When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[tom55]

See, we make a box for people to have to check before we can consider them "saved." This is what "Law" means. It doesn't matter what one calls it. What matters is that we imagine we have found an absolute truth, that we can grab onto and hold really tight, that will save us, not realizing that we are manifesting Law, and just try suggesting some Grace in that scenario; not happening. This is "seven times worse off than before," imo, because now one is convinced that an absolute truth has been found in the Book, and sure enough there it is, right there, i can read it too hmm.

"We imagine we have found absolute truth"?

Do you think God wants us to know the Truth of Scripture?

 

[bbyrd009]

"We imagine we have found absolute truth"?

Do you think God wants us to know the Truth of Scripture?

Yes, Tom, but i think Scripture even informs us that truth is a moving target, in a sense, in many passages. Directly: "He who says he knows does not yet know as he ought," "don't be quibbling over another guy's holidays" (paraphrased), even "there are many rooms in My Father's Mansion, if not I would have told you," and indirectly, considering that the same terminology is used to both command disciples of their mission and condemn those who will hear "I never knew you," and the fact that any objective truth claimed as doctrine invariably has a Scriptural counter-doctrine also.

So no, i don't think it is possible to "know the truth of Scripture" the way you likely mean the question, and imo the Scriptural reply to that would be "he who says he knows is full of yack." I am not aware of a single "fact" that one could pull from Scripture that could not be challenged by another passage of Scripture, and imo that is the point; one reveals their heart in their interpretation of the Bible, and one's hypocrisies are revealed IRL by how they deviate from their interpretation in conversations.

And i gotta say that i am mostly impressed by most translations, which preserve this ambiguity in passages; which used to drive me nuts, but i came to see that this is an integral part of Scripture, and of understanding truth.

Could i agree with you, that truth is objective, and Scripture imparts absolute truths? Absolutely. If you see "Rapture" in a Book where a prophet specifically condemns Rapture in antiquity, and you know the doctrine just re-animated like 100 years ago, i could certainly justify holding the opinion that you have lost your mind. But then what have i done? I have made an adversary, mostly, where i did not have one before--because after all, what do i care about a belief someone might hold about God that does not concern me? It is not even my business. And for all i know--the physical being descended from the spiritual--there could even be some meeting of Him in the Air that manifests physically (fleshly) someday, and all i might really be doing is demonstrating "stumbling-block" to my dismay, lol.

Jews are great for this stuff, i wish ida spent more time at The Wall, and less time flirting with girls now lol. I notice that we think much more...linearly? Much more like Muslims; this is that, and that has to be this, and this can never be that, etc., when the Qur'an is equally ambiguous, just in a different way, the ambiguity is more inferred by the Beginning of Sur'ahs, etc., and not so much re-emphasized in the text, like the NT.

I don't think God wants the evil-hearted to know the truth of Scripture, as It is a tree of life, also. At least in a sense; i might be taking some liberties there. satan is both "the unseen one," and "appears as an angel of light," which indicates motive, to me. Meaning i have witnessed Scriptural principles being applied for nefarious ends, because they work, regardless of the motive or agenda. When enough people are in agreement, they can make an atom bomb, etc.

 

[bbyrd009]

This goes back to "2 or 3, deciding" things, which imo is just trying to shoehorn the passage into assuming a congregation there anyway, and kind of reveals the difference in illuminating a truth v making a law, that others are then somehow compelled to follow by inference.

 

[tom55]

Yes, Tom, but i think Scripture even informs us that truth is a moving target, in a sense, in many passages. Directly: "He who says he knows does not yet know as he ought," "don't be quibbling over another guy's holidays" (paraphrased), even "there are many rooms in My Father's Mansion, if not I would have told you," and indirectly, considering that the same terminology is used to both command disciples of their mission and condemn those who will hear "I never knew you," and the fact that any objective truth claimed as doctrine invariably has a Scriptural counter-doctrine also.

