdom! Job 42:7 all the way...

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[BarneyFife]

O come Desire of Nations, bind...

All peoples in one heart and mind;

Bid envy, strife, and quarrels cease;

Fill the whole world with Heaven's peace...

Rejoice!
Rejoice!
Immanuel...

The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so abandon the quarrel before it breaks out. – Proverbs 17:14

A hot-tempered person stirs up conflict, but the one who is patient calms a quarrel. – Proverbs 15:18

If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. – Galatians 5:15

As charcoal to embers and as wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome person for kindling strife. – Proverbs 26:21

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. – Romans 14:19

It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. – Proverbs 20:3

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. – 1 Peter 3:9

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. – Titus 3:9

My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. – James 1:19

Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife. – Proverbs 17:1

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves. – Philippians 2:3

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. – Matthew 5:9

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. – Romans 12:18

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. – Matthew 18:15

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. – Ephesians 4:32

The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. – Proverbs 12:18

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. – Colossians 4:6

Those who guard their mouths and their tongues keep themselves from calamity. – Proverbs 21:23

A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. – Proverbs 15:1

Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. – 1 Thessalonians 5:11

 

[lforrest]

Let's assume I could make the same claim as you shall we?

As I said in my previous reply, it seems you almost want me to hold to penal substitutionary atonement when I've repeatedly said I don't. All I am asking is for you to explain why Scripture says God took pleasure in bruising His Son.

If you think it's an invalid question or you are unable to answer, be straight!

While I think your inference about casting pearls before swine is misplaced, it is worth remembering how strong the Master’s language is in that verse. Dogs may be eager to devour anything set before them, yet they lack discernment and may later vomit up what they have consumed, only to turn and tear at others.

I doubt we have caused such tearing in our communications - a lot of rebuke, yes, but not tearing!

The Lord is warning against offering valuable spiritual truths to those who will not value them. He gives two reasons for this caution: first, the sacred things will be treated with contempt, the pearls will be trampled underfoot; second, those who offer them will suffer harm, they may be “torn to pieces.”

The question, then, is how we are to live out this instruction in practice?

If there is a disagreement about foundational truths it may be wise not to move past them. Because you know that anything preached that builds on those rejected truths would also be rejected.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

What makes a doctrine false?

Please quote what you would like to respond to. Thanks.

1. You've never heard it before. (knee-jerk defensive response)

2. You have heard of it before, but assume it's false. (haven't looked into it)

3. Doesn't align with your church's doctrine (your church would say it is false)

4. Doesn't align with your personal doctrine (your views differ)

5. YOUR "Bible" says it is false. (other biblical opinions don't matter)

6. It makes you uncomfortable. (therefore it must be wrong)

7. Everyone knows it's false. (except those who believe it)

Hello, St. Steven, how are you all? I decided to take a look at this question:
John 7

Jesus Teaches at the Feast

1After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. 2Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. 3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. 4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. 5For neither did his brethren believe in him. 6Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. 7The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. 8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. 9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. 11Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he? 12And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. 13Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.

14Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

19Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 21Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. 22Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 24Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

John 7 KJV

Love, Walter and Debbie

 

[Hiddenthings]

If there is a disagreement about foundational truths it may be wise not to move past them. Because you know that anything preached that builds on those rejected truths would also be rejected.

Correct. Take, for example, the false teaching of universalism. This doctrine strips Scripture of its many rebukes and removes the reality of judgment, effectively making God a debtor to man rather than man accountable to God.

While God speaks plainly about those who are lost to salvation, they override His Word and proclaim a message that stands in opposition to the His truth.

It effectively allows these men to say and do as they please (lawlessness), leading others into divisive teaching. I am surprised the admin staff has permitted this, especially when many others have been banned for far less.

 

[Hiddenthings]

14Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

Excellent passage Walter & Debbie!

However, there is a greater issue with @St. SteVen & @quietthinker in these threads:

John 7:24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Christian civility does not commit us to a relativistic worldview. Being civil does not mean refraining from critique, nor does it require approving everything that others believe or do. There is a clear distinction between affirming a person’s right to express deeply held convictions and affirming the truth of those convictions themselves. Christian civility calls us to uphold the former, not the latter.

