No discussion?

John t

Active member
But still, you are required by the scripture to prove all things by Him by the scripture. It may be interesting but church history does not over ride any scripture that reproves what they teach.
Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.
 

Hark

Active member
Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.
Maybe it is because we are like 2 ships passing through the night or maybe you are failing to see the state of the churches now in the latter days.

I believe I understand your point of view and where you are coming from, but scripture is supposed to be your guide in proving all things with Him.

Since abiding in His words is how we follow Jesus, and if a church is not abiding in His words in following Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?
 

John t

Active member
John t said:

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.

Maybe it is because we are like 2 ships passing through the night or maybe you are failing to see the state of the churches now in the latter days.

I believe I understand your point of view and where you are coming from, but scripture is supposed to be your guide in proving all things with Him.

Since abiding in His words is how we follow Jesus, and if a church is not abiding in His words in following Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?

In the short time you posted to me, and only only in this thread, you displayed a spirit of contentious argumentation that makes communication impossible.

Specifically, you sought to argue with me about:
  1. Reformed Episcopal Seminary
  2. (twice)
  3. Creating a false conflict between Scripture and church history
  4. The Law of Moses (vaguely defined by you)
  5. Formal worship
  6. Outreach Ministry, also not defined
  7. The name Christian, first given in Antioch and recorded in Acts 11:26. T(his mixes Scripture and church history)
  8. You somehow linked circumcision and salvation, which I never did
  9. Wrongly accused me of using "churchianity" in this thread
All those combine in a very short space to indicate contentious intentions and an absence of any attempt to seek understanding. Because of that evidence, my continuing to post with you is not beneficial.

Jesus, isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )?

This is bogus because I never mentioned that fake word in this particular thread. I abhor that word.

Good bye.
 
Last edited:

Hark

Active member
John t said:

Your statement indicates that further conversation with you is impossible.
Looks that way.
In the short time you posted to me, and only only in this thread, you displayed a spirit of contentious argumentation that makes communication impossible.
Contentions presented, but you seem to have taken offense for it to be considered an argument.
Specifically, you sought to argue with me about:
  1. Reformed Episcopal Seminary
  2. (twice)
Because of their commitment which is not Biblical for how we are to serve Him. That was the contention that started it all.
  1. Creating a false conflict between Scripture and church history
You made the comment of Methodist and another body as closest model to the early church in the N.T. Right? You made that comment as if you had believed it. So other contentions were raised.
  1. The Law of Moses (vaguely defined by you)
Only because of your alluding to the Synagogues for how those 2 were close models to supposedly in the N.T.
  1. Formal worship
  2. Outreach Ministry, also not defined
Well, when I shared that there was no Christian worship in Jewish Synagogues back then that any account of disciples at the Synagogues, it was in outreach ministry as far as the Book of Acts goes. You seem to contend otherwise, albeit not clearly.
  1. The name Christian, first given in Antioch and recorded in Acts 11:26. T(his mixes Scripture and church history)
Now see? How are you contending with me for that to mean? Are you applying scripture to validate Methodist & that Angelican one as being connected by church history in that wise? Because if you are, any church can say that. Just referring me to a book isn't going to answer my contention. Share what you have learned for why you believe that since I have shared why I doubt it and with just cause too.
  1. You somehow linked circumcision and salvation, which I never did
I am not sure how that topic was addressed or used by either side in this thread..
  1. Wrongly accused me of using "churchianity" in this thread
That one .. you are correct. I apologized. Not sure where I had recollected that from or why I had thought you had mentioned it to a post to someone else in this thread but I do not see it now.
All those combine in a very short space to indicate contentious intentions and an absence of any attempt to seek understanding. Because of that evidence, my continuing to post with you is not beneficial.
Well, it seems to me that you take pride in what you have learned and are sharing out of love for others, but this is about churches; not about our faith in Jesus Christ.
This is bogus because I never mentioned that fake word in this particular thread. I abhor that word.
Kind of misquoted me there; makes me look like I took the Lord's name in vain, but I forgive you. Yes, I have apoligized and will again for asking if you were the one that used that word Churchianity... and I was wrong. Shall I point ut that it was a question? " isn't that churchianity ( your word & not mine )? Thank you for correcting me.
Good bye.
Good bye, brother.

You should consider that anyone raising contentions about something you shared as not an attack on you. Sometimes clarity is needed or further information, but I accept that I have offended you without even trying.

Iron sharpens iron, but everything turned into an argument when I pointed out on what you had shared about the commitment of those churches as something Jesus did not ask His followers to do as if keeping that commitment is the power in how we serve Him when it is not.

It is by the grace of God & His help, trusting Him as the author & finisher of our faith as Head of the Church to minister to us and through us to others. This cannot be done aby any boast in the flesh which I wanted to point out to you, brother, in the beginning from your quote below.

Founded by the Reformed Episcopal Church in 1887, the Reformed Episcopal Seminary educates and trains Christians for lay and ordained ministries in the church of Jesus Christ. We are distinguished by our strong commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, adherence to reformed theology and evangelical beliefs, worship and polity in the Anglican tradition, and an emphasis on pastoral ministry training.
We should be distinguished by our faith in Jesus Christ for that; not by keeping any commitment. FYI
 

John t

Active member
Proverbs 26:
21
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
 

Hark

Active member
Proverbs 26:
21
As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
Thank you for what you believe is reproof towards me, but by contending with me in order to give reproof, and by the scripture, is that not Biblical?

1 Corinthians 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How does one correct heresies? By the scripture.

Are not my contentions in pointing out that which is contrary to scripture about keeping a commitments as if that is the power in living the Christian life in ministry to serve Him & follow Him by, against how Jesus really wants us to follow Him by faith as our Good Shepherd to help us to follow Him & to serve Him by?

Let us say you were among those you were representing and you found a heresy among them. You correct them by the scripture but they become offended as if you are making waves when all this time, they have been bragging about keeping that commitment so that would not be needed.

Can pride keeps them from receiving reproof from you? Or were you not in the Spirit of Christ to point out a heresy so that they may be found abiding in Him and bear more fruit as His disciples? Or is it better not to raise "contention" and just accept that they are keeping their commitment? ( Even though that believer's commitment is a heresy because that speaks of self and the keeping of it only glorifies self )

Do you really think any flesh shall glory in His Presence in Heaven by announcing how he has kept that commitment in his service to the Lord?

Do you not understand that when the elders cast their crowns at His feet, the crowns are really His crowning achievements in them as they are the works of His hands? That crown or crowns are what He has achieved in us since our confidence is in Him to finish what He has started within us.

The religious world can relate to a believer's commitment, but the world cannot relate to the believer's faith in Jesus Christ for all things.

John 3: 30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

2 Corinthians 4:5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.


So the power in ministry is from Christ Jesus; not by religious men keeping that commitment to serve Him & to follow Him by. If they really were being witnesses of Him, they would not be speaking of their commitment where religious men had boasted in, but of their faith in Him.
 
Top