So no, i don't think it is possible to "know the truth of Scripture" the way you likely mean the question, and imo the Scriptural reply to that would be "he who says he knows is full of yack." I am not aware of a single "fact" that one could pull from Scripture that could not be challenged by another passage of Scripture, and imo that is the point; one reveals their heart in their interpretation of the Bible, and one's hypocrisies are revealed IRL by how they deviate from their interpretation in conversations.

And i gotta say that i am mostly impressed by most translations, which preserve this ambiguity in passages; which used to drive me nuts, but i came to see that this is an integral part of Scripture, and of understanding truth.

Could i agree with you, that truth is objective, and Scripture imparts absolute truths? Absolutely. If you see "Rapture" in a Book where a prophet specifically condemns Rapture in antiquity, and you know the doctrine just re-animated like 100 years ago, i could certainly justify holding the opinion that you have lost your mind. But then what have i done? I have made an adversary, mostly, where i did not have one before--because after all, what do i care about a belief someone might hold about God that does not concern me? It is not even my business. And for all i know--the physical being descended from the spiritual--there could even be some meeting of Him in the Air that manifests physically (fleshly) someday, and all i might really be doing is demonstrating "stumbling-block" to my dismay, lol.

Jews are great for this stuff, i wish ida spent more time at The Wall, and less time flirting with girls now lol. I notice that we think much more...linearly? Much more like Muslims; this is that, and that has to be this, and this can never be that, etc., when the Qur'an is equally ambiguous, just in a different way, the ambiguity is more inferred by the Beginning of Sur'ahs, etc., and not so much re-emphasized in the text, like the NT.

I don't think God wants the evil-hearted to know the truth of Scripture, as It is a tree of life, also. At least in a sense; i might be taking some liberties there. satan is both "the unseen one," and "appears as an angel of light," which indicates motive, to me. Meaning i have witnessed Scriptural principles being applied for nefarious ends, because they work, regardless of the motive or agenda. When enough people are in agreement, they can make an atom bomb, etc.

Truth is a moving target??? That makes no sense logically or factually. What you believe is OPPOSITE of what scripture teaches.

YOU "don't think it is possible to know the truth of Scripture". That makes absolutely NO sense. What you believe is OPPOSITE of Scripture.

"Could i agree with you, that truth is objective"....I NEVER SAID THAT. I have said the OPPOSITE. What you believe is OPPOSITE of scripture.

I will pray for you!

 

[bbyrd009]

well Tom, i notice that you aren't forwarding any examples here...lol. We are just discussing concepts, ok, beliefs.

I believe people fool themselves into believing they have a corner on some truth, whatever it may be, that makes them special in God's eyes, and i don't think it hurts to examine this premise--well, obviously it hurts, you are not the first to have this reaction--and if it is not right from the Book, you have yet to show that with all due respect. And i am not meaning to pick on you, ok, but the reason is plain, there in your last line;

"you will pray for me."

which don't get me wrong, i appreciate that, but that statement says things that i think might be hard for you to face, maybe. It's a dominance/submission thing, is one way to put it, or, your pride is kind of showing, or however you might want to characterize this. And i'm here to tell you, if you are seeking God, then you are fine with me, wherever your beliefs are at the moment. I do realize that i still put people on the defensive a lot, but it isn't on purpose, even though i still get sucked in sometimes, i try pretty hard to stick to concepts, so if you could maybe reload and address one of those concepts, show me where one is not by the Book, or give me an example of some objective spiritual truth, we might see where the Church is, here in a second, even if it does not agree with some povs, so what, it is just a perspective.

God is not, ever, going to punish anyone for changing their minds, Tom, in seeking a better understanding of God.

 

[bbyrd009]

See, as we stand right now, Tom told me that i was naked, after i suggested a Scriptural way to realize the nature of truth that i guess upsets a belief system or something, i'm not sure there. For what it's worth, i forgive you, ok, it's not a big deal, and i am used to people hating me for this. It is like looking over a cliff, i guess, confronting the Book. Now maybe you see why i say the unvarnished truth would kill us?

