quote:
a common roman bible
I don't know what is meant by this term. The RC canon is not common, if that is what we are supposed to think.
Any reader left in a desert with a readable New Testament can reach a firm conclusion in far fewer than forty days. The conclusion is that Jesus has died for his or her salvation- and the reader will either love Jesus for his sacrifice, and want to follow him in loving others, or will prefer to live selfishly, greedily, rejecting that sacrifice. The person will either take the NT as good news, because guilt for evil acts done (and to be done) is taken away by Jesus, or as bad news, because the love of Jesus increases guilt if one wants to carry on doing evil things. If the former, the person would become a Christ-ian, who treats Jesus as saviour, and therefore lord, which is the implication of the word 'Christ'. The person would have assurance that the righteousness of Christ was sufficient to account him or her righteous before God
because of his or her own reaction to the good news, and would want to inform others who had not heard this news. And that is all there is to being a Christian, as far as others are concerned. Christians as Christians have only one thing to say to non-Christians, and it can be read in Jn 3:16. That's how one knows a Christian, or rather, who's not one. Anyone who talks too much, about Genesis, tongues, Mass, water baptism, whatever, is an antichrist.
Now where does the word 'evangelical' come in? It's not in the Bible. Actually, it's a euphemism, to protect the guilty, the pretenders in 'church' circles. No evangelical admits to being an evangelical among evangelicals. An evangelical calls himself, or herself, a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. To an evangelical, anyone who is not called an evangelical is not a Christian. Liberals, Catholics, Orthodox, whatever, need converting just as much as the Joe on the street, though they may be much more resistant to conversion, and it is probably a waste of time attempting to persuade them. That does not mean that all who are called evangelicals are Christian, though. The Christian rejects utterly people like Billy Graham, who are known as evangelicals but who support the RCC, that preaches the word of the Devil, that mankind must earn its way to heaven, a deadly message to all Christians. The vast majority, if not the totality, of the evangelical leaders of the USA are rejected for similar reasons. So are Pentecostals, who say, in effect, that one must gabble incoherently if one is to be saved. Calvinism is usually included as part of evangelicalism, but it is abhorrent to Christians, who believe that Jesus died for all, and wants all to come to a knowledge of him. Calvin was a Catholic and a lawyer, and his doctrine is exactly what one would expect from a cunning Catholic lawyer.
Even conservative evangelicals, fully orthodox, are not necessarily Christians. In fact, the Christian, like Paul, does not say for certain that anyone else is a Christian. He or she is simply full of the assurance that, provided that he or she remains faithful and grateful to God, he or she will go to be with him in the fullness of time. That's a better sign of an evangelical than any formula.
But this thread is not really about theology, it's about the social dangers of certain people. Now if a belief in hell makes people socially unacceptable, then Christians are socially unacceptable, along with all of the masses of pretenders in churches and cathedrals in Western countries and beyond who follow historic creeds. But Christians and mass membership never go together. Many are called, but few are chosen, and Christians never seek mass membership, but are, by contrast, very fussy indeed about who they allow into their fellowship, as apostolic warning requires them to be. They do not operate in the way we can witness on the linked video, where the methods of Islam are consciously emulated, under the fear of Islam! Those Pentecostals on the video are antichristian; not just because of the sickening brainwashing methods they use, but because their theology is fundamentally antichristian, being that of works-justification, just like that of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and the circumcision party that Paul condemned.
Plus a change...
So there is, yet again, a link between anti-social elements and false teaching, as there has been since the desperate, grasping, tyrannical Constantine, whose own comforts depended on greedily exploiting others. It appears also that it is hoped that Christians will take the blame for the actions of those who, sitting quietly in the desert, reject the love of Jesus because they love their short-term advantage better. It's only what one would expect these people to hope for. Peter prophesied of some of them, if it was not predictable, like this:
'But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up.' 2 Pe 2:1-3 NIV
Edited by ochaye, : typo
Edited by ochaye, : typo
™ Version 4.2
