ok yeah I can see how that might be divisive especially if one follows the doctrine of TULIPPost #3
ok yeah I can see how that might be divisive especially if one follows the doctrine of TULIPPost #3
Post number 45 was not directed to you.ok but I mean the one you directed at me post number 45
No worries my friend you apologized and that is the important thing it was the mature thing to do whether or not it made a difference
Which is directly the opposite of the original intent of your first post unless I read it wrong.ok yeah I can see how that might be divisive especially if one follows the doctrine of TULIP
oh ok, I just know it had something I said because my avatar was on it so I assumed it was directed at me so who was it for and what was said?Post number 45 was not directed to you.
I believe you can so via pm you are able to have other people join in the pmYes, and I am aware of the instructions of Jesus:
TOJ #100: Communicate! [Matt. 18:15-17a] Or in the words of Paul, speak the truth in love (EPH 4:15). This TOJ is closely related to the next one. Communication is the method for converting Sinners (RM 10:14) and for maturing saved sinners (HB 5:11-6:1).
Note the four steps for resolving disagreements: talk privately, include a neutral third party to facilitate the discussion, enlist mature church representatives to act in lieu of a court, and then excommunicate the person who is acting like a pagan (TOJ #102).
However, I am not sure how to apply this TOJ on CC.
Yes it isWhich is directly the opposite of the original intent of your first post unless I read it wrong.
ok yeah I can see how that might be divisive especially if one follows the doctrine of TULIP
It is a screenshot of one of my posts Paul Thomson gave a zzz's to.oh ok, I just know it had something I said because my avatar was on it so I assumed it was directed at me so who was it for and what was said?
Post #3
I don't think it was intentional but the part about Tulip might cause some issue for those who follow the doctrine. don't get me wrong I don't think it was inentional or anything but if someone follows that doctrine then they might have issue with what you saidMy post #3 said:
"I amen your appeal for spiritual oneness, and I agree that the TULIP-MFW issue is the most divisive one on CC,
and another one in my recent experience is the WB-SB debate. Hopefully the CC administrators will eventually
realize that TULIP and WB advocates pervert the NT Gospel or good news that God loves and offers salvation to all
and take appropriate action regarding their judgmental attitude, as I understand they have done with Judaizers,
Sabbatarians and others I encountered after joining CC last October. IOW, may admin amen the Scriptures you cited.
LIC"
Okay, just what part of this post is untrue or divisive? Obviously it is TULIP that divides humanity into those beloved by God
and those hated by God, whereas just as obviously the NT teaches that God loves everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine
omnilove include: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4, which might be
deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies
(ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).
okIt is a screenshot of one of my posts Paul Thomson gave a zzz's to.
Don't overlook the FACT that many espouse doctrines that are not supported by any Bible verses whatsoever,I don't think it was intentional but the part about Tulip might cause some issue for those who follow the doctrine. don't get me wrong I don't think it was inentional or anything but if someone follows that doctrine then they might have issue with what you said
I see.... and is that what happened between you and @GWH ?Don't overlook the FACT that many espouse doctrines that are not supported by any Bible verses whatsoever,
and those same people have what is called CDS. That means if you post actual Scripture which supports your
position and they don't like it, they simply call you a Calvinist and claim you are a TULIPist. In fact those
same people with CDS rewrite Scripture to force the Bible to say things it does not.
There is a lot of forcing going on!Don't overlook the FACT that many espouse doctrines that are not supported by any Bible verses whatsoever,
and those same people have what is called CDS. That means if you post actual Scripture which supports your
position and they don't like it, they simply call you a Calvinist and claim you are a TULIPist. In fact those
same people with CDS rewrite Scripture to force the Bible to say things it does not.
I like to ask myself when considering the meaning of scripture is that what it says or is that what I am saying?There is a lot of forcing going on!
I really like those who say---
But this is what it really means.
I cannot count the number of people who claim I am a Calvinist, and others who go by what the BibleI see.... and is that what happened between you and @GWH ?
I don't think it was intentional but the part about Tulip might cause some issue for those who follow the doctrine. don't get me wrong I don't think it was inentional or anything but if someone follows that doctrine then they might have issue with what you said
Well that shouldn't have happened at all and I was not there so I cannot say on the matter but like you said shake the dust off your feet. I know your not a calvinistI cannot count the number of people who claim I am a Calvinist, and others who go by what the Bible
actually says get called the same whether they are or they are not. I already told you what happened.
He falsely accused me of a slew of things and in the middle of him insisting I should be seeking peace
with him about it he made the same false accusation again about me blaspheming God. Feet, dust, shake.
That is why we should always approach Scripture with the attitude---I like to ask myself when considering the meaning of scripture is that what it says or is that what I am saying?