faith, you have repeatedly judged others as not true christians. that's not "judging doctrine" that's condemning others.
If I weigh up the evidence according to the criteris of "what constitutes a Christian in my book". And a person easily fails all those criteria - does that mean they might still be a Christian according to my book? It seems if that were the case then I cannot be sure I am a Christian either for I cannot even judge myself according to those criteria. Which is patently ridiculous.
The book I suggested you would refer to is your own book - as in "In my book x,y,z" In being challenged about your book you might refer to 'gods book' for your support. As you do here presumably:
judgement of christianity, belief, faith, and mens' hearts is GOD'S. not yours. not mine. not faith's, and not the pharisees.
..I take it that you didn't lick that idea off a stone.
"according to my book" doesn't mean squat, because god makes the call. you do not. you don't even get a vote.
If "When God calls and a person responds to that call then they become a Christian and certain things will manifest themselves..." is true then one might very easily percieve whether another patently hasn't responded to that call. Thus one is in a position to comment, to exercise their judgement. All one has to decide for themselves is, is that statement true - in order to comment.
Another case of "Reading-R-Us"
yes, iano. please try to read more carefully.
I thought it wouldn't be long until your self-declared reading comprehension skills would get hauled out. D'ya ever ask Ned his opinion?
you fail to see the obvious flaw in your logic of those "certain things" that manifests itself is compassion and acceptance of others: not condemnation and judgement.
Do you see the obvious flaw in your own logic: this limited notion is printed on the pages of your own book. There is no need to even swap stories: all a person needs to exercise judgement (to judge) is to hold that their own book is correct - it needs not anothers (yours for instance) stamp of approval.
Compassion for one lost, yes. Acceptance that they are lost, yes.
Standing by whilst they fool themselves into thinking they are Christians - compassion forbids it even to the extent of being 'tough'. (aa kind of a pr 26:5 motivation there)
Allowing them them fool others into thinking what they say Christianity is is what Christianity is. Hell no.
if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't.
I'm not so reticent and in your case I don't know. I'm not sure...
the message is nothing but good for all, and if you exclude people from it, you do nothing but pervert it.
Stating that a person is not a Christian doesn't exclude them from a message they haven't gotten yet - if indeed that exercise of judgment is accurate. They would already be on the 'outside' so to speak.
knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said.
I take it that you have no problem in allowing him state whether his message was tongue in cheek or literal. I for one am curious. I'll bump it next time I see him knocking around. You do the same if you see him. Okay?
A curious situation arose within the context of a recent thread which enabled you (by accident rather than design) to be an objective judge, jury and executioner w.r.t a particular sub-issue within the thread - which spreads beyond the thread and into general discussion between Arach and me. Very unusual at EvC to get something this resolvable.
But it is not mine to call on my own. Arach would have to want to go there too. I'm prepared to risk it in order to have a particular debate approach dismantled (for I find it tiresome). But am quite happy to drop it if Arach doesn't agree
Thanks for looking and not leaping. I'd wait for Arachs o.k.
On reflection Ned. Can we forget it? The result ain't worth it to me, whichever way it would fall. I'd prefer to put up with Arachs debate method. Like it's not that I even have to debate him if I don't want to!
Given that our relative strength in the reading department remains undecided by objective decision (something which you saw the need for as much as me here) can you now halt supposing objective superiority in that self-same department when we debate next?
Perhaps. But I doubt I'll hear arguments containing the implication "objectively superior reading skills" again after this.
That is sufficient for me. Showing my hand gains me nothing. Were I to 'win' all that would achieve would be your nose getting stuck in a pile off shite. And vice versa were you to 'win'. Neither option strikes me as particularily desirable.
A good poker player quits while he is ahead. Fools gamble everything