I said that your analogy was wrong. Why do you persist in denying allegory when I specifically stated that I never accused your of allegorizing? Your analogy (read A-N-A-L-O-G-Y) is bad. I said as much in the above quoted post. You have a comprehension problem. Allegory and analogy have the same weakness of being subject to multiple interpretations. Obviously, all the interpretations cannot be true.
You orginally said I was allegorizing and my analgy was bad. I asked about the allegorizing, you retracted. You've yet to show how my analogy is bad though other than just saying, "it's wrong".
OT separation is specifically commanded and taught in the prohibitions against intermarriage with the heathen. This is not ambiguous allegorical interpretation. You’re arguing over trifles because your basic thesis is bankrupt. I don’t have time to waste in answering your twisting of my words.
LOL, you are twisting the words. Once again, there is an astronomical leap between MARRYING a heathen and PREACHING TO a heathen.
Again, you are avoiding the issue. You jump from topic to topic and point to point. You are begging the question by assuming and put words in my mouth. Bah! I see no need to answer your inanity.
I'm avoiding? I'm just asking for a simple explanation on how you get "don't preach the Gospel to a heathen congregation" out of "don't marry heathens". Give me a real case. I'm not jumping around topics, I'm responding to your statements.
No, you won’t stick to the point. I simply established one small point.
I'm sticking to the point. You are the one pulling scriptures out of context, applying them to situations that have NOTHING to do with secondary separation or preaching the Gospel to a heathen congregation.
Separation is a Biblical mandate. Now, we can argue over the grounds of separation but I have established with your agreement that separation is a valid Biblical doctrine.
The scriptures you quoted are in regard to separation as it pertains to
marrying unbelievers. No one is saying we should marry a Buddhist. The topic we are trying to discuss here is whether or not it is wrong to preach the Gospel in a Buddhist temple. Use
applicable scripture and
applicable arguments please.
If you appear under their sponsorship (i.e. were invited), then you are associated with them.
How does that associate me with them? Simply stating it does does not make it so.
By speaking on their platform, you give credibility to their false religion. In effect, you have put their cursed doctrine on the same level as your own teaching as a competitor.
Now this is a big leap. If I were to stand on their platform and tell them Buddhism was OK,
that would be giving credibility to thier religion. If I were to stand on their platform and say, "JESUS is the ONLY way" and preach the Gospel to them,
that would be publically denouncing their religion, not adding to it.
There are no competitors with the truth. The pragmatic cry of the opportunity for witness is nullified by reality. Christianity is confrontational to all other religions.
And what part of
preaching the gospel does not confront Buddhism or other religions as being false? You aren't truly preaching the Gospel if you present it as
a way to God, only if it is
the way to God.
How do you square this with II John?
Show me a verse in 2 John that says I can't eat with them.
Acceptance of their religion does not favor to these poor lost sinners. It makes them secure in a religion that will carry them to Hell.
How does accepting a dinner invitation equal "acceptance of their religion"? Did Peter sin when he went to Cornellius' house, though he had not yet been saved? Did Jesus sin when He ate with sinners? Did Jesus sin when He ate with Pharisees? You obviously have
no concept of building relationships to reach people.
My, my! Such a mean, biased, judgmental spirit! How can you read another’s motives? Seems that this is exactly what Christ condemned and is warned against in James.
By their fruits you will know them.
Anyone who would condemn me for reaching people with the gospel in a biblical way is simply tearing down the work of other Christians. They should know better and quit their gossiping.
I can’t refute your argument because you have given no argument.
OK, here it is
again...
JW's argument from back when this started:
2 Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"
We are not to be yoked, bound together in the same labor, with unbelievers. If I were to preach in a Mosque I wouldn't be yoked with Muslims. I wouldn't be preaching the same message they preach. I wouldn't be doing the same work they are doing or joining with them. I would be preaching the Gospel of Christ, urging them to turn from their false religion.
You stated your belief but you gave no exegesis or supporting rationale. How can I refute it when it doesn’t exist? You’ve made no point and won no argument.
I think you are getting me confused with you. You have given ZERO scripture you back up your position.
No, you haven’t made any case at all except to say that II Corinthians 6 refers to intermarriage with unbelievers, I assume.
See, the "assume" part is dangerous. You haven't even read what I posted to you.
Separation is a principle taught throughout both the OT and NT in many forms (marriage, ecclesiastical, doctrinal, personal, etc.). quote]
If it is taught throughout Scripture, could you please sight a SINGLE VERSE? I've asked you to provide Scriptural support for your position in EVERY reply and you have yet to do it.
For example, the end of church discipline is separation.
We're debating Secondary Separation. It's the title of the thread. It's what I've been arguing against all along. I never said we should not remove unrepentant sinners from our church. I never said we should marry unbelievers.
I don’t think that I even brought up II Corinthians 6—this was your doing.
Sorry if I attributed any Scriptural argument to your position... after all, you certainly haven't given any Scriptural evidence for it
