Featured Milo Yiannopoulos and the Church of Winning

YOU GO GIRL!

 

First off, do not even consider me on a Pastoral level....the HS dragged me kicking & screaming, it was not my choice to be Christian.....I was having too much fun being a professional sinner.

But there is one broken down old preacher I have great respect for..... do you know Albert Mohler....he is still pitching though he has many physical problems.
http://www.almartin.org/

 

Yes but be careful with this. There's a difference between people thinking they're Christians and people in the Church living immoral lives within the Church community.

Do you do this with family members that think they're Christians? Do you refuse to eat with catholics? Would you have voted for Marco Rubio who is catholic? Alan Keyes? About (what?) 70% of our country claims to be Christian. Do you shun them all?

This is not Paul's message in 1 Cor. 5.

Join Milo to do what? That's the key. If it's to do ministry, then I would agree it's wrong. If it's political, no problem, so long as we have common ground and he respects our convictions about his lifestyle.

And yet Paul also told you to stay in the world and associate with people of the world. The fact is, most unbelievers in the country believe they are Christians. I just don't believe they really understand what that means. There's a difference between these and a guy in the Church, as a member, affirming a doctrinal statement and yet living an immoral life contrary to his claimed beliefs. That's what Paul is talking about here. He's not telling us to go out and shame everyone that thinks they're a Christian. Wow, what a terrible testimony that would be.

 

Your right most people in this county do think they are Christians. That is why it is up to true Christians stand apart from the culture and provide the contrast, not muddy themselves by uniting with the worst part of our culture.

I realize that church discipline is a lost art in this country but that doesn't mean I'm not going to follow God's clear commands. Go ahead and call me Smug again for that. (Frankly it's a badge of honor coming from you) What you call shame I call holding to God's commands and I'm fine with that. I reject the world's idea that shame is a bad thing, as I think shame is the conscience doing its job.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

You haven't answered though. Do you refused to eat with anyone that thinks they're a Christian but in reality are not? Do you do this with family? IOWs are you consistent with this? If you are, this is a terrible misunderstanding of Paul's teaching.

So now you want to do Church discipline on family members and friends outside of your Church membership? Anyone who considers themselves a Christian but is not? You have no idea how badly you are misunderstanding the Scriptures. And you are right, it comes off smug, and for good reason. But it's not Biblical.

 

You are the one who has interpreted Paul's commands as not eating with anyone who claims to be a Christian that is not. So I guess since that is your interpretation the queation are you following it, or are you too worried about "shaming" people.

What I will not do is give any kind of religious cover to someone who claims to be one but is not. Voting for Trump as an outspoken Christain would have given him cover as we have clearly seen and given the world a reason to call hypocrisy as we have also seen. There was a reason Paul was adamant about the churches testimony when writing to the Corinthians.

Aw thinks for calling me Smug again I really do appreciate the complement.


And I would agree your interpretation of not eating with anyone is not Biblical so although I wonder why than you would want me to follow your interpretation that you turn around and say is not Biblical.

Yes I know you are now going to quote where I thanked your for quoting the verse in question and I said I'm not even suppose to eat with him let alone vote for him. 1. I was using the Biblical language and 2. my friends and family don't match the description Paul lays out for who we should not eat with as they are not sexually immoral, greedy, idolatrous, revilers, drunks, or swindlers.

You may say that Trump has not nor is no longer any of those things, and I'll give you 5 of the 6 for argument sake but he is still a reviler, in fact that's the things his supporters seem to like the most about him so he is still someone I can not eat with let a lone vote for.



Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

I looked over this post and didn't see a simple answer to the question I asked. It was very straightforward. Usually when that happens it means you don't want to answer. Do you eat with friends and family members who believe they are Christians but are not? What is so hard about this? It's yes or no.

My answer to it is, yes, I eat and socialize with unbelievers, even those that think they are Christians (I would happily eat with Donald Trump). I don't believe those are the one's Paul is calling us to put away. He's talking about members of the Church, proclaiming correct doctrine that live contrary to it. That's where Church discipline comes in. You seem to be advocating Church discipline for those outside the Church who think they are Christians. That is utterly unbiblical.

It seems you also advocate that we Christians are not allowed to vote for unbelievers. This also is false doctrine. God set up the secular governments. God has ordained that we the voters in America put men and women in public office. These can be unbelievers or believers. There's no mandate saying we have to vote for Christians. Thank God because that would have given us Jimmy Carter over Reagan.

 

It's not nice to embarrass a lady like you have. Though you are correct it's not nice to keep running up the score, it's not Christian like my friend. It's obvious she does not understand, so lay off her a bit.

 

Yes I eat with my family and Friends because I reject YOUR unbiblical interpretation of this passage. See my family and friends are not sexual immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler.

So you go against YOUR own interpretation of this passage. Interesting.

Paul tells us exactly who he is talking about, he is talking about so called Christians who are sexual immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. And given how Trump is praised even here for being a reviler he falls under this category since he claims to be a Christian.

The idea of claiming to be a Christian yet outside the church would be foreign to Paul. Anyone that claims to be a Christian is now held to a standard, and according to the Bible if they are sexual immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler. we should not associate with them. You are arguing with the Bible not me on this one.

Nope that is not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating for following Paul's Instructions in 1 Cor 5. If you feel that means that one cannot vote for an unbeliever than that is on you for violating that idea. You will never find me saying any where that we can't vote for non-Christians. You're the one that floats that idea hoping it will stick on someone.

 

you forgot adulterer

Well done sister

 

So now you have created another lost soul. good work.

 

This is a good point. However, many people don't even sign up for formal church membership anymore. Most simply attend a church service of their choosing and come or go as their feelings direct them. Church discipline merely inspires them to move on to a different preacher who tickles their ears.

 

You're still not answering. Do you eat with family and friends who believe they are Christians but are not? It's such a simple question. Do these unbelievers in your life all follow judeo christian principles? Do they abstain from sex before marriage? Do they condone any forms of immorality? Do they believe in gay marriage or abolition rights? By your own interpretation, you are not supposed to eat with them. Yet you do.

Bottom line, you treat Trump differently because you don't like him. He's got sins in his past you can't forgive. So you single him out and misapply verses to him.

 

Me personally, I don't like to do this. This is why even on Trump I'm agnostic. But generally doctrinal statements are an indicator. If someone has a distorted view of soteriology, I generally can assume they don't know the Lord yet.

 

You are assuming a lot about my friends and family. None of them that claim to be Chriatians believe in sex outside of marriage, gays rights or abortion rights. Your assumption about my family and friends does not speak well of you, given that you have never interacted with them or even have an idea of who they are.

YOU are the one saying that we can't eat with anyone that says they are a Christian and is not. I reject YOUR interpretation and the fact that you don't follow YOUR interpretation by YOUR own admission is a problem that you will need to deal with.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Can you show me where I ever made such a claim? I can show you where I argued against it.