[Jerry_M]

"Was he civil when rebuking teachers of the word when they were knowingly wrong? No, he wasn't."

Then, by your own admission, we have no basis for being civil to those who proclaim as gospel something that is not the Gospel.

There are plenty of false teachers here, and they need solid rebuke. Those who would minimize the devastation of the fall of man ("Dead? Heck no, you are just a little bit ill"), and maximize the authority of man ("God votes for you, the devil votes against you, and you cast the deciding vote") need stern rebuke.

[ShadowAce]

No--what we have here is a discussion. We have (as far as I know) no one on either side who is deliberately trying to lie to others about the Gospel. What we have here is supposedly an honest discussion between people who believe essentially the same thing--not a church service or any other teaching session. There is no authority here (like the pharisees had over the people).

That is the difference.

[irishtenor]

I agree with the solid rebuke, but there is no reason to be obnoxious about it (as some are in the habit of doing, on both sides). Jesus responded to the devil with scripture, the devil had no answer. Rebuke YES, belittle NO. (Not saying that you are the culprit, just a general observation):>)