 

[epostle1]

You're naked. Get some clothes on.

 

[mjrhealth]

Wearing clothes doesnt help when your before God, he sees through all mans hideous disguises, trying to hide his shame.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, Tom, but i think Scripture even informs us that truth is a moving target, in a sense, in many passages. Directly: "He who says he knows does not yet know as he ought," "don't be quibbling over another guy's holidays" (paraphrased), even "there are many rooms in My Father's Mansion, if not I would have told you," and indirectly, considering that the same terminology is used to both command disciples of their mission and condemn those who will hear "I never knew you," and the fact that any objective truth claimed as doctrine invariably has a Scriptural counter-doctrine also.

So no, i don't think it is possible to "know the truth of Scripture" the way you likely mean the question, and imo the Scriptural reply to that would be "he who says he knows is full of yack." I am not aware of a single "fact" that one could pull from Scripture that could not be challenged by another passage of Scripture, and imo that is the point; one reveals their heart in their interpretation of the Bible, and one's hypocrisies are revealed IRL by how they deviate from their interpretation in conversations.

And i gotta say that i am mostly impressed by most translations, which preserve this ambiguity in passages; which used to drive me nuts, but i came to see that this is an integral part of Scripture, and of understanding truth.

Could i agree with you, that truth is objective, and Scripture imparts absolute truths? Absolutely. If you see "Rapture" in a Book where a prophet specifically condemns Rapture in antiquity, and you know the doctrine just re-animated like 100 years ago, i could certainly justify holding the opinion that you have lost your mind. But then what have i done? I have made an adversary, mostly, where i did not have one before--because after all, what do i care about a belief someone might hold about God that does not concern me? It is not even my business. And for all i know--the physical being descended from the spiritual--there could even be some meeting of Him in the Air that manifests physically (fleshly) someday, and all i might really be doing is demonstrating "stumbling-block" to my dismay, lol.

Jews are great for this stuff, i wish ida spent more time at The Wall, and less time flirting with girls now lol. I notice that we think much more...linearly? Much more like Muslims; this is that, and that has to be this, and this can never be that, etc., when the Qur'an is equally ambiguous, just in a different way, the ambiguity is more inferred by the Beginning of Sur'ahs, etc., and not so much re-emphasized in the text, like the NT.

I don't think God wants the evil-hearted to know the truth of Scripture, as It is a tree of life, also. At least in a sense; i might be taking some liberties there. satan is both "the unseen one," and "appears as an angel of light," which indicates motive, to me. Meaning i have witnessed Scriptural principles being applied for nefarious ends, because they work, regardless of the motive or agenda. When enough people are in agreement, they can make an atom bomb, etc.

bbyrd,

I agree with your intent, but I think you are choosing your words poorly. These passages you cite certainly are not saying that "truth" is a moving target. However, I agree with you that it is teaching that not all situations are "black and white." Certainly God looks at the heart and he awards our faith, even if it is not always properly informed (thank goodness...I think we all are errant on many things!). However, Paul's point in these passages you cite is NOT to say that the truth is a shifting target that may be there one day and gone the next. No, it is saying that God acquiesces to our growth process and is more concerned with our acting in faith than our always being "right." Not every decision is a "right vs. wrong" or "truth vs. error" decision.

Allow me to give you an example of what I mean by referencing a text you paraphrased:

don't be quibbling over another guy's holidays

Is Paul suggesting that one day it may be pleasing to God to celebrate a holiday and another day it would offend Him? Or, is he saying that God is only pleased when Joe celebrates X holiday, but when Jim celebrates it, it angers God? I mean, if you are claiming "truth is a moving target" then this would have to be the conclusion.

Rather, I think what is being discussed here is that God is ALWAYS pleased when we are acting in faith on these side issues. Moreover, God is NEVER okay with a person acting as judge by condemning someone who is living by faith.

