Do you consider yourselves to be fellow brothers and sisters with..........

[BlackSabb]

those of exclusive Christian denominations? Now before I proceed, I do not mean because of any doctrinal differences, I mean purely because they don't consider outsiders to be true Christians. When I ask this question, please assume just for the sake of this thread, that you would not exclude them for the sake of doctrinal postions, (even in reality if you do).

I'm talking about for eg, JW's, SDAs, some older Catholic members that regard only members of their particular denomination as being truly saved. I've had personal experience with all three of these particular denominations. My parents were always accepting thier "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines and I've read these for many years. It's plainly obvious that they don't regard other believers as fully Christian.

And as I wrote in another thread (much to the annoyance of one particular dude), I've been in SDA churches where I have heard more than once the preacher condemn all other Christian believers and denominations as "apostate", "deceived" etc.

The Catholic Church has officially stated for literally centuries that salvation is through not only Jesus, but through the Catholic faith. Now I know in recent decades, this has been recanted. However, thousands of years of this official position versus a couple of decades of a change of philosophy means that there are still plenty of Catholics out there that still believe this. I have spoken to a few older members who insist that unless you're a Catholic, you cannot be saved.

So, for those other believers that see you (I'm assuming as a Christian believer) as apostate, deceived, not fully Christian etc, do you accept these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they don't accept you?

Again, only for this reason, not any doctrinal difference, and once again, please assume that you can accept those particular doctrinal differences.

Personally, I don't.

[GreenMunchkin]

Removing doctrinal theology from the equation, whether someone considers me a sister or not is irrelevant. If they are a child of God, I consider them my brother or sister in Christ.

Similarly, we are called to love even those that persecute us. It's not about what others do or don't do - it's about what Jesus has commanded us to do.

[BlackSabb]

Removing doctrinal theology from the equation, whether someone considers me a sister or not is irrelevant. If they are a child of God, I consider them my brother or sister in Christ.

Similarly, we are called to love even those that persecute us. It's not about what others do or don't do - it's about what Jesus has commanded us to do.


Yes, but there is a big difference in the Bible about the interactions between Christians and between Christians and non Christians.

For eg, we are told to go into the world and associate with all manner of people to win the lost. Paul says to "eat whatever is set before you" in good conscience, not asking questions of faith over it, so as to gain a foothold in the society around you.

But what does the same Bible say about fellow believers? For those that stray, do NOT associate with them, do not even let them into your home, again as Paul says, lest their judgemnet fall upon you.

So the Bible has a much higher standard of interaction regarding interactions between believers.

If a Hindu or Buddhist or communist or Neo-Nazi said that they are not a part of me-no problem. But when a so called fellow Christian believer says the same thing, the Bible comes down a lot harder on these people. Indeed, it says don't let many of you become teachers, for they will receive a stricter judgement.

So yes, when a Christ believer condemns another Christ believer for a different doctrinal position, (for things that are not going to really matter regarding eternal salvation) then yes, I believe Christ himself is condemning of that.

And I don't see why I need to partake of them and include them as brothers and sisters of the faith. Their own words and attitudes condemn them, not me.

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, but there is a big difference in the Bible about the interactions between Christians and between Christians and non Christians.But that's now what you asked in the OP.

So yes, when a Christ believer condemns another Christ believer for a different doctrinal position, (for things that are not going to really matter regarding eternal salvation) then yes, I believe Christ himself is condemning of that.Well, I disagree that Christ will condemn them for it, but yes, they'll have to answer to Him when they're stood before Him. As will we if we respond in kind. Retaliation won't fly as an excuse for not loving them.

And I don't see why I need to partake of them and include them as brothers and sisters of the faith. Their own words and attitudes condemn them, not me.But then, we're the same as them.

Matthew 5:43-45

[NewGuy101]

I consider all of God's elect my brothers and sisters. Many which I don't know, even if they are in another conservative tradition rather than my own. I certainly don't considering liberals my brothers in christ since they pervert the Gospel and I certainly don't consider unorthodox "christians" as defined by this site to be either.

