Featured Dont box me in as a C or an A

Church Membership [not equal to] salvation.

 

From the context of Iconoclasts overall comments it does. I am sure that if I had made the same type of comment about Iconoclast there would be people on here setting their hair on fire.

So your saying that non believes are now being accepted in to membership churches.

 

". . . the man Christ Jesus . . . ." [ 1 Timothy 2:5 ]

[[ Sorry brother, I could not let that go ]]

see #71 #76 #78

 

Here is his exact quote (emphasis is mine):

I took the key distinction as “confessional” which, if I am properly understanding it’s use in this sentence, requires a “member” (someone joining the church) to agree with the written statement of beliefs of that local body of believers. If I understand the accusations being exchanged between the two of you, you are being accused of placing your personal interpretation above that of the “majority” and you are claiming that your interpretation is correct.

Without specifics it is impossible to really have any meaningful “biblical” response to the core issue, but for the sake of our discussion, let’s assume that YOU ARE CORRECT in your interpretations:

Could you become a “member” of a local church that required you to agree that THEIR interpretation was true (rather than YOUR interpretation) as a condition for membership?

I believe that is what Iconoclast was alluding to. He agrees with “the majority” interpretation and could become a member of any church that agrees with “the majority” interpretation, while you hold “YOUR INTERPRETATION” above that of the majority.

(I am not passing any judgement since I have not followed what it is that you believe. That was not the topic of this discussion. I am just explaining why I agree that you could not join any of the local churches that you disagree with that are “confessional”).

Not being able to become a member of a specific local church is not the same as being “unsaved”.

 

Not at all.
I stated a fact based on your posts.
I offered that for you to consider being as it was you that RM.warned as he saw the direction your sad posts we're going in.
I do question your reading comprehension.
You seem to ascribe to each person here things they have not posted or offered.
That is problematic I suppose.
Your posts offer nothing edifying but seem to puff you up and depict all of us in a bad light.
Consider your ways.

 

You have read this sad interaction correctly with complete comprehension.
This is another thing the OP. Inquiries about.
On any such messageboard people avoid taking a clear stand.
When their view is questioned they seek to move the goal posts, or deflect by going to personal comments right away.
Those comments are fabrications which often reveal the source of the defective theology, and never end well

 

Your imagination is tormenting you again.
Read Pollards fine post. He gets it.
You have questioned my understanding and Bible intake, and several other men here.
I am okay with that and know on such a forum that is going to happen.
I do not block or censor anyone or anything unless they blaspheme God, and seek to profane His Holy name.
I do not have thin skin and can deal with anything you have got to post, doctrinally or personally.
If you go on the "offensive" theologically or personally do not cry when you get some push back.Put your big boy pants on, and get back to the OP, instead of starting what you cannot finish.

 

This has always been the case. A non-believer was accepted into the 12 disciples...

 

You keep saying the "majority" view over against "your interpretation". Well lets look at what we get with that "majority" is right idea. We have no Christianity as we were not the majority view at that time were we, in fact we were thought to be heretics by the Jews. You keep referring to my interpretation, but it is not mine it is what the bible says.

If you repeat the same error a 1000 times that does not make it right. You and those that follow the same theological view as you, want to follow a man made theology, and that is your right. I on the other hand will follow what the bible says in clear text. I do not have to read into the text or change the meaning of words.

Some of those on here of a certain theological bend resort to sarcasm, innuendo or out right miss quoting of text in their posts. While you may not like what I say on here, it is not me that you have the problem with it is the bible.

 

Sorry chief, I got no dog in that fight.

I said “majority” in quotes because that is what your opponent was arguing and is the definition behind Orthodoxy and the point behind traditional ‘confessions’.

I said “your” because YOU emphasize Your Interpretation over the classic writings that define Traditional Orthodox Schools of Theology.

I don’t know or care what you believe. I am not your mother, Jiminy Cricket or the Holy Spirit … so correcting you (if you even need it) is not my responsibility. I was only trying to help you correctly parse one message from Iconoclast that you were misreading. He was NOT questioning your salvation (as you accused him).

 

Ok, I LOVE to talk about what the Bible says.

John 3:16

Who does the Bible say is saved? (Feel free to pull in verses from the surrounding context for your exegesis).

What distinguished between one person who is saved and another that is not? The Bible is full of examples of preaching going out into a crowd and SOME believe and are saved and OTHERS in the same crowd are not. [like Acts 2] All heard the same words and saw the same miracles. Why (Biblically) such different outcomes?

No “hypotheticals”, let’s talk specifics. (If you really want to talk about what the Bible says).

 

This is what I love to do so we should both enjoy this.

I have just had eye surgery so my screen time is limited for a time. New to this, but how do we start a conversation as I think this thread may be closed before I get back here.

 

The problem with "ism" labels is that they rightly or wrongly add additional baggage to core beliefs. Some folks take umbrage with that, while others do not see it as a problem. I am of the latter category.

I identify as a Calvinist not because I agree with all of John Calvin's theology, but because the term has come to reflect the Reformed view of soteriology. There are others who agree with the Reformed view of soteriology but reject the term because the see it as embracing other beliefs of John Calvin. The same can be said of Arminianism.

 

I started a topic “Why some and not others …” so we can give others a chance to weigh in with their scriptures and exegesis if they want. If it turns into the same old, same old … we can try some other format that is more private. I just prefer a “glass half full” optimism at the start.

 

Sounds good to me. I am also “glass half full” type. Always look for the good. This is hard to type so will get back once my vision clears up and I can focus.

 

Bologna

 

IMO, Mars Hill pails in comparison to the Baptist Board.

 

Take your time.
I am only 59, so I expect to have a while to finish this conversation.

If not, we can finish it when we meet again and have more of the facts.