So, you see that these are not "moving" truths but constant truths that apply to issues that relate to changing circumstances. Thus, it is the circumstances that change, not the truths being declared in this text (namely that God desires that we act in faith and that it is never okay to condemn another believer who is seeking to honor God on a debatable issue). Another example would be an alcoholic beverage. the Bible condemns drunkeness, but some Christians have issues with drinking any alcohol at all...for one reason or another. So, maybe for me its okay to drink a beer because I can do it in faith without getting drunk and without a guilty conscience. However, for another believer, they may not be able to drink a beer in faith because they feel it is wrong and they feel guilty doing so. Its always wrong for him to drink it with a guilty conscience and its always wrong for him to condemn me for drinking a beer and being able to do so while giving thanks to God for it and not getting drunk. So, its not like there is a changing truth here. No, there is a constant truth: living in faith and not condemning other believers on debatable matters.

Unfortunately, the other references you made make no sense to me so I cannot comment on them because I don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[bbyrd009]

well said, imo. I might argue that "Moreover, God is NEVER okay with a person acting as judge by condemning someone who is living by faith" seems to reserve some judgement that you might make, depending upon whether you have deemed them to be "living by faith" or not, and so it fails, because pretty much everything is debatable; for every "if they aren't with us, they are against us" there is a "if they are not against us, they are with us" passage in the Bible, which is really what i mean to bring out. Iow the Spanish Inquisition can make a case for "acting in faith," too.

You're naked. Get some clothes on.

Well imo it is in this judging that we come under judgement. What is the charge here? How have i sinned against you?

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyrd,

I agree with your intent, but I think you are choosing your words poorly. These passages you cite certainly are not saying that "truth" is a moving target.

but they do obliquely indicate this, if not directly, imo. A more direct treatise is the passage by Christ "John Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine..."

but really imo the most direct indication is the universal reticence we can note here for providing any example. If you believe in a doctrine, any doctrine, then it should be truth, should it not? O persist here because that dictrine that you hold dear is going to be put through the fire sooner or later, ok.

Pay now, or pay later, iow.

 

[Wormwood]

well said, imo. I might argue that "Moreover, God is NEVER okay with a person acting as judge by condemning someone who is living by faith" seems to reserve some judgement that you might make, depending upon whether you have deemed them to be "living by faith" or not, and so it fails, because pretty much everything is debatable; for every "if they aren't with us, they are against us" there is a "if they are not against us, they are with us" passage in the Bible, which is really what i mean to bring out. Iow the Spanish Inquisition can make a case for "acting in faith," too.
Well imo it is in this judging that we come under judgement. What is the charge here? How have i sinned against you?

Well, allow me to emphasize the point that Paul is referring to "debatable matters" in that context. Clearly there are some things that are sinful, and even if a person does it in "faith" (such as a Muslim suicide bomber). Such faith is built on falsehood and is not faith in the truth.. If someone murders or tortures other people int he name of Jesus, it doesn't matter if they are doing it as an act of faith. Jesus is pretty clear regarding how we should treat our enemies. So if someone is acting wickedly and disobeying the commands of Jesus, even if they think they are pleasing God (just as Paul thought he was pleasing God by persecuting Christians) they are still accountable for their sin. A person can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. That is altogether different than "debatable matters." I don think the Bible or the commands of Jesus are difficult to understand. However, in areas that are debatable, he calls us to act in love toward one another.

 

[Wormwood]

but they do obliquely indicate this, if not directly, imo. A more direct treatise is the passage by Christ "John Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine..."

but really imo the most direct indication is the universal reticence we can note here for providing any example. If you believe in a doctrine, any doctrine, then it should be truth, should it not? O persist here because that dictrine that you hold dear is going to be put through the fire sooner or later, ok.

Pay now, or pay later, iow.

