What would happen if we did destory a demonation?

[UnchartedSpirit]

I was looking at the only two Christian magazenes the Berkely library offers, and they both are talking about Africa's rapid acceptance of the Pentocostal "Prosperity Gospel." I don't have any arguments against it that doesn't mean I hate the idea, I just don't argue well, but I was wondering; If enough concerned Believers deemed this preaching to be dangeruous for the followers of Christ, and managed to denounce and remove the preachers of it from their followers, would they remain faithful to Christ or would it end up turning them away in a mass catastrophy? So I'm asking: should we really be trying to wage war over other Christian demonations, even Catholocism, if their souls are really on the line over this sort of thing? Does it really make a difference then if they're dammned if they're following the 'wrong' demonation or choose to remain lost just because what they followed was proven to be so erroneous?

 

[Darron Steele]

... So I'm asking: should we really be trying to wage war over other Christian demonations,...

No; the Bible condemns this activity.

Titus 3:8b-9a “I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good |deeds|. These things are good and profitable unto men: but shun foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about law; for they are unprofitable” (ASV|NLT 1996, RSV 1952|ASV).​

Our priorities as Christians should be good deeds. We must refrain from any "strifes" over "questionings" that have no relevance to good deeds.

1 Timothy 6:3-4a “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to |a godly life|, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in |disputes”​

Christians too often use this passage to rationalize their warring quarrels -- as I did years ago -- but it actually teaches against them. In every context where KJV "doctrine" is mentioned in 1 Timothy, it refers to matters of regular life. Here, it is specifically "the doctrine conforming to a godly life" that we need to focus on. Anyone fixated on teachings that have nothing to do with "a godly life" is one who "understands nothing" and "has a morbid interest in disputes."

There is a difference between peacefully discussing matters of disagreement, and feuding. Unfortunately, there is a lot more of the latter than the former.

...even Catholocism, if their souls are really on the line over this sort of thing? Does it really make a difference then if they're dammned if they're following the 'wrong' demonation or choose to remain lost just because what they followed was proven to be so erroneous?

When Christians depart from their church congregations and go back to their regular lives, we all pretty much agree on everything. Christians are Christians at all times, and I simply do not believe any Christian ever ceases to be a Christian a few hours per week.

I do not give any building or group of people the power to get salvation revoked. Romans 8:38b-9 assures Christians “neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (ESV). “Anything else in all creation” includes buildings made of created materials, and includes other people; meetinghouses, people using them, and church congregations do not have the power to unmake a Christian.

Being a Christian is about being a follower of Christ. I see no biblical merit to any belief that Christianity is about agreeing with the `right' group/s of people. If a person is a follower of Christ, s/he is a Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

In the dark ages the RCC argued that "heretics" were sending people straight to hell by preaching doctrine that was not true. They sought to "rescue" souls so deceived that they would reject worship of Mary at all costs. They thought that such a damning heresy would doom the protesting saint so they tried to painfully torture that person into changing their minds and thus sparing them eternal torture from God.

So while we would never recommend such extreme crimes against humanity as a way to spare the heretics from God doing "much worse" to them -- STILL we SHOULD warn them of their danger via clear and compelling presentations from scripture.

 

[EdSutton]

Takes a big ego to assume that any person could possibly destroy a "demonation", I'd say.

Although I'll admit, IMO, there are plenty of "demonations" that could stand to be destroyed, but I think that I'll leave that for God.

{Sigh!}

Ed

 

[BobRyan]

Rev 12 points out that this world has become a "demonation"

 

[UnchartedSpirit]

Is that because nobody can afford the professonal package, or becuase they haven't developed a nation further than our "demo" version at the moment?

 

[BobRyan]

Nope. It's because the demons were kicked out of heaven.:laugh: :type:

 

[BobRyan]

Which brings us back to the title of this thread

"to deSTORY a DEMONation" --

That would be to remove the ability of demons to tell stories and get people to believe 'em.

Or -- maybe it just means someone else around here types like I do...

 

[Darron Steele]

The thread topic is "What would happen if we did destroy a denomination?"

From reading the opening thread, the thread starter doubted that the feuds we have over denominations are anything but harmful. I agree with that person on this, and have explained why in the first reply post.

 

[BobRyan]

Well I am not in favor of "destroying denominations" even if I do support "destorying a demonation".

But if the issue is "debates" between members of various denominations -- then the issue comes up about the Christian Church arising from the one TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai -- Israel.

And what about the reformers breaking away from the RCC?

What if the rule was "no debates" -- "No discussion of differences of POV"?

How would we ever get here?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

...

What if the rule was "no debates" -- "No discussion of differences of POV"?

How would we ever get here?

in Christ,

Bob

I think there is a difference between peacefully and charitably discussing disagreements, versus feuds.

The first is good, healthy, and helpful to all parties when done right. The latter is designed to have negative affect/s on someone.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree that a lot of villification/demonizing/ad-hominem etc gets tossed in -- and we saw that with the Jews when it came to their reaction to Christians. We saw it with the RCC when it came to their reaction to Protesting-Catholics and we see it today with some people demonizing other people or whole denominations.

No question - that is not useful at all.

But I DO defend the idea of objectively and honestly comparing notes where the details in each POV are exchanged with the goal of "learning something" about the Bible.

I don't mind a bit when someone says they do not agree with me - but when they turn a blind eye to the details in the scriptures under review and pretend that "you can't make me ... you can't make me" is the "end of the story" I simply point out that an ADDED benefit of this kind of forum is the presence of the "unbiased objective reader" who is not swayed by those "heels-dug-in" kinds of responses.

in Christ,

Bob