[BlackSabb]

I consider all of God's elect my brothers and sisters. Many which I don't know, even if they are in another conservative tradition rather than my own. I certainly don't considering liberals my brothers in christ since they pervert the Gospel and I certainly don't consider unorthodox "christians" as defined by this site to be either.


I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to consider "all" of God's elect, "brothers and sisters" on the one hand.

Then on the other hand, you go onto say you don't consider brothers and sisters "liberals" and "unorthodox Christians".

There is lack of consistency in this. And exactly what do you mean by liberal and unorthodox? For eg, not all "liberals" believe homosexuality is not a sin, (I am assuming that this is an example of what you mean by liberals perverting the gospel).

[NewGuy101]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to consider "all" of God's elect, "brothers and sisters" on the one hand.

Then on the other hand, you go onto say you don't consider brothers and sisters "liberals" and "unorthodox Christians".

There is lack of consistency in this. And exactly what do you mean by liberal and unorthodox? For eg, not all "liberals" believe homosexuality is not a sin, (I am assuming that this is an example of what you mean by liberals perverting the gospel).

I don't see the inconsistency. Perhaps you could point out to me?

And liberals per my definition are those who deny inerrancy and the nicean creed.

[BlackSabb]

I don't see the inconsistency. Perhaps you could point out to me?

And liberals per my definition are those who deny inerrancy and the nicean creed.


Well, you say that you call of God's "elect" brothers and sisters, but then you start disqualifying certain groups, such as (by your own definition of what is a liberal).

But you, me or anyone doesn't really know who is truly God's elect. I'm sure there are plenty of people on earth whose doctrines are correct but will be denied Heaven. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people whose doctrines are faulty in part but whom Christ will gladly welcome into his kingdom.

My point is you cannot categorise others based on outward doctrines, denominational affiliation or the like.

[MrJim]

My point is you cannot categorise others based on outward doctrines, denominational affiliation or the like.

:scratch: but isn't that what you are doing when speaking of SDA/RCC "exclusive" types of denoms?

I wrestle with this one a bit I admit. I've been around a few different traditions in my time. I've sat under prominent Calvinist theologians (Gerstner ring a bell?) that have said that those teaching Arminianism are teaching another gospel. I've been around very plain mennonites that look at everyone else as being disobedient-to-apostate. When I first became Christian one of the first tracts given to me was about the cults~mormons, jws, and yes SDA. I spend time with the apostolics, RC & EO, both which are "exclusive" in their "one true church" proclamation. Yet while they stand on their beliefs they make no judgements on my salvation status. The Catholics call me a separated brother, and the Orthodox say they don't know who all outside the Orthodox Church will be saved.

So I agree with you about not "categorizing" others according to their doctrines & teachings so much (though there has to be some kind of limit there) but on their actions also~faith without works is dead~

So why are you spending all this effort on woob if indeed "My point is you cannot categorise others based on outward doctrines, denominational affiliation or the like.";)

[woobadooba]

It really pains my soul to see someone speak of the SDA church in this way. We generally do not think of people that are non-SDA in the way that blacksabb has stated.

It is true that there are people within our church that think this way, but most of us do not agree with what blacksabb has said. God has His people everywhere, not just in the SDA church.

It is unfortunate that he has had an encounter with people who have treated him thusly. But to allow one or two experiences to define the whole is inappropriate in my opinion, as it is highly judgmental and obviously false, since I am an SDA and I do not agree with what he has said about us.

That should tell you something.

It appears to me that blacksabb is on a mission to try to destroy my reputation in here. I would hope that you would see me for who I really am, and understand that I am not here to impose my views on you, but to fellowship with you, as I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[NewGuy101]

Well, you say that you call of God's "elect" brothers and sisters, but then you start disqualifying certain groups, such as (by your own definition of what is a liberal).