I think you are greatly misunderstanding that text. The point Jesus is making there is that the Pharisees had moving expectations when it came to God's messengers. They didn't like John in his strict asceticism and they didn't like Jesus because he was "eating and drinking." The point Jesus is making here has nothing to do with God or his truth. It has to do with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. God spoke to them with different instruments and they kept finding reasons to reject God's message. Nothing was good enough for them...that was the point. The real issue is that they were rejecting God's Word and not that there was some problem with the messenger that was hindering the message. Its like God gave them a glass of warm water and they spit it out and said, "Yuk, this is warm." Then God sent them a glass of cold water and they discarded it saying, "Ugh, this is cold! We can't be expected to drink this!" Hope that makes sense. This certainly has nothing to do with truth being an uncertain thing.

I don't quite follow your second paragraph. However, the impression I get is that you are suggesting that truth must be a moving target because people hold to different doctrines and not everyone agrees. Yet how does this reflect on whether or not God is changing his mind on the matter? First, as I pointed out, people often debate and disagree on debatable matters. Many of these issues are not necessarily "right or wrong." Perhaps God gives us freedom in some of these areas. Certainly other areas in which Christians disagree do have a "right and wrong" answer and it is simply the case that some are right and some are wrong. I am sure we are all wrong in some areas. Yet being a Christian does not mean that we have all the right answers. It means we trust in grace to cleanse us and guide us even in our faulty understanding. Thus, I believe we should hold to our convictions, yet we should also be gracious to those with whom we disagree just as we desire God to be gracious to us. Again, our differences have no bearing on God's truth or in any way suggest that God flip flops on his views on a particular doctrine on any given day.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, allow me to emphasize the point that Paul is referring to "debatable matters" in that context. Clearly there are some things that are sinful, and even if a person does it in "faith" (such as a Muslim suicide bomber). Such faith is built on falsehood and is not faith in the truth.. If someone murders or tortures other people int he name of Jesus, it doesn't matter if they are doing it as an act of faith. Jesus is pretty clear regarding how we should treat our enemies. So if someone is acting wickedly and disobeying the commands of Jesus, even if they think they are pleasing God (just as Paul thought he was pleasing God by persecuting Christians) they are still accountable for their sin. A person can be sincere and be sincerely wrong. That is altogether different than "debatable matters." I don think the Bible or the commands of Jesus are difficult to understand. However, in areas that are debatable, he calls us to act in love toward one another.

ah ok, and in these areas that you deem "not debatable?" How are we to respond then?

 

[bbyrd009]

I think you are greatly misunderstanding that text. The point Jesus is making there is that the Pharisees had moving expectations when it came to God's messengers. They didn't like John in his strict asceticism and they didn't like Jesus because he was "eating and drinking." The point Jesus is making here has nothing to do with God or his truth. It has to do with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. God spoke to them with different instruments and they kept finding reasons to reject God's message. Nothing was good enough for them...that was the point. The real issue is that they were rejecting God's Word and not that there was some problem with the messenger that was hindering the message. Its like God gave them a glass of warm water and they spit it out and said, "Yuk, this is warm." Then God sent them a glass of cold water and they discarded it saying, "Ugh, this is cold! We can't be expected to drink this!" Hope that makes sense. This certainly has nothing to do with truth being an uncertain thing.

nice, imo you are just rephrasing the point, that being that we are all hypocrites. We could even go as far as to say that having expectations makes one a hypocrite. The only Scripture that comes to mind has to do with "the veil," right now, and the moose video, the moose having the expectation that he only needs to fear something that moves, making him completely blind to the death that he is pressing his nose against. Or we all have personal examples, that happen all of the time, wherein we aren't seeing something that we are looking right at, because we have a different expectation (or even no expectation, the point being that we do not know).

