ecusa response to christianity today

[julian the apostate]

repent from what??

repent from despair
judgementalism
legalism

repent from the despair of not being able to repent

because we dont grasp what it means, we need help

 

[Colabomb]

repent from what??

repent from despair
judgementalism
legalism

repent from the despair of not being able to repent

because we dont grasp what it means, we need help

Repent of any sin, including the elephant

 

[julian the apostate]

are we called to repent for our own actions, or for others as well?


how are you going to repent for someone else?

 

[Polycarp1]

are we called to repent for our own actions, or for others as well?


how are you going to repent for someone else?

It may be that the Scriptures concerning the elephant call the elephanteers to repentance regarding it -- my perspective on that topic is one I've argued here before the carefully crafted rules that are enforced so unevenly were written -- but as a loyal Anglican, I am obliged to follow the teachings of my priests and bishop, or go elsewhere -- and they teach me that my own obligation is to show brotherly love, compassion, welcome, and acceptance to all my brothers and sisters in Christ, without reference to the elephant.

IMO those who use the elephant to exclude are guilty of a sin themselves, and should repent of it. However, just as the above indicates, their own examination of conscience should judge that for them, not me.

 

[julian the apostate]

polycarp<<It may be that the Scriptures concerning the elephant call the elephanteers to repentance regarding it


and then again, there may be theologians who would argue that

one thing i can be sure of on this when i am in doubt is,

to determine not to put a stumbling block in my brother's way

and that includes not stumbling the conservatives on this issue

 

[Colabomb]

It may be that the Scriptures concerning the elephant call the elephanteers to repentance regarding it -- my perspective on that topic is one I've argued here before the carefully crafted rules that are enforced so unevenly were written -- but as a loyal Anglican, I am obliged to follow the teachings of my priests and bishop, or go elsewhere -- and they teach me that my own obligation is to show brotherly love, compassion, welcome, and acceptance to all my brothers and sisters in Christ, without reference to the elephant.

IMO those who use the elephant to exclude are guilty of a sin themselves, and should repent of it. However, just as the above indicates, their own examination of conscience should judge that for them, not me.

If I were to say that God is dead, and refused to repent of it, would you not point out my refusal of Repentance.

The Elephant is a sin like any other. If people choose to remain in that sin, they are unrepentant. If a theif chooses to continue being a theif, he is unrepentant.

I am a sinner, as any other. I am as guilty of sin as an elephant. But by the Grace of God I strive to repent of that sin. THe elephanter refuses to.

THIS is my only point.

I love them, I pray for them, but I cannot ignore the fact that they are in open rebellion against God.

If I had a drug problem, would not those who love me show me the errors of my ways?

 

[Zacharias]

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, you should read this thread: READ before posting: All discussion of homosexuality currently suspended

 

[CSMR]

What is all this "elephant" nonsense?

He wasn't identifying notorious offenders against the laws of the Church as being deserving of being cast out of the fellowship; that's Paul's take on it, and many of us believe his purpose was quite different than the interpretation placed on it by many churches. Christ didn't draw any lines -- He knew that we are all sinners in the absence of God's grace, who do not deserve it -- that's why it's grace, God's free gift to us.

No, what you present as Jesus's take take is also Paul's take. It is pretty clear that according to Paul grace is the opposite of what is deserved. He did not consider anyone to be worse than himself, and if he believed that membership of the church was a matter of desert then he would not have claimed such membership. Where he advised exclusion from the church he did so not as punishment, but in love of the church and also of the excluded members.

Of the faithful it should be said "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." This is at the same time as being in themselves sinners. Nevertheless faith and faithlessness are not undiscernable - faith leads to works (not that this is an easy thing to interpret). The church must guard its message - and if it allows people to claim to be Christians when they show that they have no faith, the message is distorted, and the first effect of this distortion is to put those who falsely claim to be in Christ in grave danger.

We are to have fellowship with all people and allow all people into our churches. It is not fellowship but the claim to be a beliver that must be guarded.

 

[ps139]

Elephant.. I 've got to say thats very creative!

I'm closing this down before anyone breaks the rules.

PM me if you have questions or problems.

I would like to get these &quot;elephant&quot; rules ironed out this week and then open this thread if possible.