Mixed bag resources

[KingsGambit]

When linking to/recommending Christian resources, how much does it matter if that particular resource endorses viewpoints that you believe are wrong or even heretical?

Though I'm asking this as a general question, I'll be specific about what inspired this: What I have in mind is Glenn Miller's apologetics website. He links to the Grace Evangelical Society and endorses it. (This group argues that repentance is not necessary to be a Christian, but you have to just mentally believe in Jesus.) See http://christianthinktank.com/webbio.html

ETA: The thing is, this is a very minor corner of his website, and his resources in general are so helpful that it seems to vastly outweigh it. But I honestly find the GES to be rank heresy.

[Teallaura]

I'd be concerned if it were a pattern or the endorser endorsed the heresy/link supporting it (for its support) but not as a mere link, even endorsed so long as the endorsement is of the quality and not the heretical view.

[foudroyant]

Doesn't Obsidian embrace what the GES says about repentance?

[KingsGambit]

Doesn't Obsidian embrace what the GES says about repentance?

yes.

[foudroyant]

Since you find GES to be "rank heresy" concerning what the say about "repentance is not necessary to be a Christian, but you have to just mentally believe in Jesus" and Obsidian embraces what GES says does it follow for you that Obsidian is a heretic?
---------------
In terms of sites that have great info but also have a link that leads to somewhere awful I would just ignore the link...or use it if/when people ask about it.
I would also write to the owner of the site and ask why he/she allows this resource to be there without some kind of warning.

[KingsGambit]

Since you find GES to be "rank heresy" concerning what the say about "repentance is not necessary to be a Christian, but you have to just mentally believe in Jesus" and Obsidian embraces what GES says does it follow for you that Obsidian is a heretic?
---------------
In terms of sites that have great info but also have a link that leads to somewhere awful I would just ignore the link...or use it if/when people ask about it.
I would also write to the owner of the site and ask why he/she allows this resource to be there without some kind of warning.

No, and perhaps that was not the best way of wording it. I do think it is a profoundly dangerous teaching as it teaches people that they might sin that grace might abound more, which could have grave eschatalogical consequences.

[Darth Executor]

You'll have a hard time linking to anything if you only link to people who are never wrong.

[Thoughtful Monk]

You'll have a hard time linking to anything if you only link to people who are never wrong.

Agreed. I guess I would avoid linking to or at least give a warning if I believe the site was very heretical.

[One Bad Pig]

If I'm pointing someone to a "mixed bag" resource, I will generally include a caveat. For example, I generally endorse orthodoxinfo.com, but I reject their objection to the "New Calendar" and their anti-ecumenist stance.

[KingsGambit]

The debate on repentance has been moved here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-for-salvation

[37818]

. . . I honestly find the GES to be rank heresy.

Please give a citation from them and what holy scripture on salvation (not some secondary issue) that you can show this to be true.