But you, me or anyone doesn't really know who is truly God's elect. I'm sure there are plenty of people on earth whose doctrines are correct but will be denied Heaven. And I'm sure that there are plenty of people whose doctrines are faulty in part but whom Christ will gladly welcome into his kingdom.

My point is you cannot categorise others based on outward doctrines, denominational affiliation or the like.
Those who are God's elect will be well with in the boundries of orthodoxy. The logical mistake you are making is stating we cannot know who's God's elect are when you are using scripture to define God's elect and then stating we cannot know. While it's obvious we cannot all of them, their works will surely show many of them.

[Criada]

Frankly, it's not up tp us to judge!
I can disagree with someone, I can say that their doctrine?actions are wrong.
But - I can't say that they are not my brother or sister if they claim to be Christian. Because only God can judge their heart. And there have been points in my life - since I was saved- where I have not been living in a Christian way, and many 'orthodox' Christians would have disowned me. But, praise God, He didn't.
So I can't judge anyone's standing before Him - if one claims to be my brother or sister, I will gladly accept them as such - though I maty not always agree with them on everything.

[tulc]

I consider all of God's elect my brothers and sisters. Many which I don't know, even if they are in another conservative tradition rather than my own. I certainly don't considering liberals my brothers in christ since they pervert the Gospel and I certainly don't consider unorthodox "christians" as defined by this site to be either.

So as long as they agree with you they are your brothers and sisters? :scratch:
tulc(at least my coffee likes me) ;)

[NewGuy101]

So as long as they agree with you they are your brothers and sisters? :scratch:
tulc(at least my coffee likes me) ;)

Nice misrepresentation, but I consider catholics, EO, OO and many others within orthodoxy who I don't agree with my brothers and sisters.

[tulc]

Nice misrepresentation, Actually that was a question not a misrepresentation. :sorry: Thanks for answering though. :)
tulc(getting some coffee, yum!) ;)

[Hentenza]

Actually that was a question not a misrepresentation. :sorry: Thanks for answering though. :)
tulc(getting some coffee, yum!) ;)

Well, you better bring coffee for the rest of us.^_^^_^^_^

[Lisa0315]

It really pains my soul to see someone speak of the SDA church in this way. We generally do not think of people that are non-SDA in the way that blacksabb has stated.

It is true that there are people within our church that think this way, but most of us do not agree with what blacksabb has said. God has His people everywhere, not just in the SDA church.

It is unfortunate that he has had an encounter with people who have treated him thusly. But to allow one or two experiences to define the whole is inappropriate in my opinion, as it is highly judgmental and obviously false, since I am an SDA and I do not agree with what he has said about us.

That should tell you something.

It appears to me that blacksabb is on a mission to try to destroy my reputation in here. I would hope that you would see me for who I really am, and understand that I am not here to impose my views on you, but to fellowship with you, as I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

You have handled it with grace and patience. Your reputation in my eyes has increased. :hug:

Lisa

[Hentenza]

It really pains my soul to see someone speak of the SDA church in this way. We generally do not think of people that are non-SDA in the way that blacksabb has stated.

It is true that there are people within our church that think this way, but most of us do not agree with what blacksabb has said. God has His people everywhere, not just in the SDA church.

It is unfortunate that he has had an encounter with people who have treated him thusly. But to allow one or two experiences to define the whole is inappropriate in my opinion, as it is highly judgmental and obviously false, since I am an SDA and I do not agree with what he has said about us.

That should tell you something.

It appears to me that blacksabb is on a mission to try to destroy my reputation in here. I would hope that you would see me for who I really am, and understand that I am not here to impose my views on you, but to fellowship with you, as I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Wooba,

No worries here!!! I saw through the baloney quite a while ago.:wave:

[Albion]

So, for those other believers that see you (I'm assuming as a Christian believer) as apostate, deceived, not fully Christian etc, do you accept these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they don't accept you?

Yes, but I think it is not possible to consider them as fellow Christians if we are not allowed to consider doctrine. If they are not actually Christian, they can't be "fellow."

