Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
So, when a "PCI" adherent posts a statement like, "... not all 'trinnies' are automatically lost ..." you would embrace that poster as a "brother" even though you're not persuaded about the salvation of the 'trinnie' under discussion?
I don't demand that you acknowledge them in any particular way, just that they be acknowledged, that's all. How they are acknowledged is up to the legacy that each one has individually left behind.
The "exclusivism" label is applied whenever we take the Acts 2:38 message and use it to remove the idea of Christian or Christian fellowship from others.
I have observed recently a trend where a few of our OP brethren will even deny that they are "Christians" and protest against the use of the word in order to further seperate themselves from Christianity as a whole. This is an extreme response, in my opinion. |
Was this before or after you and some others started making the demeaning accusation that we are Papists or Mormon?
Pel, you are a very bright guy. One of the best debaters from the PCI view on this board and most of the time you are reasonable. however as some have already pointed out, that line that you are suggesting has been crossed by Water/Spirit believers has also been crossed of late by yourself and some others.
THIS is what has led to the current departure of a number of highly valued posters.
Whether or not St Matt and Scotty acknowledge Goss as a paragon of Apostolic truth is irrelevant.
What is relevant at this point in time is that you and some others recognize that while you have a right to point to Goss and Urshan and Haywood, you have a responsibility NOT to point to the Pope!
Until we get that settled, we have a lopsided board that will not find its balance.
Threaded Mode
