Quarrelsome Christians

[BobRyan]

The line should be drawn where the conversation moves from the discussion of ideas, to attacking the character of the other. And sometimes that line is crossed very early in a conversation...like in the first response of a person to what another has said.

this is a good point. attacking the person posting rather than discussing the pluses and minuses of a given POV on the Bible topic at hand, is where the line should be drawn.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes.

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. -- Romans 14

There are disputable matters and there are undisputable matters. Paul gives, as example, the issue of eating or not eating meat as a matter upon which Christians might have a dispute.

There was no OT command for Jews to "not eat meat" -- and neither did Gentiles have such a command.

Where that comes from is in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10 "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble" it is a statement by Paul talking about the Gentiles trying to avoid the problem of meat offered to idols - and the fact that the Jews were ignoring the problem altogether - even the Christian Jews paid no attention to it since they only thought there is "ONE God" -- not many.

 

[SAAN]

Do you think that Christians argue too much about things that are not really relevant to our salvation?

I think the big issue is after you get saved, the bible says you are to continue keeping the commandments, and many seem to think after they are saved it doesnt matter how they live since they are saved. So most of the arguments you see on here seem to stem from either:
-putting aside the commands of God and promoting man made doctrines
-taking scriptures out of context, which leads to many false doctrines that get passed down as truth
-people who disregard 66% of the bible (OT), which leads to a misunderstanding of the back of the bible (NT) many times and not realize the bible is one completer book.
-And living lifestyles completely disregarding how the bible says followers of God should live

So while all the examples above have accepted Christ as their savior, there will always be a battle/argument as long as any of the examples I listed is going on.

 

[Goodbook]

Yes, the ppl on general theology do.
They should stop. Its really a bad habit, we should all be praying instead. Shalom.

 

[Goodbook]

Pauls advice to Timothy after he spent hours debating the greeks in athens, and some ppl fell out the window....

2 timothy 2:23

Also anyone going on this forum who is not a christian might ask...what does this babbler say?

 

[AsPatat]

We might as well accept the fact that people argue about everything. Members of the same religious or political tribe argue with each other. There will never be perfect agreement between any two people. Every individual disagrees with opinions they used to have and is ambivalent about some of their current opinions.

Yes, we will have to accept it (for now). But we should do our utmost best to not get drawn into unneeded squabbles. And we should be gentle in necessary ones. 2 Timothy 2 makes it all quite clear. Thanks Goodbook!

 

[AsPatat]

The line should be drawn where the conversation moves from the discussion of ideas, to attacking the character of the other. And sometimes that line is crossed very early in a conversation...like in the first response of a person to what another has said.

I now think the line should be drawn even sooner than attacking. I think I could avoid saying things that may be construed as personal and stick to the point.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Considering that many Christian bodies disagree on what salvation requires, I would say that discussing the subject is not only inevitable but necessary.

 

[RDKirk]

Considering that many Christian bodies disagree on what salvation requires, I would say that discussing the subject is not only inevitable but necessary.

I'm not so sure it's necessary. What is necessary is to follow God's instructions--which is, of course, antithetical to human nature and the reason we're in this mess in the first place--and the only thing necessary for following instructions is to understand what the instructions are.

But it's not really necessary to understand the mechanism in order to follow instructions. The real reason there is discussion about "what salvation requires" is to give men reason to make up their own instructions.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm not so sure it's necessary. What is necessary is to follow God's instructions--which is, of course, antithetical to human nature and the reason we're in this mess in the first place--and the only thing necessary for following instructions is to understand what the instructions are.

But it's not really necessary to understand the mechanism in order to follow instructions. The real reason there is discussion about "what salvation requires" is to give men reason to make up their own instructions.

I couldn't possibly disagree more because Christians don't agree with each other on what those mechanisms are. You say they should "follow God's instructions" but they all seem to think they're the only ones who understand what God's instructions are.

If they're teaching the polar opposite of one another about what is required for salvation to their congregations, they can't both be right. At least one of them is wrong. And you're saying you truly don't see the value in them having dialogue with each other so that they can (A) resolve their differences and (B) correct potential doctrinal errors?

 

[Steeno7]

I only follow instructions if by "instructions" you mean the living Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you think that Christians argue too much about things that are not really relevant to our salvation?

Yes they do.

What an interesting conversation, from several points!

One thing that occurs to me is that pride can be involved in some people's need to argue with anyone who disagrees with them. (It's not the only possible reason - insecurity for example, a nearly opposite reaction, can be another.) But if pride is one reason, and a person desires to become more humble, there are spiritual ramifications to participating in such discussion, and how one goes about it. I hadn't really thought about that before, so thank you.

And yes, one can share truth, but do it in such a way that is like throwing sharp rocks at people. If one injures people in the process, those people may be unable to receive the truth they are being hit with.

 

[RDKirk]

I couldn't possibly disagree more because Christians don't agree with each other on what those mechanisms are. You say they should "follow God's instructions" but they all seem to think they're the only ones who understand what God's instructions are.

If they're teaching the polar opposite of one another about what is required for salvation to their congregations, they can't both be right. At least one of them is wrong. And you're saying you truly don't see the value in them having dialogue with each other so that they can (A) resolve their differences and (B) correct potential doctrinal errors?

Take James for instructions. Christians can argue all day long about whether works or faith are the mechanism of salvation, but that issue needs no answer merely to do what James says.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Take James for instructions. Christians can argue all day long about whether works or faith are the mechanism of salvation, but that issue needs no answer merely to do what James says.

See, that's only your opinion. Someone else who claims to "follow God's instructions" can (and many have) reached a totally different conclusion. Logically at least one of them must be wrong. It is therefore not a waste of time to study, learn and dialogue, right?

 

[RDKirk]

See, that's only your opinion. Someone else who claims to "follow God's instructions" can (and many have) reached a totally different conclusion. Logically at least one of them must be wrong. It is therefore not a waste of time to study, learn and dialogue, right?

Can you suggest any examples of an instruction from James that depends on soteriological agreement in order to follow it? Presbyterians and Catholics both heartily endorse all of James.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Can you suggest any examples of an instruction from James that depends on soteriological agreement in order to follow it? Presbyterians and Catholics both heartily endorse all of James.

I'm in no position to argue the Protestant viewpoint. But someone else may (and indeed many do) find another part of Sacred Scripture to be more instructive. You may personally believe James is the more relevant authority... but how will those believing what you deem to be errors know they're in error if someone doesn't tell them so?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Paul (an apostle that come after Peter and James) submitted to the apostles that were before him (when the church of Antioch had question between other teachers at that time) I would think that would show some kind of pattern for all of us, to refer back (and submit ourselves) to those before us, even as Jeremiah refers back to the prophets before him when false prophets were teaching at his time too.

 

[AsPatat]

Considering that many Christian bodies disagree on what salvation requires, I would say that discussing the subject is not only inevitable but necessary.

I pretty much agree. I could get pedantic and get stuck on very important vs. necessary, but let's not.

I am thinking of discussing vs. arguing and the difference between those two. Among other things I think, gentleness as per 2 Timothy 2:4.

But I think gentleness is more than just being gentle in my own opinion. It is also being aware that I am unaware of the other persons background or circumstances and might step on toes without even intending to. I think if just keep that in mind it is OK to discuss, but still not to argue.