But as concerns the one issue only of them considering me to be apostate, this would not cause me to disavow them, even if they don't return the regard.

One problem is that the examples you used represent quite a range of churches and beliefs.

[Albion]

Nice misrepresentation, but I consider catholics, EO, OO and many others within orthodoxy who I don't agree with my brothers and sisters.

I had the same reaction as Tulc apparently did. When you wrote that "I certainly don't considering liberals my brothers in christ since they pervert the Gospel" it seems to mean that those Christians who at least generally agree with you are the only ones considered your brothers. Those who are less in agreement are not brothers.

However, the latter were the ones that the OP asked about.

[BlackSabb]

:scratch: but isn't that what you are doing when speaking of SDA/RCC "exclusive" types of denoms?

So I agree with you about not "categorizing" others according to their doctrines & teachings so much (though there has to be some kind of limit there) but on their actions also~faith without works is dead~

So why are you spending all this effort on woob if indeed "My point is you cannot categorise others based on outward doctrines, denominational affiliation or the like.";)


Firstly, I am not spending a whole heap of time on woob in some sort of effort to destroy him personally. This is complete nonsense, so stop saying it. Just because I question certain denominations and their doctrines, doesn't mean I am attacking personally someone in that denomination.

Now, I am not going to talk about "woob" again just to settle all this. I will talk about organisations, denominations and doctrines. My point about the SDA church is not based on any outward doctrine, but like I quite clearly said before, and everybody seems to have missed, I have heard with my own ears SDA pastors condemn all other Christian denominations.

So when I question calling them brothers, it's got nothing to do with their beliefs, but rather their own exclusivity that they themselves deny with other believers. What I am saying is that when they don't consider other Christians as fellow Christians, why on earth do then other believers need to consider them as brothers and sisters?

Now secondly, it's been said by someone ( I can't quite remember-not mentioning names) that some SDA members believe in their own exclusitivity but most don't. Well, let me show you the math, and you can draw your own conclusions.

I had previously been in Pentecostal churches for a about 15 years. In all that time, I never ever once heard any pastor or minister say that only Pentecostals are saved. And I had visited quite a variety of Pentecostal churches.

Then through a girlfriend, I started visiting SDA churches. In about the first 10 services I attended, I heard about 4 times (all in different SDA churches) the pastor proclaim the exclusitivity of the SDA church, saying that all other Christian denominations are, and I quote, "false", "Jezebel", "deceived" etc,

So, in one denomination, I never hear this type of thing in 15 years, and in the SDA church, I hear it 4 times in a couple of months.

Yeah, you do the math and work out how "few" SDAs really believe this.

And for some of you others who insist on attacking my statements, I'd like to see you sit in a foreign "Christian" denomination, and have to sit through some idiot pastors' sermon where he is exalting his own denomination, and condemning all others, including your own. Yeah, before you criticize me, sit through this a number of times, and then tell me afterwards how much love and "tolerance" you have for this type of cult denomination. It's easy to criticize when you haven't experienced this yourself, and wonder why someone else is so outraged at this disgusting self exaltation.

[Debi1967]

The Catholic Church has officially stated for literally centuries that salvation is through not only Jesus, but through the Catholic faith. Now I know in recent decades, this has been recanted. However, thousands of years of this official position versus a couple of decades of a change of philosophy means that there are still plenty of Catholics out there that still believe this. I have spoken to a few older members who insist that unless you're a Catholic, you cannot be saved.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

[woobadooba]

Firstly, I am not spending a whole heap of time on woob in some sort of effort to destroy him personally. This is complete nonsense, so stop saying it. Just because I question certain denominations and their doctrines, doesn't mean I am attacking personally someone in that denomination.

Now, I am not going to talk about "woob" again just to settle all this. I will talk about organisations, denominations and doctrines. My point about the SDA church is not based on any outward doctrine, but like I quite clearly said before, and everybody seems to have missed, I have heard with my own ears SDA pastors condemn all other Christian denominations.