But also the passages on "hypocrisy" pretty much all illuminate expectations, in one way or another, too. See that the Pharisee is revealed to us as being a hypocrite, even while he had the law on his side, and had valid justifications for feeling "superior" to the tax collector. Job is an even more subtle example of this, wherein Job's sin is hidden from many believers, even though he voices rebound (or "repentance," to the blind) twice.

We even have passages wherein God is anthropomorphized into "regretting" something that He had done which should be reflected upon here. Creation is of necessity outside the bounds of "known truth," even though new truths will be discovered along the way. A parent learns this with their children, even as they also get schooled about expectations; a truth that works on one child may not work on the second. And if it seems like stretching it to put "truth" in that sentence, just reduce it to its simplest forms, imo; "if you play with fire, you will get burned," or something like that. Is it true, or not, that if you play with fire, you will get burned?

So imo "religion" seems mostly a way to grab onto something deemed "truth" as an immutable fact, and practice it by rote and ritual, that literally forbids one changing their mind, and all of the talking in the world cannot convince the religious that all they have done is found a new way to practice the Law. They have become convinced of a belief (which manifests from their faith) that they were led to by someone else, that can even be pointed to in Scripture, "confess the Lord and you will be saved," so now public profession of belief in Christ is required, and the fact that you can "confess" antichrist 6 times on the way to the steakhouse after "church" is ignored or discounted, because by God they know the definition of "confess," lol, they are not stupid. This guy is now Seven Times Worse, because Scripture is written in such a way that although "you cannot accept Christ with your mouth" is obvious, it is not directly stated; it must be sought.

So this guy is now in a grave, composed of his expectations, because "the first person to tell his side seems correct, until the second guy shows up and starts talking" paraphrased, and he is in a deeper grave than before, because he has been convinced that he just changed his mind back there in "church," when he stood up and walked down front, and tyvm that was uncomfortable enough, so it can pass as changing one's mind, even though it could easily be demonstrated that the guy has not changed his mind at all, because after all he did not come to "church" for a party now, did he. And i do not mean to be belittling this experience, ok, i did it, and most everyone who actively seeks God in our society does it, once they have rejected the Hippy that God sent them first, anyway, and these are mostly well-meaning people, just like the Pharisee, who is of course conveyed to us as "the bad guy" now, "Pharisee" = "black hat," for like, everybody, right, but don't forget some Pharisees believed on the Lord, too. So, see how "the truth" just changed? Yet at the same time, free will is preserved, and everyone finds what they seek.

 

[bbyrd009]

why don't the Ananiases and the Saphiras in our Church drop dead, the moment they sin against the Spirit? The "truth" is that they do, in God's eyes, and the physical "truth" will catch up to them soon enough, but our expectations, from reading that passage--or any of the others; on healing, or any miracle recorded in Scripture--are different, the same way that little children can be misled by "stay here for the present." Now, i could insist upon this "truth," but then i would be negating free will; your right to disagree. God does not do this, "Love believes all things," and we have multiple examples wherein God has even respected the errant beliefs of someone, allowing them to reap what they sow.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't quite follow your second paragraph. However, the impression I get is that you are suggesting that truth must be a moving target because people hold to different doctrines and not everyone agrees. Yet how does this reflect on whether or not God is changing his mind on the matter? First, as I pointed out, people often debate and disagree on debatable matters. Many of these issues are not necessarily "right or wrong." Perhaps God gives us freedom in some of these areas. Certainly other areas in which Christians disagree do have a "right and wrong" answer and it is simply the case that some are right and some are wrong. I am sure we are all wrong in some areas. Yet being a Christian does not mean that we have all the right answers. It means we trust in grace to cleanse us and guide us even in our faulty understanding. Thus, I believe we should hold to our convictions, yet we should also be gracious to those with whom we disagree just as we desire God to be gracious to us. Again, our differences have no bearing on God's truth or in any way suggest that God flip flops on his views on a particular doctrine on any given day.

