Featured A modern day "Downgrade"

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Amen!

 

So you have no desire or compassion to attempt to reach those trapped and enslaved by homosexuality with the message of the Gospel?

 

Yes he does.

 

In church they are hearing the message of Christ. Logically from your statement you are against alter calls.

Think of his impact on history as it is. Think of what his impact could have been if he had been allowed into the church and had accepted Christ and become a Christian.

He was very drawn to Christ and said so. But he was not drawn to Christians because of what he saw in their lives and actions. There is a difference.

 

People do not refuse Christ because of what the church does. They refuse Christ simply because it is in their heart do so regardless of what anyone else does.

Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.
Joh 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."

 

I just find it troubling that we can stand by and watch satan tear apart the house of the lord, and all the time say its due to "our spirituality", as because we are for he better position, better to face a spit than agree to work things out!

Do we honestly think jesus prayer for us to love and accept one other JUST the same we He and the father are one was just lip service, something for writers pen down?

 

If by alter calls you mean the idea that one must come forward to a so called "alter" in the front of the church building to pray and "ask Jesus to come into their heart" then you are darn right I am against them. Sunday worship service (or whatever day you gather together) is PRIMARILY for the building up of the believers and the worship of God. An unbeliever showing up should be as rare as a criminal walking into a police station. If Mulsims and Buddhists are able to sit through a "church service" then they most certainly are NOT hearing the message of Christ.

As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. - Romans 9:33

I very much doubt that. Gandhi was no holier than any other unconverted man. He was still a slave to sin and loved darkness. He can't stand before Christ at the judgment seat and say, "Well I would have repented if your followers hadn't sucked so bad at imitating you!"

 

I don't really understand what you are saying here.

 

Kinda like Christ when He violently over turned the money changers tables?

 

Why would they not hear if the Word is preached?

Are you saying your would not allow a Buddhist or Moselm to attend the church you are a member of?

Will those who turned him away bear any recrimination when they stand before Christ?

Are you aware that Gandhi said, "To me, it implies a spiritual birth. My interpretation, in other words, is that in Jesus’ own life is the key of his nearness to God; that he expressed, as no other could, the spirit and will of God. It is in this sense that I see him and recognize him as the Son of God."

 

No. I'm saying that if they they would either get so offended at the message (exclusive salvation in Christ alone) or they would not be Mulsim or Buddhist for much longer. I can't imagine someone coming to a church consistently and regularly while being in a false religion like that, unless what is preached is a false, watered down gospel.

No one will have any right to accuse God.

And Gandhi's interpretation is wrong. Jesus is the Son of God simply because HE IS. Not because of what He was able to do or express.

 

Perhaps you do not understand all the reasons a person attends a Christian church, even if they, at the moment, are not Christian.

That is not the issue. The issue is will God accuse those who turned Gandhi away ... or others simply because they were Indian or of another group these Christians felt were beneath them and unworthy.

How do you know his interpretation is wrong. He gave a good reason as to why he believed Christ was the son of God. In fact, it is a better statement than I see presented by Christians most of the time.

 

Actually I think what is more likely is that I misunderstood what you first said. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seemed like you were saying and supporting the idea that a Muslim or Buddhist or w/e can regularly and consistently attend worship gatherings while maintain their Islam or Buddhism and be accepted into the church. Was that correct?

Ahhh I misunderstood you. I thought the "him" you were talking about was God. I believe that yes the blood of unbelievers will be on us as well. But that doesn't absolve Gandhi of his own responsibility to repent and obey.

It's wrong because it isn't biblical. But sadly you are probably right regarding it being better than most Christians explanation.

 

I am saying that I believe a church should allow anyone to attend and to be made welcome and to even sing in the choir with the hope that those who are unsaved for any reason will find Christ and become saved. If we do not make the unsaved feel they are of value, are seen as people of worth, then how can they believe the our God feels the same and desires to save them?

I am not sure if he 'repented' in the American Christian understanding or not. However, whether he obeyed would be open to a person's interpretation. In many ways I think he obeyed to a greater extent than most Christians.

To me Gandhi's view of Christ and he comment on the spirituality of Christ seems to me to be quite Biblical.

For instance Christ said to "Turn the other cheek." Gandhi did that.
Christ taught "Go the extra mile". To me Gandhi did that.
I believe Christ taught 'nothing to excess'. I believe Gandhi lived that type of life.

The bottom line is it is up to God to decide. We can speculate, but in the final analysis it is, as I said, up to God.

 

I totally disagree. The church is for believers. Believers are the church. They may come to worship gatherings but they should not be a part of the local congregation since they are not born again. I'm not saying that they should be treated like trash or barred from entering the building! Of course not! But they cannot become members of the church as long as they hold to their false religion. That just wouldn't make any sense.

Not sure what you mean by

but he clearly did not since he was not a Christian. And he certainly didn't obey either. The obey I was speaking of is "obey the gospel." By definition he couldn't have obeyed the gospel to a greater extent than a Christian.

But Gandhi's misunderstanding was based on Christ DID something and thus WAS the Son of God. Instead the Bible says Christ IS the Son of God and thus He DID something. See the difference?
And Christ also taught that we must "repent and believe the gospel." Gandhi never did that as far as we know.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

jesus Great prayer was for ALL of the saved to be One, JUST as he and the Father are one, so unless he did not mean that, why do we keep trying to divide ourselves along lines God does not intend for us to go to war over?

You are not a cal. i am, buit we sem to be able to have rationale discourse here, so why must we seperate over issues ?

And don't MOST churches havea mixture of various held beliefs, some cal, some non cal, others arminian. free will grace etc...

Guess don't take my calvinism "hard enough", as I don't hold that it is the Gospel, but that it does explain the Gospel and justification/salvation/sauctification the closest to the bible message!

 

Sure, but far to many do hold that view. That is one area where the line divides.

 

I fail to see how you describe the Gospel of Christ is any different than anyone I have encountered here in BB land....Calvinist or not.