So when I question calling them brothers, it's got nothing to do with their beliefs, but rather their own exclusivity that they themselves deny with other believers. What I am saying is that when they don't consider other Christians as fellow Christians, why on earth do then other believers need to consider them as brothers and sisters?

Now secondly, it's been said by someone ( I can't quite remember-not mentioning names) that some SDA members believe in their own exclusitivity but most don't. Well, let me show you the math, and you can draw your own conclusions.

I had previously been in Pentecostal churches for a about 15 years. In all that time, I never ever once heard any pastor or minister say that only Pentecostals are saved. And I had visited quite a variety of Pentecostal churches.

Then through a girlfriend, I started visiting SDA churches. In about the first 10 services I attended, I heard about 4 times (all in different SDA churches) the pastor proclaim the exclusitivity of the SDA church, saying that all other Christian denominations are, and I quote, "false", "Jezebel", "deceived" etc,

So, in one denomination, I never hear this type of thing in 15 years, and in the SDA church, I hear it 4 times in a couple of months.

Yeah, you do the math and work out how "few" SDAs really believe this.

And for some of you others who insist on attacking my statements, I'd like to see you sit in a foreign "Christian" denomination, and have to sit through some idiot pastors' sermon where he is exalting his own denomination, and condemning all others, including your own. Yeah, before you criticize me, sit through this a number of times, and then tell me afterwards how much love and "tolerance" you have for this type of cult denomination. It's easy to criticize when you haven't experienced this yourself, and wonder why someone else is so outraged at this disgusting self exaltation.

4 people hardly even comes close to representing the whole.

Oh, by the way, over in the Spirit Filled forum I was treated like I was the enemy by several people, and was basically told that I have no voice in there, that I am not Spirit filled, perhaps because I am an SDA. So what do you think the implication is here? In fact, I've also had other experiences with Pentecostals wherein they treated me like I am a devil because I am an SDA. Yet, I am not going to say that those experiences represent the whole of the people. For, I also had good experiences with Pentecostals. Not many. Nevertheless, there are a lot of good people in that church.

So my suggestion for you is that instead of focusing on your bad experiences, why not try to look for something good and more positive? There were many whom Christ could have criticized and condemned, but He chose to love them instead, and look for the best in them ( to see them as valuable people). It would benefit your greatly if you did the same.

[Albion]

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church." "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."

It looks to me as though you are both right.

Baptism is a sacramental bond of unity, according to the RCC, but BlackSab's point referred correctly to that same church having long taught that those baptised in another Christian church are separated brethren without the fullness of the faith and outside the "one true church." The sacramental bond of unity, IOW, is more theoretical than practical.

[Simon_Templar]

those of exclusive Christian denominations? Now before I proceed, I do not mean because of any doctrinal differences, I mean purely because they don't consider outsiders to be true Christians. When I ask this question, please assume just for the sake of this thread, that you would not exclude them for the sake of doctrinal postions, (even in reality if you do).

I'm talking about for eg, JW's, SDAs, some older Catholic members that regard only members of their particular denomination as being truly saved. I've had personal experience with all three of these particular denominations. My parents were always accepting thier "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines and I've read these for many years. It's plainly obvious that they don't regard other believers as fully Christian.

And as I wrote in another thread (much to the annoyance of one particular dude), I've been in SDA churches where I have heard more than once the preacher condemn all other Christian believers and denominations as "apostate", "deceived" etc.

The Catholic Church has officially stated for literally centuries that salvation is through not only Jesus, but through the Catholic faith. Now I know in recent decades, this has been recanted. However, thousands of years of this official position versus a couple of decades of a change of philosophy means that there are still plenty of Catholics out there that still believe this. I have spoken to a few older members who insist that unless you're a Catholic, you cannot be saved.

So, for those other believers that see you (I'm assuming as a Christian believer) as apostate, deceived, not fully Christian etc, do you accept these people as brothers and sisters in Christ, even though they don't accept you?

Again, only for this reason, not any doctrinal difference, and once again, please assume that you can accept those particular doctrinal differences.

