User:Nragan

You wrote : ''As for your continued contention that there are no rules to follow, just ask the Galatians. They were told that if they receive circumcision as a means of righteousness, then they will fall from grace, Christ will be of no benefit to them, and they will be severed from Christ (Galatians 5:1-4). Just ask Jesus who told the apostles to make disciples by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all of His commands (Matthew 28:18-19). You can ask Jesus who said that if we do not forgive others their sins, then His Father will not forgive us our sins (Matthew 6:14-15). You can ask Timothy who was told by Paul that if we deny Him, He will deny us (2 Timothy 2:12; see also Matthew 10:32-33). You can argue all you want about how we do not do these things to be saved, but there is still the flip-side of the issue that reminds us that salvation is conditional upon faithfulness to God, and our response to His commands reveals whether we are faithful or not.''

My response: '''You just proved my point. The Galatians were told that if they turn to legalism to save themselves, they are sadly sadly mistaken. Isn't that the point ? Did not Paul warn them that if they think by circumcising themselves they can save themselves, then they are wrong ? How is that different than we telling new Christians that if you want to be saved, then make sure you dont do this this and this and that and that. Did the good book, say "The Command of God, compells me ? or is it "The love of Christ compells me"'''

'''When we start tying our salvation to our ability to perform, we are treading on a slippery slope. We tell new Christians that when they become a Christian, they need to give up their alcohol. If they don't, then we cross their names off the list because they obviously are not 'faithful' ? OK easy enough to get rid of the drunks. What about gossip ? Churches are full of gossipers, what are we doing about them ? Here is the kicker, most of these gossipers do it as a prayer request. Is that ok ? Is that faithful or faithless ? If our new Christians don't kill people, but they play lottery, is that ok ? We usually call members who come to church every Sundays, faithful, while branding those who keep missing worship services, faithless. And I will tell you that neither are always the case.

'Who are we to say where the line is drawn in the sand ? Who is faithful and who is faithless ?'

'''You keep bringing up being 'faithful'. The fallacy of the church of Christ ( and you are talking to someone who has been a member for 30 years) is that we think being 'faithful' is having the same beliefs, same views about every teachings. I contend my brother, that "Unity" in Jesus Christ is not "unitformity" of beliefs. You show me pair of husband and wife that say they get along great and never argue, see eye to eye on everything and I will show you 2 big fat liars. Even elders of the SAME church sometime have different beliefs in some things. I know of one church right now where one elder thinks it is alright to clap while you sing, another want to discourage the practice. We have different views on various things all the time, but we shouldn't let these be the deciding factor on our brotherhood. When a brother plays a guitar in church, is he 'faithless'? Did he just flip God the bird ? It is often convenient for us to hide behind the argument, saying we are doing it to defend the truth when we in fact, all we are doing is wreaking havoc on the church out of our own pride and ego. Do we need to have certain core beliefs in the gospel ? sure we do. I suggested what these core beliefs are in another thread on this board. But the notion that for us to have unity in Christ, is for us to share in all views and belief is wrong and dangerous. '''

'''Let me tell you about Thailand.

'''One missionary, let's call him Tom, has certain view about Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage issue. Doesn't matter what it is, we'll call it belief (A). Another missionary, Dick, has belief (B) and doesn't conform to Tom's belief, so Tom and Dick argued with each other. For years the conflict tore the church to pieces, dividing members into 2 camps. Another missionary, Harry, has same (A) belief as Tom but Harry decided not to disfellowship Dick. So now Tom is upset at Harry and cut him off as well eventhough both of them has the same belief on this so called 'doctrine'

'''So now I ask you, is this about doctrine or is it about ego ? Is it really about being the defender of truth, or is it about who is going to be the big man ? 

'''As far as I am concerned, if any of these guys (Tom, Dick or Harry) feels like they can go overseas and fracture the mission church like this, they might do God a big favor by just staying home. As it was, I wished someone would just throw them into a cage match and let them work out their testosterone. At least there would be some entertainment value in it.'''.

'''Our(church of Christ) doctrine say people like the baptists aren't saved because they dont know what they are doing when they get baptized. They dont understand that salvation comes at the point of immersion in water, not when someone plainly invite Jesus into their heart. They (the baptists) just dont understand the scriptures as well as we do. My response to that is: may be they do, may be they dont. Does it matter if you have full understanding of what baptism mean when you get one ? We keep quoting Romans 6 like the baptists never read it before. Do you think the Roman brothers understood their baptisms ? If they did, why did Paul have to explain to them like they are babies. Of course they didn't understand it either. Did that mean the entire Roman church need to get re-baptized again because they didn't understand fully what happen at baptism ? See my point ? '''

'''The scripture says, "who are we to judge someone else's servants. To his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand". The baptists aren't my servants, they answer to God. I have enough problems of my own to worry about. 

=
==

You wrote : believe that maybe we are simply not understanding each other in our posts so far. I want to ask you about this quote from you: "Do I believe somebody can fall away from grace ? I am not a Calvinist. The bible clearly warned that this can happen." It seems like you agree that a saved person can lose his salvation (because of faithlessness, of course). But then you seem to be saying in the rest of your post that it cannot happen.

Can you clear up this confusion of mine? My response: There are 2 Groups of people that falls outside God's family in my opinion.

1) Those who teach other gospels. Read my thread on my opinion on some denominations who I dont consider to be in the family of God, the Mormons, Jehovah Witness etc. These groups clearly taught some other gospels. Clearly they dont have the same God that Christian believers do. These people fall within the guideline warned about by Paul. They are no different than someone who, say.. believe in Muhamed or Buddha.  

2) Christians who no longer believe in God. Let me be clear, these are not Christians who try and fail, try and fail, try and fail. If I did, it would mean everybody. These are Christians who totally blew God off and basically say Holy Spirit ? What Holy Spirit ? That's the people I am talking about.

Hope that cleared it up.