Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (33898)	11/6/2002 11:54:21 PM
From: Berry Picker	Respond to of 39621

RE>>The only damnable doctrine is the one that fails to look at and understand the Preterist doctrine.<< Not true James :-) Above any doctrine concerning the second coming of Christ - this kind of treatment of men who believe in Christ as Saviour - should not be tolerated or copied. People start condemning other Christians to hell. Everyone runs for the matches and hopes to gain the power to light them. Reconstructionist dictatorial bloodbath or bust! Damnable heresy is doctrines that deny the deity of Christ. That denies salvation by Grace. That attacks the person and work of Christ. While those who look for something to occur concerning the work of salvation yet in the future - they do not understand that they are witnessing that the word is not true or that the work of salvation remains undone. They are just misled. To say they are suffering 'damnable doctrine' however is to render evil for evil James. It is not right and we are warned against it. I do not stand innocent in how I respond to such evil myself. I find myself intolerant. I utterly hate such use of religious precepts. "Death to all heretics and witches" they cry and suddenly we have another Salem. While you are fully aware that the Counsel of Trent stated that any who deny that the will of man plays a part in salvation are damnable heretics - yet do not feel to superior to such appalling concepts as the Calvinist's themselves put to death people who believed in free will. Read this short exposition concerning Hugo Grotius and his friends: pantheon.yale.edu Not a pretty picture from any side. The problem is not "is it another gospel" rather "does it affect the gospel"? Many say "YES" the matter of the will of man is not up for grabs and is a deciding factor concerning salvation - but is it? What of this verse: John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: I do not believe for a moment that any two believers on earth can be said to "agree" about everything. Surely then this verse cannot be taken in an absolute literal sense: Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? There has to be some room for growth and difference else how will this ever be said: Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: To walk in "unity" we must accept some form of "disunity" while we yet see through a "glass darkly" I am ashamed of Gary North - his attitude is that of the ungodly Popes he so readily calls the anti-christ. We need not to call them 'damnable' however. We should not cater or accept there godless attitudes but at the same time we cannot say how Christ will view or judge them as they profess to know Him as God. We must therefore maintain and remember who our common enemy is. Let US - me and you and anyone who can hear this regard with our hearts this warning: Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. I'm sorry I do not do that well at hearing this advice myself and I am sorry if you find me less than what I should be, I have no excuse but I also expect more of you. Leave off the charges of "damnation" to those who will do wickedly with them. That is not our portion. John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. God Bless Brian

To: Jamey who wrote (33898)	11/7/2002 11:12:31 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Finally the cat is out of the bag with you James. You have been hinting about "man made creeds" that you did not accept since I saw your first posts, but when I asked you straight up about it you simply ignored the question. Now we can all clearly see what it is that you believe (or don't) and discern accordingly. I noticed you also ignored the main thrust of my post choosing instead to condemn not only me, but all of Christendom. All the Christians who ever lived since the time of the Apostles are damned and gone to Hell because they did not believe a doctrine that somebody came up with two thousand years after the fact. I'm Not sure whether you lack the theological acumen to defend your position or just prefer not to, opting instead to just hurl insults. No biggie. In fact Contrary to what you claim, it is your doctrine that is at odds with what virtually all Christians believe. The onus then is on you to explain why your view of the resurrection of Christ's body is at odds with the scriptures. It's to you to explain how all the things you say happened at 70 A.D. happened and on you to explain how all the earliest Church fathers could have not noticed it. I don't think you have these answers but I am glad you finally mustered the courage to come out into the light where we can see you for what you are, someone who believes and teaches false doctrine. Greg