• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
I have seen a number of threads that have recently been started that ask, "Is it ethical to be homosexual and Christian", or "Should sexually active unmarried heterosexuals be expelled from the church", etc.

I respect the right of a congregation to say, "This is what we believe." They may or may not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Indeed, biblical scholars who study the scripture as part of their career are even split. Premarital sex is quite prevalent, and a reality, especially since most people are waiting to get married around their late 20s, if not later. However, each church most take a stand on what they believe.

So, this OP has nothing to do with "Is homosexuality a sin" or "can a sexually active heterosexual call themselves a Christian/belong to a church."

Rather, my point is, is it ethical for any man to judge the heart of another, the relationship of another, especially those they barely know over the internet, and then state "You are not a Christian."

A Christian in the most basic form of the definition, is one who serves God, believes Jesus to be the Saviour and God's son, and who loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and loves his neighbour as himself.

Unfortunately, many people have added their own criteria. I have been told on countless occasions that "a Gay Christian is an oxymoron, like Jumbo Shrimp."

If this were true, then all heterosexuals would be Christian. However, simply being heterosexual does not make you Christian, believe in Christ, or act Christ-like. Those who are Christian, heterosexual, and married usually marry out of love for each other, rather than obedience to any God. They marry before God, but it is more of a commitment to one another, than being submissive to God. They can't imagine living without one another, and so, want to marry. They want to share their vows in front of God and others so that everyone will help them keep those vows, and share the joy of their union with their loved ones.

Heterosexual marriages can between two atheists, two Hindus, or two Muslims. It's far more about love and sexual/romantic attraction than anything else. It isn't a statement of their faith, but of their love for one another.

When we start down a road of "one can't be X and be Christian", we open a can of worms.

Does one stop being Christian every time he sins, and must repent, ask forgiveness of the person and pay some kind of pennence, beg God for forgiveness, and ask Jesus to once again come into his heart?

Does one stop being Christian if they say Oh My G**? It is actively taking G-d's name in vain. Do they stop becoming Christian when they say, "Jesus Christ!" in frustration, and taking the Lord's name in vain? Do we stop being Christian if we tell a lie? The average person lies 7 times an hour. It is a commandment, so are we constantly unconverting?

We all sin, no matter how hard we try. I hear people defend themselves, saying, "Yeah, but I'm not trying to." Does it matter? If I lie 7 times an hour, unconsciously, or am trying not to, but still lie, and sin, why is that any more forgivable than one who tells a lie to deceive? The one who "accidentally lies" is usually doing it:
to look good in front of others
to impress others
to get a job
to avoid punishment and responsibility
to avoid talking to someone on the phone
to not hurt someone's feelings
to not tell our parents what we really did last weekend at college,etc.

These aren't "accidents." They are choices. We make them, and we deceive, but then forgive ourselves, saying, "Everyone does it" to make it not bad, or "I had to bend the truth", or "I don't want people to know bad things about me."

We sin daily. We choose to. We choose to occasionally say something intended to humiliate or harm another. We choose not to help someone. We choose to seek revenge, rather than forgive. However, we also choose to forgive someone who wronged us. We choose to help others for its own sake. We choose to act in love as well. Each day, each moment, we choose, and we evolve, or regress.

God offers us the exciting reality of endless possibility each day, and we only need to choose a path, and act in love every moment, have love in every thought, every word interacted, and every action. We draw from God's love, and endless source that knows no bounds.

However, can we actively sin and be Christian? Of course. We all do.

1 Corinthians 6 says
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Does the church seem as concerned with gossips as with homosexuality? Not that I have seen. The bible is. When is the last time you heard someone accused of not being a Christian because he wanted what someone else had? When was the last time you heard someone told they couldn't get drunk and be a Christian?

When I read this passage, there is something that is very clear. It's not about whether you "get into heaven." The Kingdom is within us. If you are committing adultery, you are cheating on your spouse, but also lying to them, and once found out, creating strife, heartache, and mistrust between you. You are not loving your spouse as yourself, and if you aren't loving "the least of these", you aren't loving Christ.

When you slander others, or gossip, the point is to talk about others is a bad light for entertainment, at the cost of the other's reputation, the cost of rumors that may not be true, the cost of being treated disrespectfully as a sign of condemnation and haughty superiority.

And so, you are slandering Christ.

If you are stealing, you are stealing from Christ.
If you value money over your faith, you are worshipping money and yourself, not God.