To treat all beliefs and values as equally valid is to embrace relativism, a position incompatible with Christian faith and practice. Civility does not demand the suspension of discernment or judgment about what is good and true. In fact, complete nonjudgmentalism is impossible.

Even accusing someone of being judgmental is, in itself, an act of judgment.

Universalism undermines the importance of sound doctrine and proper judgment, promoting the idea of a God who sets aside His righteousness and disregards the precious life He has placed in His Son.

Let's use an example:

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Universalism teaches that God will ultimately reconcile every person who has ever lived, whether righteous or wicked, but how, then, are we to understand and account for the Lord’s own words?

These false teachers teach compulsory Grace.

Grace, which Scripture presents as a gift received by faith, becomes inescapable, turning God from a righteous judge into a moral debtor who must save everyone regardless of response.

Many in this forum have rejected their false teaching (@lforrest), yet they are still permitted to create new threads and continue spreading these ideas, asserting that everyone can come to the Father regardless of whom or what they worship, whether Buddha, Molech, or a golden calf.

 

[St. SteVen]

14Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? 16Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 17If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. 18He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

How does this help us to determine whether a doctrine is false?
It seems that doctrine always has some element of human interpretation.

 

[Hiddenthings]

How does this help us to determine whether a doctrine is false?
It seems that doctrine always has some element of human interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”

What does 2 Peter 1:21 teach you?

 

[Hiddenthings]

@everyone else

2 Peter 1:20 – Interpretation: The Greek word “epilusis”, from the root “luo” meaning “to loose” or “to explain,” can also be understood as “origination” or “sending forth.”

The term epilusis conveys more than simple Bible study or exegesis, it implies that some were attempting to determine or control the meaning of the Old Testament in a forceful way (Compare Acts 19:39; Mark 4:34).

Peter is warning that some people were trying to “determine” or “control” the meaning of Scripture rather than letting it speak for itself. In other words, they were imposing their own ideas or authority on the text, rather than submitting to its divine intent.

This is precisely what @St. SteVen & @quietthinker have been doing in relation to their universalism teachings.

Peter understood many would endeavour to manipulate Divine Teaching in favour of their own.

• Acts 19:39: The word luo is used in a context of resolving a conflict or “loosening” a problem, implying control or manipulation.
• Mark 4:34: Jesus would explain (luo) the parables privately, showing that proper interpretation requires guidance from God, not human force or guesswork.

So, in 2 Peter 1:20, the point is that Scripture is inspired by God, and humans cannot arbitrarily decide its meaning. True interpretation respects the text’s divine authority and interprets it in harmony with the rest of Scripture, rather than twisting it to fit personal ideas.

While this passage is often cited to support the inspiration of Scripture, Peter’s point goes further. He emphasizes the link between Scripture’s inspiration and its interpretation. Because Scripture is inspired, we cannot interpret it according to our own desires. In other words, its divine origin requires that we allow Scripture to interpret itself, considering its different parts in harmony.

When a false teacher copies and pastes a list of cherry-picked verses to claim “see, all people are saved,” they do so to their own detriment and to the harm of the weaker-minded who follow them.

 

[quietthinker]

@everyone else

2 Peter 1:20 – Interpretation: The Greek word “epilusis”, from the root “luo” meaning “to loose” or “to explain,” can also be understood as “origination” or “sending forth.”

The term epilusis conveys more than simple Bible study or exegesis, it implies that some were attempting to determine or control the meaning of the Old Testament in a forceful way (Compare Acts 19:39; Mark 4:34).

Peter is warning that some people were trying to “determine” or “control” the meaning of Scripture rather than letting it speak for itself. In other words, they were imposing their own ideas or authority on the text, rather than submitting to its divine intent.

This is precisely what @St. SteVen & @quietthinker have been doing in relation to their universalism teachings.

Peter understood many would endeavour to manipulate Divine Teaching in favour of their own.

