Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: chesley

"But, all the different doctrines can't be right. Why associate yourself with error, as you see it, for the sake of unity? To me, that smacks of the liberal's "inclusiveness"."

Here's the thing: You think your interpretation is correct, or at least the interpretation of your denomination or pastor. So do the members of other denominations think their interpretations are correct. Which is right? How do you know? Each denomination has studied scripture and believes it has the true interpretation.

I understand fully the reasons for the differences. What I do not understand is one Christian saying of another that he or she is wrong and not a "true" Christian, based on these differences.


86 posted on 10/20/2006 7:45:14 AM PDT by MineralMan (Non-evangelical Atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: MineralMan
I understand fully the reasons for the differences. What I do not understand is one Christian saying of another that he or she is wrong and not a "true" Christian, based on these differences.

Here's the thing. Where did the the Southern Baptists say the man was not a "true" Christian. Read the article. I didn't find it.

They just said that he was in error, and that they could not support that error. I would agree with their right to do so even if I disagreed with their position.

It's like full immersion baptism. You have to undergo it to be a Baptist, but unlike, say Catholics, Baptists do not believe it has any power toward salvation at all. And they do not think Christians in other denominations are not Christians, either. Think of it as an initiation.

89 posted on 10/20/2006 8:03:28 AM PDT by chesley (Republicans don't serve to win...But America does not deserve the Dhimmicrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan

What I do not understand is one Christian saying of another that he or she is wrong and not a "true" Christian, based on these differences.
= = = =

Agreed!

In a word . . . PRIDE.

And, insecurities . . . turf issues . . . CONTROL FREAK issues . . . political games.

All which must be sickening to our Lord.


111 posted on 10/20/2006 9:38:42 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

To: MineralMan
What I do not understand is one Christian saying of another that he or she is wrong and not a "true" Christian, based on these differences.

Based upon which differences?

Please name the specific differences you are referring to and the parties guilty of using those specific differences to judge who is a 'true' Christian.

For some reason (discernment here) you seem to be confused. You made an erroneous and huge leap from the word "wrong" to the words "and not a true Christian".

Paul did not always agree with Peter completely and had to set him straight; in fact he told him he was wrong to his face, but nowhere did he say Peter was not a Christian.

Paul is mostly correcting the carnal Corinthian church when he wrote them. He corrected their errors gently, but he did not say they were lost due to their abuse of the gifts.

If Paul did not think it mattered, he would not have acted as if it did matter.

There is a dearth of Bible knowledge in America today, it is heartbreaking.

Some doctrinal positions, such as the virgin birth, or Jesus' death, burial and resurrection are much more important than others, such as tongues.

216 posted on 06/18/2009 2:38:25 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson