[chette777]

What do you call any place where Christians and Non-Christians gather together? and is not a forum a place of virtual gathering? Are we being edified or edifying the body here?

I wasn't making any conclusions of anyone's salvation. but stated that if a person seems to fit into a category and we also hear or read their testimony you can put it together to see if that is anyone's problem in why they can't understand scriptures. it is not just salvation that is an issue in h not understanding the word grieving or quenching the spirit is another, out and out disobedience to God's word is another, and being a babe in Christ is another reason why some people don't understand the scriptures when they should be guided and lead by the Holy ghost to do so.

So after reading someone arguing for 300 plus posts, and if we read a testimony that is not Biblically correct one could conclude if someone is unsaved (not that anyone is), of if they shared on how they were rebuked by their pastor so they left off going to church. We could conclude that either this person is prideful or hurt or in disobedience to God's word. We are to discern these things. anyway that is all I was sharing with BroParish.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Winman

To say a person does not need to understand scripture is so ridiculous as to be absolutely absurd. I cannot believe any intelligent person would say such a thing.

I don't know if you're doing this intentionally or not, but it's clear to me what the meaning is -- for example, when we're discussing Bible versions, and someone says the "meaning" is preserved, the Bible believer says that the "words" are preserved. When we study Scripture, we should be concerned with what God says, not with what someone else says God "means." If you do, as you say, "cannot believe any intelligent person would say such a thing," perhaps your first step should be to re-examine your understanding of what is being said. Perhaps they aren't saying what you think they are.

I don't even know why I am writing this, I know that absolutely nothing I or anyone else can say or do will reach these pompous self-righteous people. They are so incredibly self-deceived and do not realize it.

Now, I can either assume you don't know what "self-righteous" means, or you are simply slandering people. Neither Chette or George has exhibited self-righteousness. My guess is you mean something else. Just because you can't convince someone of your position, or that person will not relent, does not mean they are "self-righteous."

I have been here about six months. I have probably seen at least half a dozen people get banned, and most because they had a run in with Bro George.

Now you are making stuff up. Name one person I have banned "because" they had a run-in with any particular person. After all, you are still here. Pam is still here. Bro. Parrish is still here. All of you have "had a run-in" with George at some point. Do you agree now that your claim is unreasonable? George is one of the most active posters here, and it is not surprising that many people who are banned get banned for things they have posted in threads George also posts in. But I do not ban someone just because they lock horns with some particular poster on the forum.

I've said my piece, I don't know if I'll be back or not. I cannot stand these constant attacks on people who disagree with Bro George or Chette. You are right Brandon, people don't have to post, people can move on. And as long as you have these two here, that is going to be frequent.

As I pointed out already, these kinds of attacks on my duties as a moderator come from both sides.... sigh.

[greenbear]

I'm going to throw my two cents in. Of course, this is just IMHO.

I personally don't mind putting up with other forum members faults and foibles, considering I have plenty of my own, if they speak and teach the truth about the scriptures. I'll put up with a lot from them.

Those who twist and wrest scripture post after endless post I will add to my ignore list and never look back.

Problem solved.

Next...

[Winman]

Bro George

Once again you imply that only those who rightly divide the word of truth understand the Bible.

If I understand you, you believe that a "saved" person does not need to be taught anything. Then you write a whole lesson to teach us. Why?

1 Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

This is in the church. Paul is teaching believers. Why? And he also makes it clear that is is important these believers understand the meaning of his teaching. They could not understand an unknown tongue.

1 Tim 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Again, this is describing a bishop's qualifications for duty in the church among believers. Why should he be apt to teach? What does it mean to "take care of the church of God?"?

1 Tim 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Why should Timothy put the brethren in rememberance of these things? They are saved, they have the Holy Spirit.

And a few verses later.

1 Tim 4:11 These things command and teach.

Why do you write out these lessons? We are saved. We don't need you to teach us.

[George]

Winman,

Once again you MISQUOTE me! WHY is it that you can NOT just quote MY “WORDS”, instead of “READING INTO” them whatever you want?

Winman said:

“Once again you imply that only those who rightly divide the word of truth understand the Bible.”

Your “problem” is you just can’t accept what is plainly written - you MUST put your personal “spin” on it in order for you to understand it. I did NOT “imply” anything! You are doing the “twisting” and “wresting” of my words, in an attempt to MAKE them “say” something other than what I said!

Now, what I want you to do is CITE the Post Number where I said what you are “IMPLYING” I said! And if you can’t – why aren’t you embarrassed?

I am going to repeat a litany of “CLAIMS” you have made lately which I have disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and for which you have NOT acknowledged your error, and for which you have not yet apologized:

In my Post #65 > On the Thread > “Rightly dividing the Book of Acts” I said:

“If you try to say that “the gospel of the kingdom”; and “the everlasting gospel” and “the gospel of the grace of God” - i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”, are ALL the SAME; you run into the “problem” of when you read about them (in context) they are clearly NOT spoken of as being the SAME!”

“{The first “problem” with your statement is you fail to identify - WHICH “GOSPEL”? If there is ONLY ONE “Gospel”, then you are correct. IF there is MORE THAN ONE “GOSPEL”, then you are assuming that the “Gospel” that you accepted when you got saved (Paul’s Gospel – i.e. the “Gospel of the Grace of God”) is the SAME “GOSPEL” as the “Gospel” of the Kingdom of God.}”

“Did the Lord Jesus Christ “preach” the SAME “GOSPEL” as the Apostle Paul? You couldn’t PROVE it (in a "court of law") if your life depended on it! And the fact that - it was just before the Lord was taken by the nation of Israel’s leaders (to be killed) that He “forewarned” ONLY His disciples about His upcoming betrayal, death, and crucifixion [Matthew 20:17-19, 26:1-2] – does NOT “PROVE” that He “preached” His death burial and resurrection to the rest of the nation of Israel, or anyone else for that matter. {He came to the nation of Israel as their Messiah and King; (NOT their CRUCIFIED SAVIOUR!) and He presented Himself as such (He DID NOT “preach” His death, burial, and resurrection to the nation of Israel!). It wasn’t until He was about to be crucified that He revealed His betrayal, death, and crucifixion to His disciples – who refused to believe Him, even after He told them!}”

My “CLAIM” throughout Post #65 is that there has been more than just ONE “GOSPEL”

Part of Winman’s Post #66 “reply”:

“We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection.” {This was your “CLAIM”.}

WHAT did I just say previously? “And the fact that - it was just before the Lord was taken by the nation of Israel’s leaders (to be killed) that He “forewarned” ONLY His disciples about His upcoming betrayal, death, and crucifixion [Matthew 20:17-19, 26:1-2] – does NOT “PROVE” that He “preached” His death, burial, and resurrection to the rest of the nation of Israel, or anyone else for that matter.” {My wording was “precise”.}

In your Post #66 you pointed to John 3:13-21; John 12:32-34; and John 8:28 as “proof texts” for your “CLAIM” (the rest of the verses that you cited had nothing to do with your “CLAIM”). The big “PROBLEM” with your “proof texts” is that NONE of them had the “RESURRECTION” in them!

You said:

“We will have to agree to disagree. I do see that Jesus told some Jews of his death, burial and resurrection.” {This was your “CLAIM”.}

You said: “I do see” -and that is your big “PROBLEM”! You “SEE” things (“words”) that are NOT THERE! It’s called “reading into” written statements {the Bible’s or other people’s} “words” that are NOT THERE! ((You do this – all the time, and with NO shame or remorse.)

If you don’t have the “resurrection” in your message – you obviously DO NOT have the “Gospel”! And IF the “RESURRECTION” was not IN your “proof texts”, then your “CLAIM” has been PROVEN to be “FALSE”; and, in this instance, you have been PROVEN to be an UNRELIABLE source for Biblical “TRUTH”.

Did you ever “own up” to this ERROR? Did you ever admit that, in this case, you were WRONG? I TROW NOT! {My Post #69 clearly demonstrated your ERROR.}

Again your Post #13 on the Thread > “Dispensationalism”

Bro Parrish

”I also enjoyed those links. Now I understand some of the viewpoints of those I have been wrestling with here lately much better. I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”

(Ruckman’s) Quote:

“I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.”

To which I replied in my Post #27:

Aloha brother Winman,

”IF brother Peter Ruckman is correct, (you seem to agree with him - at least in this case) and IF it is true that: "God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43"; then the QUESTION arises - WHAT was Peter "preaching" between Acts Chapter 1 and Acts Chapter 10, IF he did NOT "know" the "Gospel" UNTIL Acts 10:43?”

To which Winman replied in his Post #32:

“Bro George asked”

(George’s) Quote:

“Some of these threads are overlapping. First, I do not agree with Ruckman that God taught Peter the gospel in Acts 10:43. What I agree with Ruckman on is that there is only one gospel.” {You did say: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman" didn’t you?” You see: you are not very “careful” with your "words" – are you?}

To which I replied with my Post #35:

Aloha brother Winman,

I do not refer to brother Peter Ruckman as an “authority” for anything, but since you introduced his “testimony” as being in support of your position of there being ONLY ONE “Gospel” - I must set the record straight.

First off your “conclusions” are faulty.

Peter Ruckman has NEVER taught that there has been ONLY ONE “Gospel”. Ruckman clearly says in the quote that you cited that: “God taught Peter the Gospel in Acts 10:43”, which clearly indicates that BEFORE Acts 10:43 Peter did NOT know the “Gospel” (“the Gospel of the Grace of God” – i.e. “Paul’s Gospel”).

Ruckman NEVER said “there is only one gospel”, as you “claim” (READ HIS “WORDS”). You are “reading into” what he clearly said - what you “think” he “meant”. Ruckman was pointing out the “False Teachings” of some Hyper-Dispensationalists which say that Peter and Paul “preached different Gospels” - AFTER Acts 10:43. It wasn’t until Acts 10:43 that Peter “learned” of the “Gospel of the Grace of God”, so HOW could he have possibly been preaching “the Gospel of the Grace of God BEFORE Acts 10:43 – IF he didn’t know it?
I gave away almost all of Ruckman’s Commentaries and books (that I owned) four years ago. If I still had his Commentaries on Matthew and Acts, and his book “the Sure Word of Prophecy” (formerly known as “The Kingdom of God vs. The Kingdom of heaven) I could point out to you where brother Peter Ruckman clearly taught that there is MORE than just ONE “Gospel”.

However, fortunately I still have his book “Bible Study Charts & Outlines” and I shall quote from page 55 of that book:

(Ruckman’s) Quote:

Now, by my count – Peter Ruckman cited THREE (3 )“GOSPELS”:

#1. “The Gospel of the Grace of God”.

#2. An “EVERLASTING GOSPEL”.

#3. THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”.

You said: “I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.” Obviously “RUCKMAN DOES NOT “AGREE”! (You misread and misinterpreted what he actually said.)

You Said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” Obviously you DID NOT! IF you had truly “reached the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”, as you said, you would have had to “conclude” that there are MORE than ONE “Gospel”!

This is what comes of someone desperately searching for “something” – i.e. ANYTHING (or ANYONE) to support their “position” on a Biblical issue. If you had read Peter Ruckman’s words more carefully you would have seen that he did NOT SAY: “there is only one gospel”. If you had carefully researched some of Ruckman’s other books (articles, etc.) and done your “homework” on brother Ruckman’s position on this issue, you would NOT have enlisted him as being in “agreement” with you. Sadly, all I can say is that, this careless approach extends to many of your Posts regarding this issue.

Winman’s Post #32 > Dispensationalism

In your Post #13 you said: “I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” After I pointed out WHAT Peter Ruckman actually said (and its implications) - you suddenly back away from your statement, and indicate that you did NOT reach ALL of “the same conclusions as Ruckman”. But that’s NOT what you said in your Post #13.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

I have proven that Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3) “Gospels”.

I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

I am growing weary of disproving what you say. You are determined not to believe what I have presented here in this Thread. I have NO power over you, and I seek NO power over you. You are “free” to believe whatever you want to believe, but I would think at some point you might get tired of repeating the same arguments - taking the Scriptures out of “context” to prove your point; making the Scriptures “MEAN” something other than what they “SAY”; and now doing the same with what brother Peter Ruckman has said also.

I am going to proceed with the rest of my comments on the first few Chapters of the Book of Acts, and, if I find the time (or have the inclination) I may deal with some of your other Posts on this Thread; but it is pretty clear to me that we are never going to come to an agreement on this issue.

The question you should be asking yourself at this point is - WHY is it that you misquoted brother Ruckman. WHY did you take his words out of context? WHY did you twist his words around to “mean” something other than what they said? And WHY have you ignored most of the questions that I have posed to you on this Thread?

There is a distinct DIFFERENCE between the ways that the two of us approach the study of God’s Holy word.

You seek to “HARMONIZE” the Scriptures and MAKE them “MEAN” whatever you have predetermined you think they “MEAN”.

I seek to “RIGHTLY DIVIDE” the Scriptures and try to SEE where they FIT. I want to know WHAT God’s words SAY – NOT WHAT THEY “MEAN”.

No where’s in the Holy Bible are we instructed to “HARMONIZE” the word of truth; on the contrary we are clearly told that we should be “rightly DIVIDING” the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

You said in your Post #13 > “Dispensationalism”:

“I have been saying there is only one gospel, and Ruckman agrees.”
And: “I have been studying this on my own every night. And you know what? I came to the same conclusions as Ruckman.” {Which “statement” you “MODIFIED” in your Post #32}

I PROVED (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that:

Peter Ruckman NEVER said: “there is only one gospel”, as you claimed.

Peter Ruckman does NOT “agree” with you – that “there is only one gospel”.

Peter Ruckman believes there are at least Three (3) “Gospels”.

And I have proven that you have NOT come “to the SAME CONCLUSIONS as Ruckman”.

Have you ever ADMITTED that you were WRONG in these instances? Will you ever ADMIT that you are WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING – even after you are PROVEN WRONG with indisputable facts?

I have cited these two exchanges between us to demonstrate to the rest of the members on this Forum your pernicious handling of people’s words and the Holy words of God. At first I mistakenly contributed your hardheadedness to ignorance, but after dealing with you these last few weeks, I have come to realize there is a much deeper “PROBLEM” than just ignorance.

You said in your Post #4 > on premio53’s Thread > “Don't tell me what it “means” just tell me what it “says”

Winman’s Quote:

“You know, there were folks that used this same tactic on Jesus, the prophets and apostles.”

Luke 7:33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Matt 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

”Calling people names like "false teacher" is very reminicient of the Pharisees, not Jesus.”

And yet in your Post #19 you say these things about me:

“I know these self-righteous types, nothing you can say or do will get through to them. They are so full of themselves, so arrogant and sure of themselves, that even the scriptures will not convince them of their errors.”

“I don't even know why I am writing this, I know that absolutely nothing I or anyone else can say or do will reach these pompous self-righteous people. They are so incredibly self-deceived and do not realize it.”

Now let’s see, you did say - ”Calling people names like "false teacher" is very reminicient of the Pharisees, not Jesus.” - DIDN’T YOU? I guess you are EXEMPT from your own condemnation? Hmmm? If I recall, there is a “word” in the Bible for people who SAY ONE THING – BUT DO ANOTHER, you wouldn’t happen to know it, would you?

Please notice the DIFFERENCE between your Posts and mine: You Post what you "think" I "IMPLIED" and NOT my exact "words" - while I quote you "VERBATIM".

And here are some of the things you “implied” I said in your reply to Brandon in your Post #19 > on premio53’s Thread > “Don't tell me what it “means” just tell me what it “says”

Winman said:

“To say a person does not need to understand scripture is so ridiculous as to be absolutely absurd. I cannot believe any intelligent person would say such a thing.”

“And to say we have no need to listen to teachers is also absurd.”

Now – what I want you to do is – CITE the THREAD and the POST NUMBER and point out PRECISELY WHERE I SAID THOSE EXACT “WORDS”! And IF YOU CAN NOT – then “forever hold your piece”, because you will have been PROVEN (once again) to be DISHONEST when it comes to “handling” people’s “words”, just as you have been PROVEN to be DISHONEST in “handling” the Holy “words” of God!

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Luke

I'll be quick... It's probably already said, but I have never heard of any hyperdispensationalist claiming that baptism saves, and if you aren't baptised, you aren't saved. Hypers or Grace Believers don't even recognise baptism as an ordinance.

you may be thinking of Landmarkists, which are close to Church of Christ in practice.

Luke, if I can inject a little levity into a somewhat strained thread, among the general population of "hypers", the fundamentalist groups, not the Bullingerite Universalists or Calvinist Stamites, but among the group I identify myself with none would ever say water baptism saves unless they are on LSD.

The Landmark/Bride churches are what I call Campbellite Baptists: You have to be visible, in a visible church, and baptized in their water with their church letter, otherwise you are not in the body of Christ as they teach the heresy of no "invisible church", that is, a group of plane crash victims in the Pacific on an island cannot be part of the Body if they read the Scriptures and get saved, well, there is no Brider among them them to carry on the "succession". They also teach the heresy that their Church was founded by John the Baptist, which is going to go over real well at the Judgment Seat Of Christ. I've known several ex-members of Dr. Ruckman's church who stated to me they are not Briders by profession but are by practice. This is part of Dr. Ruckman's bitter hatred towards Grace believers, as Briders pretty well have the Campbellite attitude towards any other church. So their attitude towards "hypers" is nothing to marvel at.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[Jassy]

Originally Posted by greenbear

I'm going to throw my two cents in. Of course, this is just IMHO.

I personally don't mind putting up with other forum members faults and foibles, considering I have plenty of my own, if they speak and teach the truth about the scriptures. I'll put up with a lot from them.

Those who twist and wrest scripture post after endless post I will add to my ignore list and never look back.

Problem solved.

Next...

Good advice sis... and that concept is actually biblical, not to waste too much time with people who continually bring up contentions and dischord amongst the brethren. (Romans 16:7, Titus 3:9, Luke 10:10-11)

Many of the people who do these things have already made up their mind and are following after false doctrine and will not be open to the sound doctrine of TRUTH. (2 Cor. 11:13-15, Gal. 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 4:1, 2 Tim. 4:3)

Our brethren who are inspired to fight against such false doctrine are in a spiritual battle, however, and we should indeed support them.

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:9)

Jassy

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I've known several ex-members of Dr. Ruckman's church who stated to me they are not Briders by profession but are by practice. This is part of Dr. Ruckman's bitter hatred towards Grace believers, as Briders pretty well have the Campbellite attitude towards any other church.

Again we see you attacking brother Ruckman on this forum.
I don't think Ruckman hates you. Just because someone has a problem with some of your rotten doctrine doesn't mean they hate you. Smarten up, Tony.

[Winman]

Bro George said

Now let’s see, you did say - ”Calling people names like "false teacher" is very reminicient of the Pharisees, not Jesus.” - DIDN’T YOU? I guess you are EXEMPT from your own condemnation? Hmmm? If I recall, there is a “word” in the Bible for people who SAY ONE THING – BUT DO ANOTHER, you wouldn’t happen to know it, would you?

Bro George, no, I do not think I am exempt. I did not enjoy saying all those things to you, I really did not. But I was trying to give you a little example of how you talk to people on this forum on a fairly regular basis. I could go back and find many posts were you rip fellow believers apart. In this instance, you did not criticize me, you criticized premio58. I don't know him/her, but I have seen you do this to others several times. It really bothers me to see a Christian (or any person) act like this. I had to say something.

And I do not think two wrongs make a right. But I almost laughed when a few here came to your defense. Did they ever criticize you when you went off on a fellow believer?

And I do think these types of posts are bullying. No, you can't really harm someone over the internet, but who wants to get a tongue lashing from you? It makes a person hesitant to speak their mind.

You see, I don't get all that upset when folks disagree with me, I expect it. People disagree, people have opinions. I can listen to others opinions without accusing them of not rightly dividing the word and other such criticisms. I just present what I think is the truth.

You can pick apart my words if you want to, it is just more of the same ill behaviour. The fact is, I have presented many scriptures that contradict your teaching.

For instance, John 7:37-39.

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

You have taught that the Jews in early Acts had to repent of killing Jesus and be baptized to receive the Holy Ghost.

In these verses, first, it is clear that they apply to Jew and Gentile alike "any man". Second, verse 39 makes it clear that the determining factor in receiving the Holy Ghost is believeing. "they that believe on him".

Now "believe on him" is the gospel. Do I really need to post half a dozen verses that show that we are told to believe on Jesus for forgiveness of sins and everlasting life?

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

This last verse really throws a wrench into your teaching, because Paul reveals what John the Baptist was preaching, that "they should believe on him which should come after him, this is, on Christ Jesus". That is the gospel.

And this was Paul preaching to Gentiles, and was showing that John the Baptist preached the same gospel to the Jews as he taught to the Gentiles.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

These verses are about having forgiveness of sins and receiving everlasting life, not the restoration of the kingdom.

So, John the Baptist was preaching the gospel of receiving forgiveness of sins and everlasting life if you can accept it. And premio58 was correct about Mark 16:16. If you only read the first half of the verse, then yes, you would believe it necessary to be baptized to be saved. But when you read the whole verse, it is made clear that believeing is the factor in salvation, not baptism.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jesus did not mention baptism whatsoever in John 7:38. Now, if baptism were necessary to both have remission of sins and receive the Holy Ghost for the Jews (remember, these verses are addressed to "any man"), then Jesus left out a very important detail. However, if believeing only is required to receive the Holy Ghost, then Jesus did not leave out anything.

There, I have presented solid scripture that contradicts your teachings. You can respond any way you wish.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Jassy

Good advice sis... and that concept is actually biblical, not to waste too much time with people who continually bring up contentions and dischord amongst the brethren. (Romans 16:7, Titus 3:9, Luke 10:10-11)

Many of the people who do these things have already made up their mind and are following after false doctrine and will not be open to the sound doctrine of TRUTH. (2 Cor. 11:13-15, Gal. 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 4:1, 2 Tim. 4:3)

Our brethren who are inspired to fight against such false doctrine are in a spiritual battle, however, and we should indeed support them.

Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:9)

Jassy

Jassy, you are a blessing to me.

I have to bow out because I get in the flesh so easily but I do rejoice wholeheartedly in the brethren here who "speak forth the words of truth and soberness".

1 Thessalonians 5:12-16 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore.