What brings unity among brethren?

[Forever Settled]

I have seen that some of your claims involve the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards [double standards] since you do not apply the same exact standards to the process of the making of the KJV.

I love it !

 

[Heretic Hunter]

I define being "divided" as having no relationship or association with another. I am looking at this from the "united" perspective. Too often we see the idea of "united in Christ" and "divided in doctrine" with the "united in Christ" being pretty much meaningless except for a well meaning sentiment.

I believe that we are to separate according to doctrine.

I would not, for example, become a member of a free-will Baptist church or a KJO Baptist church. That does not mean that I will not associate with those congregations or even attend a service. I would probably not attend a Presbyterian service because of doctrinal differences. That does not mean, however, that I would not encourage Presbyterians or join in a community program.

Mormonism is a religion that is not united to Christians in Christ. There is a division. The same is true of Jehovah Witnesses.

I believe that the criteria of actual division (not separation, as I see benefit even among less diverse doctrine) is Christ and centered on the gospel of Christ. That is the dividing point.

Jon, I agree with you. If the doctrine is antichrist, such as is the case with JWs and Mormons; and I will also reiterate to include Seventh Day Adventists; we are indeed to be separate. When they preach "another jesus", or "another gospel", and/or exhibit the "another spirit" which is the spirit of antichrist/error/iniquity; we are to be separate per 2Cor 11, 2Cor 6:14-18, 1Jhn 4:1-5, 2Jhn 1:7-11, & Tit 3:9-11 We are to be as Apostle Paul per 2Cor 11:12 to not allow for them to glory as Christians, as they are not Christians, but are antichrists / Satan's ministers. The same is true when such ones come into the Churches or into the arena of Christian Forums, or to the doors of our homes.

 

[Yeshua1]

I define being "divided" as having no relationship or association with another. I am looking at this from the "united" perspective. Too often we see the idea of "united in Christ" and "divided in doctrine" with the "united in Christ" being pretty much meaningless except for a well meaning sentiment.

I believe that we are to separate according to doctrine.

I would not, for example, become a member of a free-will Baptist church or a KJO Baptist church. That does not mean that I will not associate with those congregations or even attend a service. I would probably not attend a Presbyterian service because of doctrinal differences. That does not mean, however, that I would not encourage Presbyterians or join in a community program.

Mormonism is a religion that is not united to Christians in Christ. There is a division. The same is true of Jehovah Witnesses.

I believe that the criteria of actual division (not separation, as I see benefit even among less diverse doctrine) is Christ and centered on the gospel of Christ. That is the dividing point.

Even when we agree to disagree and divide over certain doctrines, still need to see each other as still being Christian, as long as not disagreeing over essential doctrines!
I just see that at times we are dividing over issues that were never meant to be division over, such as which translation to use, which day to worship on, etcf!

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Some of what you may claim to be facts may actually be unproven assumptions or unproven allegations or subjective opinions. You have not convinced others that your personal human perspective is infallible, perfect, or above being challenged. You seem to preach at others as though it would be impossible for you to be mistaken in what you claim. You may be sometimes trying to claim that your opinions are facts. In my opinion, I have seen that some of your claims involve the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards [double standards] since you do not apply the same exact standards to the process of the making of the KJV.

You cannot prove me wrong. I meant to include a few questions for you in that post; Which "Jesus" do you believe in? How do you define Jesus? Do you agree or disgree with the posters that I mentioned? Do you believe, as they do, that Jesus Christ was not ressurected bodily and/or not fully God? and why? Please answer with your own words and passages from the Bible to support your position.

 

[Yeshua1]

You cannot prove me wrong. I meant to include a few questions for you in that post; Which "Jesus" do you believe in? How do you define Jesus? Do you agree or disgree with the posters that I mentioned? Do you believe, as they do, that Jesus Christ was not ressurected bodily and/or not fully God? and why? Please answer with your own words and passages from the Bible to support your position.

Before Logos1560 answers you, why not prove to us from the scriptures that the Kjv is a perfect English translation?

 

[Heretic Hunter]

Before Logos1560 answers you, why not prove to us from the scriptures that the Kjv is a perfect English translation?

To be fair, before "other jesus/logos" answers, why don't you, the "other jesus/Yeshua" respond to the evidence and information that I had already posted.


What brings unity among brethren?

 

[Yeshua1]

To be fair, before "other jesus/logos" answers, why don't you, the "other jesus/Yeshua" respond to the evidence and information that I had already posted.


What brings unity among brethren?

To be honest with you, I do not see what your main points are, as the Bible states only Israel ever was a nation unto the Lord, and there is NO proof available to sustain the KJVO position!

 

[Heretic Hunter]

To be honest with you, I do not see what your main points are, as the Bible states only Israel ever was a nation unto the Lord, and there is NO proof available to sustain the KJVO position!

You "do not see" the main points because you have avoided examination of the evidence and information that I had provided. I posted the link of that post in my last reply to you. Please take the time to carefully examine the evidence and information, and respond to the information that I provided, before so quickly responding. The timing of your response demonstrates deliberate ignorance (ignoring) of the evidence with disregard of the facts. The subject per Israel can be addressed and discussed on this thread: Has God only had One Covenant with the Nation of Israel?

 

[Yeshua1]

You "do not see" the main points because you have avoided examination of the evidence and information that I had provided. I posted the link of that post in my last reply to you. Please take the time to carefully examine the evidence and information, and respond to the information that I provided, before so quickly responding. The timing of your response demonstrates deliberate ignorance (ignoring) of the evidence with disregard of the facts. The subject per Israel can be addressed and discussed on this thread: Has God only had One Covenant with the Nation of Israel?

God under the OC was in covenant with Israel, but now under the NC under Covenant with the Church, with individuals themselves!

 

[Heretic Hunter]

God under the OC was in covenant with Israel, but now under the NC under Covenant with the Church, with individuals themselves!

Thank you for redefining your position on that subject. I suggest that there is much more to the subject of "Covenants," but then again, as I had already mentioned, that can be discussed on the other thread of which I posted the link to in my last reply to you.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:15 PM Pacific.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

This is one of the best threads on the BB! Serious headway has been made about addressing issues facing the Churches, with the sharing of passages from The Holy Bible about how to identify heretics that creep in, bringing damnable heresies, and striving to sew confusion, disunity, and discord among the Brethren and so much more; with solutions and remedy on how to deal with such issues. It is worthy of being pinned up for all to see!

 

[Heretic Hunter]

I define being "divided" as having no relationship or association with another. I am looking at this from the "united" perspective. Too often we see the idea of "united in Christ" and "divided in doctrine" with the "united in Christ" being pretty much meaningless except for a well meaning sentiment.

I believe that we are to separate according to doctrine.

I would not, for example, become a member of a free-will Baptist church or a KJO Baptist church. That does not mean that I will not associate with those congregations or even attend a service. I would probably not attend a Presbyterian service because of doctrinal differences. That does not mean, however, that I would not encourage Presbyterians or join in a community program.

Mormonism is a religion that is not united to Christians in Christ. There is a division. The same is true of Jehovah Witnesses.

I believe that the criteria of actual division (not separation, as I see benefit even among less diverse doctrine) is Christ and centered on the gospel of Christ. That is the dividing point.

Jon, in addition to my previous reply of your post, I want to add some more information that will also be expounded upon more later, about the embracement of the false prophet Mohammed, Islam, their antichrist moon god Allah that never had a son; with mention of their Gnostic Qu'ran which is a hi-jacking and rewrite of the Bible; and how the "dividing lines" are being blurred by the Roman Catholic Church, headed by a Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, more famously named "Francis" and so-called "Pope" of the Vatican.

Recently, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, also known as "Pope Francis" met at ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates where he stated before the entire world that they worship the same god. It is also reported that "Francis is making the first-ever trip to the Arabian Peninsula, the birthplace of Islam, in a bid to strengthen ties with the Muslim world."

These actions that have been taken by Jorge (Pope Francis) are in defiance of The Lord Almighty's command to be separate from infidels. It further demonstrates that Jorge is not heeding The Lord Jesus Christ's words concerning false prophets in Matt 24 and in Matt 7:19-29 Moreover, Jorge (Pope Francis) has also demonstrated by bad example, the bending of the knee to Baal (Satan) by by both mixing and blending with the false prophet with the antichrist declaration that they worship the same god. This antichrist demonstration, by Jorge (Pope Franci) is precisely what is Biblically defined as being of the doctrines of both Balaam and the Nicolaitans, and it is End Times Deception. Furthermore, Jorge (Pope Francis) had also met with other "Religious" Leaders such as the "Dalai Lama" who claims to be "a god" and is "part of the Gelug or "Yellow Hat" school of Tibetan Buddhism, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism", and he has met with the Leader of the "Bai" religion, along with others of the Hindu religion, etc., calling for the merging of world religions also known as Coexist.

I have a LOT of information on this subject, of which is in reserve for the thread that I am working on drafting a series of posts for per the Occult Agenda Against The Holy Bible and the push for the One World Religion.

Jorge (Pope Francis) has met with all of the various "Religious Leaders" already at the Vatican, even participating in and receiving a Buddhist "blessing", and it is also worth mentioning here that Jorge (Pope Francis) has also held, kissed and 'blessed' various images of the idols, such as the Buddha made of gold. These actions are antichrist, and this "Ecumunical Movement" has for more than a Century, been the goal of the Antichrist Movement from even within and behind the scenes of the SBC and Semenary, by men (Freemasons) that hold both the doctrines of Balaam and the Egyptians (Nicolaitans) per Rev 2-4, of which will also be entailed in that up and coming thread.

These are but just a few links; Per the other information that I have shared; other videos, News clips, and so forth are availble on the Internet.

The Latest: Pope, senior Muslim cleric pledge hope for peace

From Sikh to Hindu, new book profiles ten diverse faiths of the UAE

 

[Wesley Briggman]

Phl 2:3 KJV - [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

2Ti 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

These verses set a high standard that is easy for me to ignore when I think I am right!! If I didn't think I was right, I'd shut-up and listen.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to make me aware of my faults and short-coming when attempting to more "rightly" divide the Word of Truth.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

To me, therein lies the problem.
There are too many people who listen to false teachers ( and refuse correction from Scripture ), all the while claiming to believe the Gospel and God's words.
I rarely run into a professing believer who even remotely exhibits any discernment, preferring to defer to their pastor on everything.

Bring up certain passages and one gets a blank stare...
Talk about something in-depth?

Forget it.

For the most part, they're more interested in the next football game, or the who's-who of politics, or some other distraction.
God's word?
Jesus Christ?

"That's for Sundays".


True believers seem to be like water in the desert, at least in my area.



Again, therein lies a problem...try to get any group of professing believers to agree on anything Scripture states, and "let the games begin".

This forum is an excellent example of the back-and-forth that I started to experience some 15 years ago, now.
Case-in-point, try getting anyone, even here, to agree with what Acts of the Apostles 13:48, John 6:29, John 6:44, John 6:64-65, John 10:26, John 17:2, Romans 8:29-30 and a whole host of others actually say, and I'm sure you'll be forced to admit...

Doctrine divides.
Even Scripture divides.
Most churches don't even bother to go to certain areas of the Bible, because of the risk of controversy.

Over God's word?
Are you kidding me?
It's God's word!


It's pretty much why I shy away from conversations with professing believers in my area anymore.
There are at least 12 of them in the plant where I work...most of them are worldly, none of them read their Bibles to any extent that I'm aware of...
And most of them are doctrinally unsound, from my point of view.

It's like talking to someone who has Jesus Christ on a back burner, and the world at the forefront.
They're all nice people, but their love for Christ seems to be skin-deep.
None of them seem to be going through the trials of faith and tribulations that I am.

Being divided from those who clearly hate Christ so much that they use His name for a curse word is one thing...but trying to initiate a spiritual conversation with someone who values "Christian culture" more than a personal relationship with their Saviour is like cutting teeth.


It's painful, to say the least, and it saddens me greatly.
Apologies for the lament.

I understand and agree.
Some months ago I was in a men's Bible study. We were using material published under the name of a very highly respected Bible preacher/teacher. The booklet stated that Christians are sealed by the blood of Christ. I took issue with that position and stated that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. One of the ten others in the study came to me sometime later and confirmed for himself the position I took. The subject was not addressed again.

In our latest study, the author states that God granted Saul/Paul freewill.

I doubt that the "authors" of these materials have ever seen or read what was published under their names. As long as the royalties are posted to the correct accounts, they are content.

 

[Reformed]

I define being "divided" as having no relationship or association with another. I am looking at this from the "united" perspective. Too often we see the idea of "united in Christ" and "divided in doctrine" with the "united in Christ" being pretty much meaningless except for a well meaning sentiment.

The reason I mentioned my paedobaptist brethren was to dispell the notion that we cannot have fellowship with Christians who hold to different doctrinal distinctives than we do. But there is a practical side to be considered. People being people, we tend to spend the majority of time with our family, co-workers, and those with whom we are like-minded. For a Christian, that means a good portion of his time will be spent with his church family. This has the effect of limiting the amount of time we spend with Christians who hold to beliefs different than ours. I do not think that is a good or a bad thing. It just is what it is.

I believe that we are to separate according to doctrine.

I agree.

I would not, for example, become a member of a free-will Baptist church or a KJO Baptist church. That does not mean that I will not associate with those congregations or even attend a service. I would probably not attend a Presbyterian service because of doctrinal differences. That does not mean, however, that I would not encourage Presbyterians or join in a community program.

This is where it becomes subjective. There are some churches that I believe teach dangerous doctrines. The only way I will attend these churches is for a special service like a wedding or funeral. Each of us has to obey our conscience on the matter.

Mormonism is a religion that is not united to Christians in Christ. There is a division. The same is true of Jehovah Witnesses.

Agreed.

I believe that the criteria of actual division (not separation, as I see benefit even among less diverse doctrine) is Christ and centered on the gospel of Christ. That is the dividing point.

Well, if the Gospel is not preached the word "Christian" cannot be used in any real sense.

 

[JonC]

The reason I mentioned my paedobaptist brethren was to dispell the notion that we cannot have fellowship with Christians who hold to different doctrinal distinctives than we do. But there is a practical side to be considered. People being people, we tend to spend the majority of time with our family, co-workers, and those with whom we are like-minded. For a Christian, that means a good portion of his time will be spent with his church family. This has the effect of limiting the amount of time we spend with Christians who hold to beliefs different than ours. I do not think that is a good or a bad thing. It just is what it is.



I agree.



This is where it becomes subjective. There are some churches that I believe teach dangerous doctrines. The only way I will attend these churches is for a special service like a wedding or funeral. Each of us has to obey our conscience on the matter.



Agreed.



Well, if the Gospel is not preached the word "Christian" cannot be used in any real sense.

Are you familiar with Spurgeon's sermon where he spoke of Calvinism and Free-will theology reflecting the limits of human understanding and predisposition? In that sermon (I think it was that sermon) he praised the benefit of sectarianism.

I think that we need to gravitate towards a common belief even when considering human understanding in order to develop a more comprehensive view of Scripture. If we become so broad in our doctrine then I am not sure we can be effective. Also, competing ideas between Christians benefit the whole and encourage refining doctrine.

But this assumes a context within Christianity. When we actually defend our views it has to be by Scripture only (we do not all share the same ideologies, philosophies, and worldviews).