Is such a person "a Christian"? If they say they are, then yes, they are. They need Christ. His love will change them. No one "earns" the right to be a Child of God. It is only through God's grace, and in return, he simply asks that you love others in grace and mercy, not demand them to earn your love.

The person may not be the best Christian, but are you? Am I? I'm a better Christian today than I was even 5 years ago. I'm kinder. I'm more forgiving of myself, finally, and so, more forgiving of others. I see the God in others, rather than seeing the faults, as God does with us. And I hope to grow stronger.

But if I have not reached perfection, it is immoral to demand a higher standard of another.

While I don't want to focus too much on homosexuality, I can't compare a loving relationship between two men, to that of rape, adultery, murder, and any of the other "sins" that accusers insist on trying to associate it with.

It isn't harming of another, but is quite supportive. While most of what I hear is about the sexual component, that is such a small part of our relationship, both in importance of why we are together, how we act in love toward one another, why we care for one another, or what we spend our time doing when we are together. It is far more about the company, about his soul, and mine.

So, if it is just an issue of the actual sex act, I don't even sin that often, for what it matters. However, you can't compare our intimacy with that of rape, for example, without being willfully deceitful in pretending not to know the difference between consensual and nonconsensual sex, or the physical harm that is surpassed far deeper in the spiritual and emotional damage done to the victim which lingers for weeks, months, even years after the incident.

But all of this reminds me the most of a really vivid memory I had when I was about 5 years old. I was raised Lutheran, and our neighbours were Catholic. Steve came home from his first Catechism at age 6. (Ours start around 13 or 14).

He said, "You're going to hell!"
I said, "No, I'm not. I'm a Christian."
He said, "No, you aren't. You aren't a Catholic. Only Catholics go to heaven."
I said, "No, they don't."
He said, "Yes, they do. My priest told me. You are going to burn in hell!" he taunted.

Being 5, I suddenly feared that he might be right. A seed of doubt was planted in my childish heart, and I questioned my own salvation. I wondered if Jesus really had heard me and entered my heart, or if I didn't qualify due to a technicality. I sheer panic, screaming and crying, the images of fear, of pitch blackness, of demons, or torture, filled my head as I ran to my mom. I blurted out in between huge sobs, "I don't want to go hell! I don't want to go to hell!" After calming me down, she asked what I was talking about. Then, she assured me that I was, indeed, going to heaven, and once I was ok, she stormed over to the neighbor's, and had a loud discussion with Steve's mom, explaining what had just happened, and that she never wanted to hear that told to her son again.

Should Christians spend time arguing whether another Christian is a "Real Christian (TM)", according to their standards?

I had one poster just say repeatedly, "You are NOT a Christian!" He wasn't trying to show me that homosexuality was a sin, according to him, and edify me in my walk. He was trying to convince me that I was not saved, that I was not actually praying to God, that it is impossible to sin and be Christian (which is absurd, unless all Christians are sinless).

He was trying to get me to agree that I wasn't a Christian, to not pray to God because he said it wasn't the real God, and basically trying not to lead me closer to Christ, but to turn me 180 degrees away from him.

THAT, in my opinion, is NOT a Christian, because rather than trying to lead others closer to Christ, they are actively trying to get the follower to doubt God's mercy and grace, doubt that they are loved by God and that it must be earned, doubt that God listens when we pray, doubt that the path I am on is a path to God at all. He was trying to push me away from God - convince me that I wasn't Christian, and in doing so, try to de-convert me.

That is an enemy of God. However, I kept saying, "And yet, I still am. No matter how many times you say that I am not, I am. No matter how many explanation points you use, I am still a Christian. No matter how many times you claim that God doesn't love me, or I don't love God, God remains steadfastly by my side. And even when I know that I have acted selfishly towards another, God stays beside me, because that is when I need him most, and makes my heart heavy that I know better. And because he doesn't leave when I mess up, I'm not afraid to make a false move, and simply focus on the good, focus on how I can actively love others in thanksgiving, and no longer have to focus on what I should refrain from doing, having no desire to steal/lie/kill/slander/seek revenge, etc."

Does that make me a better Christian? Better than who I was yesterday, but not better than anyone else, Christian or non. I acknowledge that I am a Christian, and I acknowledge that I am a lowly sinner, not deserving of God's love, mercy, and forgiveness, but granted it anyway. In so, I no longer concern myself over who qualifies to be a Christian, or who has earned a seat in the church, but rather, concern myself about my walk, identify myself as a servant for God and man, and become the change I wish to see in the world.
 

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,896
17,799
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟462,771.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
"Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?"

On this site, No, as it's a violation of the rules.
Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Use of derogatory nicknames in reference to other members is prohibited. Don't goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian; using sarcasm to attempt any of the above. This flaming rule also applies to public religious figures.

If you are flamed, don't respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
 
Upvote 0

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
23,123
6,813
72
✟383,903.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Is following the rules the moral or Christian thing to do? My avatar says no.

As to the original post. I pretty much agree.

Oh and I have seen Jumbo Shrimp. That either means some Christians are very poor at making their arguments or there must be gay Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
"Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?"

On this site, No, as it's a violation of the rules.

It's a violation of the rules, but not necessarily immoral.

The bible says that we should not kill.
I don't kill, nor do I want to. I don't feel that "I can't kill you because the bible says it's wrong" is moral. You have murder in your heart if you imply that the only thing holding you back is "it's a rule" according to the bible. The bible says that if you have murder in your heart, you have committed it already.

I never understood this fully until I studied Buddhism. Lay Christians order "sin" as acting on it to be important, then words, and finally, thought being the pettiest and least sinful. One can loathe another, but as long as you repress your revenge, your anger, your spite, or your words that will state what you are thinking, you haven't "really sinned", is how most believe.

Buddhism teaches the exact opposite. If I am full of hatred for you, it fills my thoughts. My thought fuel my words, and I say mean spirited and harmful things to you, which will fuel me doing harmful actions toward you.

If I change my thoughts, if I focus on the hatred, and transform it to mercy, to love, to kindness, it changes my words, and it changes my actions towards you.

I'm unsure why the rule was made at CF, but what I have seen is the same, with comments like, "You have a strange idea of what is means to be a Christian. I can't say what my opinion is of you, because it is a violation of the rules." However, they gave it to me anyway through implication.

My question is not over the justification of the rule on CF (personally, I think thinking that we are the divider of the wheat from the chaff is a waste of time and egotistical, as well as not serving God in anyway, but rather, making ourselves God, and sitting on the throne of judgement, in an attempt to show everyone how holier we are), but rather:

Is it moral to think that we have the authority to make such a claim?
Is it moral to make a list of criteria that we demand another to fulfill, when we refuse to fulfill anyone's criteria but our own?
In the 60s, as I illustrated, many Catholics believed that Protestant weren't Christian, and hell bound. Is it moral to think that is something that we can rightfully judge, or that it is our place to judge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: moonkitty
Upvote 0

BobW188

Growling Maverick
Jul 19, 2008
1,717
140
80
Southern Minnesota
✟17,603.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
To discuss? Certainly. To render sweeping and final judgments? No.

More than four decades ago, C. S. Lewis was writing that the word "Christian" had become meaningless, in popular usage being often applied to good, charitable people who had no belief in Jesus or the faith. your "basic form" of a definition sounds good to me and might be the basis for a consensus definition. Frankly, we could use one.
 
Upvote 0

BeagleMomSC

Newbie
Sep 3, 2009
123
5
✟22,770.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, I do not think it's moral nor is it very Christian of those who judge. It's one thing to judge one's action of whether it may be a sin, but to judge the person and what is in their heart, that's God's job, and His job only. I was blasted on another discussion on this website about not being "Christian" because I believed the bible is not without error.. so it's their way or the highway and I'm suddenly "not Christian"? It's people that judge like that which chase people AWAY from the church.
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,103
1,229
✟41,875.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
A Christian in the most basic form of the definition, is one who serves God, believes Jesus to be the Saviour and God's son, and who loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and loves his neighbour as himself.
By this definition I think there are very few people who can call themselves christian. Loving your neighbour as yourself is not easy.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,896
17,799
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟462,771.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
By this definition I think there are very few people who can call themselves christian. Loving your neighbour as yourself is not easy.

Well what if you don't really love yourself, then loving others at the same level isn't as hard :)
 
Upvote 0

Rebekka

meow meow meow meow meow meow
Oct 25, 2006
13,103
1,229
✟41,875.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Well what if you don't really love yourself, then loving others at the same level isn't as hard :)
lol - indeed. Sadly, that is clearly not what Jesus meant if you read the NT.
(Also, if you truly hate yourself I think it's hard to hate others exactly as much.)
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Beanieboy makes a good thread question
Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?


The answer would probably depend on one’s benchmark for morals or what one bases their concept of morals on.
In this light if we rephrase the question, is it moral for Christians to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian the answer would be yes. So I would say the answer for a Christian would be yes.
The NT is full of instruction to believers such as Jesus saying that His disciples are those who obey His teaching (ie John 14-15, Matthew 28) and that believers should not deviate from the gospel given from Jesus Christ by the NT writers. (Galatians 1) Passages such as 2 Peter 2 and 1 Tim 6 actually address those who have wandered from the faith through false teaching.
I have seen a number of threads that have recently been started that ask, "Is it ethical to be homosexual and Christian", or "Should sexually active unmarried heterosexuals be expelled from the church", etc.

With the particular issue about those who promote same sex relations the two relevant passages are Galatians 6 and 1 Cor 5. These show that the response to brothers caught in sin is to restore them gently and the response to those who wilfully promote sin and call themselves brothers is to expel them and disassociate from them. (the crucial bit here being those who call themselves brothers indicating they aren’t)
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Beanieboy

I respect the right of a congregation to say, "This is what we believe." They may or may not believe that homosexuality is a sin.
If they believe the Bible then they will believe that men with men instead of women is a sin, and that God created woman to be united with man.


Indeed, biblical scholars who study the scripture as part of their career are even split.
This is a false assumption. If there is a question about who is Christian then scholars who study the Bible would either believe it and be Christian or not believe it and not be Christian


Rather, my point is, is it ethical for any man to judge the heart of another, the relationship of another, especially those they barely know over the internet, and then state "You are not a Christian."
Yes, the person doesn’t make a Christian but belief and faith in Jesus Christ does, as Jesus says His disciples obey His teaching. But the discernment usually only comes when having a person is claiming they are a Christian at the same time as demonstrating they don’t share the same faith and trust in Christ teaching… hence Galatians 6 and 1 Corinthians 5.


A Christian in the most basic form of the definition, is one who serves God, believes Jesus to be the Saviour and God's son, and who loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and loves his neighbour as himself.
If the person is promoting a sin that Jesus died to forgive them for they aren’t serving God not loving God with all their heart soul and mind. So I would agree with your definition but I the promotion of same sex relations would be a disqualification.

Unfortunately, many people have added their own criteria. I have been told on countless occasions that "a Gay Christian is an oxymoron, like Jumbo Shrimp."
As has been pointed out such an argument isn’t Christian either as the fulfilment of the law by Grace through Jesus Christ does not hold one to OT law, but by Grace to follow Jesus Christ. How could one who is a Christian ignore what Christ taught that all food can be eaten (Mark 7, Romans 14) and that same sex isn’t error when Christ’s NT teaching says it is and excludes it. (Matt 19, Mark 7, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, Romans 1 etc)


If this were true, then all heterosexuals would be Christian.
heterosexual is a meaningless term for Christians as it doesn’t matter whether those who don’t follow Christ’s teaching on faithful man/woman marriage are heterosexual homosexual, or bisexual or whateve.

They marry before God, but it is more of a commitment to one another, than being submissive to God.
Not really for the true Christian Christ comes first.


Does one stop being Christian every time he sins, and must repent, ask forgiveness of the person and pay some kind of pennence, beg God for forgiveness, and ask Jesus to once again come into his heart?
Not really, the NT teaching throughout is that by faith one repents and receives the forgiveness Christ has made available once and for all on the cross.


In short, the discernment of whether ones beliefs are Christian or not doesn’t come through looking at people but looking at whether they believe in Jesus Christ and His teaching or not.
 
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
Is it Christian to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christians? ;-)
Yes, as demonstrated particualrly on this issue of sexual immorality the NT teaching to believers is for example 1 Cor 5
9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b]
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,782
15,229
Seattle
✟1,190,618.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Is it moral to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian?

Yes. And then those who you decide are not Christian should be hunted down, tortured until they repent, and then consigned to the cleansing fire. At least if history is any judge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pgp_protector
Upvote 0

Beanieboy

Senior Veteran
Jan 20, 2006
6,297
1,213
62
✟65,122.00
Faith
Christian
Beanieboy makes a good thread question


The answer would probably depend on one’s benchmark for morals or what one bases their concept of morals on.
In this light if we rephrase the question, is it moral for Christians to discuss who has the right to call themselves Christian the answer would be yes. So I would say the answer for a Christian would be yes.
The NT is full of instruction to believers such as Jesus saying that His disciples are those who obey His teaching (ie John 14-15, Matthew 28) and that believers should not deviate from the gospel given from Jesus Christ by the NT writers. (Galatians 1) Passages such as 2 Peter 2 and 1 Tim 6 actually address those who have wandered from the faith through false teaching.

With the particular issue about those who promote same sex relations the two relevant passages are Galatians 6 and 1 Cor 5. These show that the response to brothers caught in sin is to restore them gently and the response to those who wilfully promote sin and call themselves brothers is to expel them and disassociate from them. (the crucial bit here being those who call themselves brothers indicating they aren’t)


The bible says that those who divorce and remarry are living a life of adultery. Can I therefore say that divorced and remarried people are adulterers, and so, not Christian?

Should I then demand that all divorced/remarried couples be shunned from the congregation?

No one does, even though it is stated by Jesus.

Why is it that we feel the need to draw one person's sin into scrutiny, and yet, forgive our own? Why is that that gossips, who are on the list of people that will not inherit the kingdom, are never given the same scrutiny by man, for example? Why are those that work 7 days a week, rather than observing the Sabbath, still called Christians?

Is there any of us who is worthy of casting a stone at any other, who can honestly say, "I don't sin, so I can say who is or isn't a Christian"?

If we sin, and Christians can't or don't sin, then no one is a Christian, and yet, all have fallen short, all continue to fall short, and all of us are sinners, according to the bible.

Man just seems to have ranked who are worse sinners, as in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. In Modern Day, the tax collector would be asked to leave, and only he, and not the self righteous Pharisee, was honored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rebekka
Upvote 0
B

brightmorningstar

Guest
To Beanieboy,

The bible says that those who divorce and remarry are living a life of adultery. Can I therefore say that divorced and remarried people are adulterers, and so, not Christian?
In fact the Bible doesn’t say that, its says they have committed adultery and they commit adultery by divorce and remarriage. (Matt 19, Mark 7) Its true that there are further instructions not to marry again when divorced. (1 Cor 7)


Should I then demand that all divorced/remarried couples be shunned from the congregation?
Well first you need to admit what the Bible says about marriage as faithful man/woman and same sex relations as error before you can ask others to adhere to the Bible. But as Jesus said Moses allowed some divorce because their hearts were hard but it wasn’t that way in the beginning.

The position of the church and believers is therefore that divorce is error, marriage is to be faithful and same sex relations are error.

No one does, even though it is stated by Jesus.
On the contrary they do, what sort of churches do you know of, if they bless same sex relationships they probably bless divorce and remarriage.


Why is it that we feel the need to draw one person's sin into scrutiny, and yet, forgive our own?
That’s a question for you as all I and others are doing is pointing out what is sin, we aren’t interested in who does it, but you obviously are.


Why is that that gossips, who are on the list of people that will not inherit the kingdom, are never given the same scrutiny by man, for example?
Because gossiping isnt being promoted as good and not a sin, whereas same sex relations are being promoted as good and not a sin.


Is there any of us who is worthy of casting a stone at any other, who can honestly say, "I don't sin, so I can say who is or isn't a Christian"?
No-one is casting stones, the casting of the stones in the passage in John, if that’s what you are think of, is the punishment for the sin, Jesus said to the woman go and sin no more, all we are doing is pointing out same sex sex is error.


Man just seems to have ranked who are worse sinners, as in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. In Modern Day, the tax collector would be asked to leave, and only he, and not the self righteous Pharisee, was honored.
Well if you are referring to Luke 18, you will see the some were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else. Let us ask ourselves are we confident in our own righteousness? I am not, my righteousness is in Christ for he has forgiven all sin. The question is you are saying a sin isnt a sin. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." I am not exalting any sin, I know I have committed adultery in my life before I became a Christian and since by having occasional lustful adulterous thoughts, but you don’t seem to be admitting same sex relations are sin.


Now let me ask you why you refer to what the Bible says about some things, though you don’t give citations, while ignoring the citations from the Bible put to you. If you don’t believe John 14-15, Matthew 28, Galatians 1, 2 Peter 2 and 1 Tim 6 why expect others to believe the passages about the Pharisees and self righteousness?
 
Upvote 0