Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.
|
Ephesians 4:3-6 emphasizes foundational, unifying "ones"—One Lord, One faith, One baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. These highlighting core truths which define Apostolic unity, but it doesn't necessarily forbid diverse opinions from newly converted weak in the faith believers on other matters. The Apostle Paul encourages unity until believers reach maturity in the Apostolic faith. This is most certainly implying growth beyond current understanding, without the elders arguing with the neophytes on every issue outside the "main thing." The "one faith" refers to the core Gospel message, allowing for ongoing understanding within the unified body. Elders working with youngers in the faith, until everyone has the same message. Everyone brought up in peaceful agreement, all on a case to case basis. Elders helping those weak in the faith to hear the voice of God, until they have put away childish things and can see clearly face to face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Dom again shows he has no desires to talk scripture. His calling is to bring derision to the one who does.
|
Don, in all my posts replying to you, you are accusing me of not talking about scripture? Would you like to think about that before you respond?
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?
|
I believe what the Apostle Paul teaches in
Romans 14. I have proved my case. You on the other hand teach something totally opposite of the Apostle, and Jesus Christ. Don, that is why we are at odds in this thread. Don, you don't believe fat meat is greasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Does Dom show he wants to join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14? If he does, who has he convinced? All he wants to do is mock. He doesn't want to take the time to show how I have derived my conclusions is wrong. Either he can't or he wouldn't. But he will take the time to mock and comment/write about side issues. Something is telling about this kind of response, about those who do so.
|
Don, I clearly proved that your conclusions are not only wrong, they are blasphemous. You are an Inclusionist, nothing more. Jesus said the road is narrow and the gate is strait which leads to eternal life, and few there will be who find it. You most certainly don't believe that, and your posts prove it. I don't have to prove or show you teach false doctrine. You have already showed one and all that you are an inclusionist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.
Pastor Doe rules contrary to Ro14 and Dom says he should be rewarded? Again Dom, your lack of proper understanding of scripture is showing.
|
Don, telling the guy in the debate that they lack the proper understanding of scripture, doesn't mean you won the debate. Prove that I don't have proper understanding of the scriptures. About your beliefs concerning Inclusionism is pretty much akin to antinomianism which Jude was coming against. Again, your posts condemn you, not me. I just add the gasoline to the fire you already provide.