 

[Reformed]

But this assumes a context within Christianity. When we actually defend our views it has to be by Scripture only (we do not all share the same ideologies, philosophies, and worldviews).

Christians do not even share the same way of interpreting scripture. Speaking only for myself, I am seeking to gravitate towards a common belief among Christians. I am seeking to understand the truth of what scripture teaches. The inherent danger in doing that is resting on one's own understanding. This is one of the reasons I am confessional. The 1689 Second London Baptist of Faith is not scripture (and should not be treated as such). However, I believe it is a faithful commentary on the major theological and ecclesiological parts of the Christian faith. It provides a framework in which to approach scripture. R.C. Sproul once said (paraphrase) that if you come up with an interpretation of scripture that has escaped the church for 2000 years, you should abandon your interpretation. There is wisdom in that statement. On the one hand we do not want to walk into the error of Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, we cannot embrace cowboy hermeneutics.

 

[Heretic Hunter]

I understand and agree.
Some months ago I was in a men's Bible study. We were using material published under the name of a very highly respected Bible preacher/teacher. The booklet stated that Christians are sealed by the blood of Christ. I took issue with that position and stated that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. One of the ten others in the study came to me sometime later and confirmed for himself the position I took. The subject was not addressed again.

In our latest study, the author states that God granted Saul/Paul freewill.

I doubt that the "authors" of these materials have ever seen or read what was published under their names. As long as the royalties are posted to the correct accounts, they are content.

This is a perfect example of why there is no substitute for The Holy Bible to study. We are purchased by the very holy blood of Christ; saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ because of what our Lord did for us on the cross at Calvary, according to the Gospel; His work, NOT our works; not by the flesh, nor by the will of man; not by the putting away of the filth of the flesh, no flesh can glory in the sight of God; but we are saved solely by His righteousness and His Name's sake. The moment of our conversion, we receive the spiritual surgery; the circumcision of the heart; by the Spirit of Adoption into The Lord's family, and by The Holy Spirit, Whom is the earnest of our salvation, are we sealed until the day of redemption!

 

[JonC]

Christians do not even share the same way of interpreting scripture. Speaking only for myself, I am seeking to gravitate towards a common belief among Christians. I am seeking to understand the truth of what scripture teaches. The inherent danger in doing that is resting on one's own understanding. This is one of the reasons I am confessional. The 1689 Second London Baptist of Faith is not scripture (and should not be treated as such). However, I believe it is a faithful commentary on the major theological and ecclesiological parts of the Christian faith. It provides a framework in which to approach scripture. R.C. Sproul once said (paraphrase) that if you come up with an interpretation of scripture that has escaped the church for 2000 years, you should abandon your interpretation. There is wisdom in that statement. On the one hand we do not want to walk into the error of Roman Catholicism. On the other hand, we cannot embrace cowboy hermeneutics.

Absolutely. My point still is that, even with all of these differences (perhaps even because of them) we need to keep the one thing all Christians should have in common in focus - scripture. When dealing with people who hold a different view we have to stick with what is actually written in God's Word.

I agree that when we come up with a new interpretation it is undoubtedly wrong.

That said, it is not without irony. Sproul held Presbyrerian beliefs that were not new, but they were newer than the early church so at one time they were new. The Reformed Church articulated the Atonement (the language used) in a new way during the Reformation. Covenant theology (and Dispensationalism), while perhaps true, was at one time a new way of looking at God's interaction with mankind. Limited Atonement is relatively new as the scope of the atonement was a relatively new issue.

That said, I typically prefer older views (granted, that in and of itself does not make my view correct....just old ). The argument against me, of course, could be that I tend to be predisposed to antiquity when later views stand on a succession of theologicsl development. And that would be a fair argument. But I think the developmental process has made theology more complicated than necessary and has moved away from scripture as it has increased the human element.

We look at what has occurred and form an opinion. That is mine. I believe the early church closer to truth than present evangelical thought.