Personally, I don't.
first off, you may find some Catholics who hold an extreme position on this issue. I'm sure you would. However, this is an issue that is OFTEN misunderstood about the Catholic church.

When the Catholic Church says that they are the only true church, it is not a judgement that all non-catholics are not really saved.

The statement that salvation comes only through the catholic faith is true, however, even Roman Catholics recognize that "schizmatics" such as protestants etc (and I am considered a schizmatic by them as well) hold many of the core truths of the catholic faith.

The basic idea is that there is salvation only within the church, however, even those who are technically outside the church in the schizmatic sense, still have lifelines to the church because they believe the core necessary doctrines.

Further, while Roman Catholics believe that others are outside the VISIBLE true church, most that I've met and the official teaching of the church as far as I'm aware is that all beleivers, despite denomination, are part of the INVISIBLE church.


Now, on the main question, I would say that a group who deny the faith of all other believers are on very dangerous ground. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself to be out of fellowship with them, especially as individuals. However, I would say that their group, as a group is hanging by a thread and will probably fall into apostasy and deception unless they change this view. The reason being that this view is contrary to God, and either they will submit to the conviction that he sends to restore them, or they will fall into greater deception.

[Simon_Templar]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. You claim to consider "all" of God's elect, "brothers and sisters" on the one hand.

Then on the other hand, you go onto say you don't consider brothers and sisters "liberals" and "unorthodox Christians".

There is lack of consistency in this. And exactly what do you mean by liberal and unorthodox? For eg, not all "liberals" believe homosexuality is not a sin, (I am assuming that this is an example of what you mean by liberals perverting the gospel).
Christianity is defined by adherence to the truth, not by claiming a name. The fact that someone calls themselves a christian in no way obligates me or God to allow that they really are. What they BELIEVE determines if they really are or not.

The heart of the gospel comes down to one simple sentance. "Jesus is Lord". However, that sentance says alot more than most people would think. For example, if a person says "Jesus is Lord" but then ignores his commands and sets their own conscience higher than the teaching of God, they are lying.

I was leary of this whole discussion from the beginning because of the fact that truth of faith can not be seperated from truth of doctrine. Not all imperfections, of course, equal apostasy. There are lines that can not be crossed. However, some world views, some philosophies are fundamentally opposed to true Christianity and to the gospel.

while I would admit that liberals could be christians who are deceived. I would have to say that eventually they would have to move away from liberalism. Because, the heart of liberalism is diametrically opposed to the gospel. The heart of liberalism is that man decides morality in an evolving context based on current social conscience. That is completely opposed to the idea that Jesus is Lord.

[tulc]

What they BELIEVE determines if they really are or not.

Actually, not according to Jesus. What did Jesus use to seperate the sheep from the goats? What they believed? No, He never even brought that up, what seperates them is thier willingness to love others or not. Doctrine is how WE seperate each other. :sigh:
tulc(IMHO) :)

[tulc]

while I would admit that liberals could be christians who are deceived. I would have to say that eventually they would have to move away from liberalism. Because, the heart of liberalism is diametrically opposed to the gospel. The heart of liberalism is that man decides morality in an evolving context based on current social conscience. That is completely opposed to the idea that Jesus is Lord.

Except that isn't true. That may be what you believe is the heart of liberalism, but what you believe and what is isn't the same thing. :)
tulc(just a thought) ;)

[Albion]

Actually, not according to Jesus. What did Jesus use to seperate the sheep from the goats? What they believed? No, He never even brought that up, what seperates them is thier willingness to love others or not. Doctrine is how WE seperate each other. :sigh:
tulc(IMHO) :)

That's really in error considering all the times Jesus spoke specifically of one making the grade or being outcast, of his rejection of sin, of the lukewarm, the fornicators, the impure, etc.

In fact, there are liberal Christians, even if their approach is flawed (as said before by another) or self-deceptive (as I just said). They are still Christians in my book.

