This was a huge discussion where a "liberal" was trying to get us conservatives to "dialogue" and be open to other Christians. I ended up leaving this list over this because I felt the list was too "liberal".
Again, the Bro. is > and I am plain.
Maybe some others would also like to share their old posts! LOL!
__________________________________________________ ______
>I guess I just have a different conception of dialogue Sis XXXX.
>From
>my understanding of dialogue you treat others with dignity and
>respect.
I fully agree. I would not tell a Catholic I was witnessing to about the
great whore unless I felt it in the Holy Ghost because it might hurt
them. I would try to show them doctrinal error in a loving, non
condemnatory way.
>You don't "rape their minds" by assigning to them thoughts,
>attitudes,
>and beliefs which they may not possess. You don't make them
>something
>less than human because they disagree with you theologically.
Here is a problem I have with your posts, Bro. XXXX. You say "You
don't rape their minds by assigning attitudes (etc.) they might not
possess." I see you doing this very thing with Apostolics (assigning
attitudes that do not exist, for example: saying we are unwilling to
dialogue simply because we do not say others are saved and/or
Christians.) and yet if I said "Bro. XXXX, you cannot rape our minds"
I think you would say "See there! The attitude of Apostolics." I see a
double standard here.
Also, we were really getting somewhere a while back talking about
salvation and the definition of it. You did not address those issues when
we were getting to the crux of the matter which is seen as evasion by
myself.
> You strive to keep the lines of
>communication open that the Holy Spirit might use you to witness to
>Christ. In this way they a relationship of trust is built which
>gives
>credibility to your faith. This is all I am trying to say.
You keep saying that this is all you are trying to say, but because of
some of the things you say, it leaves constant nagging questions about
your theology to myself and others.
I think you are intelligent and are able to express yourself which is why
I think we have a theological difference rather than a communication
problem.
My theology:
I believe
Acts 2:38 to be the salvation message and that those who do not
obey it will be eternally lost. I believe that some have had wonderful
experiences with God that God has given intending to draw people to
himself and the salvation experience of
Acts 2:38. I know that God is
sovereign and that we have limited understanding and leave room for God
to change my mind about some things. When I am witnessing, I do it on the
basis that the person I am witnessing to needs to hear the gospel and
needs to obey it to be saved from eternal death.
Your theology: (Feel free to correct me Bro. XXXX. I can
only write what I see in your posts. I think I understand your beliefs,
but I disagree with them.)
He believes
Acts 2:38 to be the fullness of salvation. He is not really
sure whether you have to obey
Acts 2:38 in order to be saved from hell.(
Or, maybe he is sure that you don't.) He believes others have salvation
experiences when they are healed etc. and he cannot know for sure whether
they are saved from hell or not. He calls them brothers and other
Christians because of their experiences with God. He thinks we might
receive further revelation if we open up our hearts and minds to receive
truth from them. Who knows? They might save us. In the meantime, if they
accept the
Acts 2:38 message, they are probably being more biblical than
they were before, but it is possible they were just bent that way anyway.
My theology is less open to change. (Yes, Bro. XXXX himself said
that.) Bro. XXXX thinks that is bad. I think it is good. That makes
me go one direction and Bro. XXXX the other. Whereas my theology
encompasses the scriptural warnings against false prophets and false
doctrines, Bro. XXXX's theology seems to gloss over these warnings.
Whereas I believe that
we must have a form of self preservation given the scriptural warnings,
Bro. XXXX doesn't seem to like self preservation too much and says it
is "unwillingness to dialogue". Whereas I dialogue and leave my heart
open to God for further revelation if he were to reveal it to me, Bro.
XXXX says unless we accept his form of theology, further revelation
is not possible, even though Paul was converted under these very
circumstances.
The very fact that Bro. XXXX feels the need to talk about this over
and over leads me to question is motive. He says he is trying to get us
to "dialogue" but he says we are not "dialoguing"(according to his
definition) unless we are open to the beliefs of others. Why this focus,
folks? Why does he insist that we be "open"? He says it is so we can
receive "further revelation". He says we are just like Catholics if we
refuse to do it his way. His way and his way alone is right. There is
no other way to do it. He accuses us of rigidity and is rigid himself.
If we are somewhat rigid, at least we admit it. He is rigid while
claiming not to be.
>Salvation is not only a salvation "from sin", but
>a salvation unto a new way of life. This is the way of life >mandated
by
>the King of the Kingdom of God. Salvation is participation in the
>Kingdom of God, living life even now as the King desires.
Bro. XXXXs definition of salvation is very broad. He has never
clarified whether he means that when one is "saved" according to his
definition whether they are saved from eternal hell or not.
"Sis XXXX, what do I have to do to be saved?" Obey
Acts 2:38 and live a
righteous, godly life.
"Bro. XXXX, what do I have to do to be saved?" Well, you are
probably saved already. Have you ever had an experience with God? Then
you are saved. You might want to obey
Acts 2:38 because I think that is
the fullness of God's plan, from my perspective. I understand your
perspective may not be the same as mine. You may have a great revelation
yourself and want to share it with me. In any case, I am open to
dialogue.
A theological difference.
Linear Mode