• Acts 19:39: The word luo is used in a context of resolving a conflict or “loosening” a problem, implying control or manipulation.
• Mark 4:34: Jesus would explain (luo) the parables privately, showing that proper interpretation requires guidance from God, not human force or guesswork.

So, in 2 Peter 1:20, the point is that Scripture is inspired by God, and humans cannot arbitrarily decide its meaning. True interpretation respects the text’s divine authority and interprets it in harmony with the rest of Scripture, rather than twisting it to fit personal ideas.

While this passage is often cited to support the inspiration of Scripture, Peter’s point goes further. He emphasizes the link between Scripture’s inspiration and its interpretation. Because Scripture is inspired, we cannot interpret it according to our own desires. In other words, its divine origin requires that we allow Scripture to interpret itself, considering its different parts in harmony.

When a false teacher copies and pastes a list of cherry-picked verses to claim “see, all people are saved,” they do so to their own detriment and to the harm of the weaker-minded who follow them.

The thing is Hidden, you are so convinced your labelling is accurate that the formulation of your ideas based on that labelling is just simply inaccurate.
You are not aware that the label Universalist or Universalism as it is generally understood, has no resonance with me.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Excellent passage Walter & Debbie!

However, there is a greater issue with @St. SteVen & @quietthinker in these threads:

John 7:24 “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Christian civility does not commit us to a relativistic worldview. Being civil does not mean refraining from critique, nor does it require approving everything that others believe or do. There is a clear distinction between affirming a person’s right to express deeply held convictions and affirming the truth of those convictions themselves. Christian civility calls us to uphold the former, not the latter.

To treat all beliefs and values as equally valid is to embrace relativism, a position incompatible with Christian faith and practice. Civility does not demand the suspension of discernment or judgment about what is good and true. In fact, complete nonjudgmentalism is impossible.

Even accusing someone of being judgmental is, in itself, an act of judgment.

Universalism undermines the importance of sound doctrine and proper judgment, promoting the idea of a God who sets aside His righteousness and disregards the precious life He has placed in His Son.

Let's use an example:

Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Universalism teaches that God will ultimately reconcile every person who has ever lived, whether righteous or wicked, but how, then, are we to understand and account for the Lord’s own words?

These false teachers teach compulsory Grace.

Grace, which Scripture presents as a gift received by faith, becomes inescapable, turning God from a righteous judge into a moral debtor who must save everyone regardless of response.

Many in this forum have rejected their false teaching (@lforrest), yet they are still permitted to create new threads and continue spreading these ideas, asserting that everyone can come to the Father regardless of whom or what they worship, whether Buddha, Molech, or a golden calf.

You are correct Hiddenthings,

John 14

Jesus Comforts the Disciples

1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

The Way, the Truth, and the Life

5Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

(Joel 2:28-32; John 16:5-16; Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7)

15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Peace I Leave with You

(Romans 5:1-5)

27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

Love, Walter and Debbie

 

[lforrest]

Correct. Take, for example, the false teaching of universalism. This doctrine strips Scripture of its many rebukes and removes the reality of judgment, effectively making God a debtor to man rather than man accountable to God.

While God speaks plainly about those who are lost to salvation, they override His Word and proclaim a message that stands in opposition to the His truth.

It effectively allows these men to say and do as they please (lawlessness), leading others into divisive teaching. I am surprised the admin staff has permitted this, especially when many others have been banned for far less.

Perhaps that is one reason why we have heaven and hell in the statement of faith. But the risk is mitigated by other warmings against sin. What actually happens after death should not impact the living being saved.

However other parts of the statement of faith are very much essential to salvation and are given greater weight when moderating the forum.

 

[St. SteVen]

Correct. Take, for example, the false teaching of universalism. This doctrine strips Scripture of its many rebukes and removes the reality of judgment, effectively making God a debtor to man rather than man accountable to God.

That's not true.
Universalism, or better, Ultimate Redemption, allows for a full age of judgement/evaluation/correction/restoration.
Every nation, leader (government/religious), and individual will face judgement and accountability.