Well ok, which doctrine? :) lol, see, my second paragraph,

but really imo the most direct indication is the universal reticence we can note here for providing any example. If you believe in a doctrine, any doctrine, then it should be truth, should it not? I persist here because that doctrine that you hold dear is going to be put through the fire sooner or later, ok.

is somehow "unclear," cannot be understood, whatever, but i plainly am just asking for an example, imo, and have been for pages now, that we might reason together on it. And i have even been honest, in stating that i believe it is a trap, because i get that i am perceived by some as a roaring lion, or a demagogue (you should witness how i used to do this one--completely reprehensible, lol, setting up a doctrine-trap, and getting everyone to agree, and then exposing them), but really even though i might be shredding a concept one moment, i mean this by way of looking at it from all angles, and i certainly do not know any better than the next guy. I just know that Scripture reveals truth, which i have discovered means "if you think Scripture has imparted a truth to you, in that passage, so that you now "know" something, for a fact (Law), confidently enough so that you may now assume a doctrine from it, i am confident that...you might benefit from this Scripture," whatever it may be, which i usually have no clue myself until i go search the relevant terms, tbh, i just know it is in There now, and i am never disappointed.

Not "almost never;" never. The exceptions being "you reap what you sow" and "you find what you seek," and yes i realize what i just did. So, nice post, i mostly agree, ok, we are 99% in agreement, until i am asked to sign under that doctrine, and put on that crown, so to speak, as tempting as that is.

 

[bbyrd009]

So, i guess this speaks to dispensationalism, too; does God change His Mind? No, but children are treated differently, according to what is best for them, even though "the truth" has not changed.
So, does God change His Mind? Of course He does! Who does not change their minds in some regards while creating a new thing? This is a response to truth--which is "revealed"--not a negation of It.

 

[Wormwood]

ah ok, and in these areas that you deem "not debatable?" How are we to respond then?

Well, as I mentioned previously, some are right and some are wrong. I do believe there are Christians who are wrong on certain issues that I believe the Scriptures speak clearly concerning. In fact, most of the NT is written as correction and instruction about Christians who had false ideas or behaviors that were inconsistent with their calling.

Again, it is not for us to condemn such people. We simply hold to our convictions on the issue and lovingly try to use the Scriptures to help them see their error. If they are genuine believers who are humble and desire to know the truth, as we see in the book of Acts where Apollos is corrected by Pricilla and Aquilla, hopefully they will recognize their error and change. Its why we discuss and have dialogue. Of course, not all will be convinced, and in such cases, we just give them grace as we desire grace.

Of course, some issues are core matters that are "essential" to our faith. When someone diverts from the truth in these areas, we just break fellowship. We see these issues written about in Galatians, 1 John and elsewhere. in fact, the church has labored for 2,000 years to make known what are core doctrines of the faith. In my view, there are core doctrines, important doctrines and debatable doctrines. A person can be a Christian but be mistaken on an important doctrine. Or maybe Christians disagree on debatable doctrines that are not that significant. But if someone diverts from an essential issue of the faith, they would not be considered a Christian. After all, labels have meaning. When I say, "Male" then it brings some core concepts to mind. Now certainly males can have different hair lengths and builds, but certain core factors distinguish a male from a female. Anyway, I won't go on about it. Im sure you get the point.

Ill have to address your other comments later. I have some chores to knock out! :)

 

[bbyrd009]

ok. I'm gonna be thinking about this "break fellowship" thing in the light of Jesus' eating habits, etc--which were offenses that carried the death penalty back then, i guess.

and this "labels" thing, too, i agree that they are important, but i will argue that they are seized upon and corrupted, as "belief" is falsely replaced with "faith," and "tares" become "weeds," etc.

you, also, have not provided any examples of "core issues" that are essential to your "faith," and i'm not meaning to be divisive here, but i suggest now that it is even being acknowledged by default that no doctrine you might name can stand up to a holistic view of Scripture. Doctrines might even be viewed as Kings, that we choose to go and fight our battles for us, in a sense.