When newguy said that he accepted everyone except those he did not accept, I found that odd to argue, but the only exception I would make is for those who claim Christ and have created a different identity for him. By that I do not mean believing in a Christ who had a liberal code of morals, however untrue to the Bible account that may be, but believing in a Christ who did not exist, i.e. a man who was not God, or a god who lived a phantom life as in the Book of Mormon, etc.

[NewGuy101]

deleted

[tulc]

That's really in error considering all the times Jesus spoke specifically of one making the grade or being outcast, of his rejection of sin, of the lukewarm, the fornicators, the impure, etc.

Really? And all that is cured by their doctrine? I thought that healing came from Jesus living in us? :scratch:
tulc(that's how I understood it anyway, of course I'm a liberal and I get confused sometimes) :sorry:

[tulc]

but I have yet to find a liberal Christian which I define as a genuine Christian in my book.

Fortunately it's not your book we have worry about being in huh? ;)
tulc(knows who's book he is in) :)

[NewGuy101]

Fortunately it's not your book we have worry about being in huh? ;)
tulc(knows who's book he is in) :)
nor yours, what's your point?

[tulc]

nor yours, what's your point?

That there's only one Persons book I worry about being in and since I'm in it, not being considered a Christian in your book isn't all that worry some to me. :)
tulc(sorry if I wasn't clear, did that help?) :)

[NewGuy101]

That there's only one Persons book I worry about being in and since I'm in it, not being considered a Christian in your book isn't all that worry some to me. :)
tulc(sorry if I wasn't clear, did that help?) :)
Me too, and He agrees with me about the liberals.

[Criada]

Listen, folks - you both love Jesus. Just leave it there, eh? Before you hurt one another!
:hug: :hug:

[NewGuy101]

Listen, folks - you both love Jesus. Just leave it there, eh? Before you hurt one another!
:hug: :hug:
Sorry Criada, but relativism doesn't work for me. The rest of you can conform, but I certainly will not.

[Lisa0315]

Me too, and He agrees with me about the liberals.

Oh, REALLY. Could you please clarify that? Because I see you condemn Liberals all over this board and Scripture says there is no condemnation in the Lord.

Liberals may be misguided erring on the side of loving one another. However, that does not mean they are not Christians.

I believe they should gently correct homosexuals and not be for pro-choice, but even in this error, you have no right to say that God agrees with YOU in your opinion of them. That is a mighty big statement to make. Are you sure that you are up to casting those stones, brother?

Lisa

[tulc]

Me too, and He agrees with me about the liberals.

Reminds me of a quote:
“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
-Anne Lamott
tulc(hopes you all have a great day, I'm off to drive, be back later) :wave:

[NewGuy101]

Oh, REALLY. Could you please clarify that? Because I see you condemn Liberals all over this board and Scripture says there is no condemnation in the Lord.

Liberals may be misguided erring on the side of loving one another. However, that does not mean they are not Christians.

I believe they should gently correct homosexuals and not be for pro-choice, but even in this error, you have no right to say that God agrees with YOU in your opinion of them. That is a mighty big statement to make. Are you sure that you are up to casting those stones, brother?

Lisa
First of all there is no condemnation for those who repent. If I were you I wouldn't misrepresent scripture. If you show me where in scripture it says that those who continually pervert God's word for their lust are saved I will recant my statement.

No one is casting stones, I'm just clear about where I stand. If someone perverts the bible to continue sinning, they are a blasphemers. (this post is not talking abotu Lisa, if I need to carify further let me know) *NOT LISA* *NOT LISA* * It's talking about those who pervert the BIBLE!*

[NewGuy101]

Reminds me of a quote:

tulc(hopes you all have a great day, I'm off to drive, be back later) :wave:
bye bye

I don't hate anyone.

I rebuke those who pervert scripture.

[Lisa0315]

First of all there is no condemnation for those who repent. If I were you I wouldn't misrepresent scripture. If you show me where in scripture it says that those who continually pervert God's word for their lust are saved I will recant my statement.

