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.
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.
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.
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:Do you think that Christians argue too much about things that are not really relevant to our salvation?
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!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.
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.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.
Considering that many Christian bodies disagree on what salvation requires, I would say that discussing the subject is not only inevitable but necessary.
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.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.
Yes they do.Do you think that Christians argue too much about things that are not really relevant to our salvation?
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?
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?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?
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?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 pretty much agree. I could get pedantic and get stuck on very important vs. necessary, but let's not.Considering that many Christian bodies disagree on what salvation requires, I would say that discussing the subject is not only inevitable but necessary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?