No one is casting stones, I'm just clear about where I stand. You pervert the bible to continue sinning, you are a blasphemer.

By "you" I mean in general tearms, that's before you report me again lisa for misunderstanding me or taking what I say out of context.

I didn't say they were saved. I didn't say they weren't. I understand that it is not me that judges, but God.

That isn't why I reported you. Do NOT misrepresent me like that again.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

I didn't say they were saved. I didn't say they weren't. I understand that it is not me that judges, but God.

That isn't why I reported you. Do NOT misrepresent me like that again.

Lisa
No one is being a judge, I'm sticking clearly to what scripture says. You have yet to debunk one thing that I have said other than basically call me " a judgemental biggot."

Remember one other thing that scripture says "you sha'll recognize them by their fruits" and "faith without works is a dead faith." I wanna see you in the philosophy and ethics forum trying to fight off the liberals attacking the bible and pushing homosexuality.

[Criada]

You know, brother, we love you! Why are you so angry? :hug:

[Lisa0315]

No one is being a judge, I'm sticking clearly to what scripture says. You have yet to debunk one thing that I have said other than basically call me " a judgemental biggot."

Remember one other thing that scripture says "you sha'll recognize them by their fruits" and "faith without works is a dead faith." I wanna see you in the philosophy and ethics forum trying to fight off the liberals attacking the bible and pushing homosexuality.

How long have you been on this site? I am working on three years now. I have spent a great deal of time arguing against homosexuality and abortion. I was never reported a single time. You seem to equate getting reported with speaking truth. That is not how it works. I assure you if an athiest ever decides to choose God, I will be one of the first people they go to.

Tell me. If you scream at people, "Thou fool" and they all walk away shaking their heads, how many are saved? Do you think this has never been tried before? When I first came to CF, there was an infamous poster named RADxxxx who beat people over the head with Scripture. He never accomplished a thing except make people mad. He was eventually banned. Your style is so similar to his that it has seriously crossed my mind that you and he are one and the same.

If you sit quietly, develop relationships and discuss calmly letting the Holy Spirit do the work through you, then, you will accomplish much more.

Lisa

[NewGuy101]

You know, brother, we love you! Why are you so angry? :hug:
I still don't understand how you guys can state I'm angry. Just using logic, but thanks for the hug sis.

:hug: back. ;)

[Criada]

Tis just your style, I think. But you do come across as very angry, you know.

[NewGuy101]

How long have you been on this site? I am working on three years now. I have spent a great deal of time arguing against homosexuality and abortion. I was never reported a single time. You seem to equate getting reported with speaking truth. That is not how it works. I assure you if an athiest ever decides to choose God, I will be one of the first people they go to Two years, although I doubt the actual time being here matters. And no, I dont equate "being reported" with speaking the truth. I think we can both agree that this website has gone down the drain and the fact that you cannot rebuke homosexuals and those that attack the bible clearly show it. If you disagree please state so clearly.

Tell me. If you scream at people, "Thou fool" and they all walk away shaking their heads, how many are saved? Do you think this has never been tried before? When I first came to CF, there was an infamous poster named RADxxxx who beat people over the head with Scripture. He never accomplished a thing except make people mad. He was eventually banned. Your style is so similar to his that it has seriously crossed my mind that you and he are one and the same.
1) I don't save people, God saves. He is in control. My job is to present the Gosple accurately.

2) I don't know of your friend Radxxxx, but I am learning to work with the system so reporting goes down. I doubt the story is how you portray it, but I get banned for speaking the Gosple so let it be it.

If you sit quietly, develop relationships and discuss calmly letting the Holy Spirit do the work through you, then, you will accomplish much more. Sorry, but when blaspehmy occurs, I'm the last one to be quiet. If anyone attacks God or the scriptures they are attacking my holy father...I cannot and I will not sit back and watch.

[NewGuy101]

Tis just your style, I think. But you do come across as very angry, you know.
Sorry if I do, it's really not my intent. ;)

[Jim47]

Closing thread for a cooling off period