Read it and weep!

[Guest]

The Evolution of Calvinism
© Malcolm L. Lavender, Litt.D.
Form Greek Grammar and Syntax Versus Calvinism

Introduction:

On major doctrinal issues Calvinism evolved from Paganism, Gnosticism, and Roman Catholicism.[1] Calvinists and all others holding the doctrines of unconditional salvation, or once saved, always saved, are major enemies of the cross. Although their position is supported neither by experience nor rational explanation, it is paraded as orthodoxy demanding uncritical acceptance. Calvinism is thus an assaulting force, fighting against righteousness in this life. Accordingly, Five Points are used to pillage the gospel. Thus there is another gospel that openly declares that Christ did not die for all; that many are called, but cannot respond; that people are predestinated to damnation by God…even infants. And yet, these aggressors against the Truth, dare claim that the Five Points are “the very gospel itself,” that “the gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.” The Reformation, of the Luther/Calvin kind, gave the church a heavy dose of Roman Catholicism: through Anselm’s[2] penal atonement; and through Augustine’s[3] predestination and the sinning religion.

The propagation and defense of the truth against this apostasy has been very weak at best. Arminians and Wesleyans stand awe-struck and small-mouthed before this great giant of apostasy. They show some disagreement while carefully suppressing the full truth!

The Calvinistic doctrine of sin finds its roots in Paganism and Gnosticism, not the Scriptures. The likeness of both Calvinists and Gnostics will be compared. The Gnostics were a religious movement that evidently borrowed from both pagan philosophy and Christianity, and so apostate. Doubtlessly, ideas and concepts were borrowed from many sources and became Gnostic when used in the context of their system. The Gnostic system was a fusion of Christianity and Greek philosophy.

On teachings that are briefly considered below, it will be shown that Calvinism is an evolving,[4] sinister system in opposition to the gospel of Christ. Calvinistic teachings on sin, election, etc., have no parent type in Scripture, but the evident relationship to Paganism and Gnosticism, etc., cannot be denied by fact.

This discussion is simply to give a few insights into the Ancestry of the system called Calvinism; and hence, the reason why the Posterity, Calvinists, think these barbaric thoughts about God damning most people, etc. Thus their origin and evolvement helps to identify who they really are today and why they think as they do. Such a system could only yield a departure from the faith with respect to the Atonement, and salvation matters; the result is thus expected, considering the source. It is hoped, therefore, that these remarks will inspire further study along this line and help break the present silence among so many.

The Scriptures, Pagans, Gnostics, and Calvinists on Sin
The Scriptures on Sin:

The Apostle John wrote a polemic against the Gnostics and their views on sin, etc., in 1 John.

The Apostle states, on the matter of sin:

3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. [So, the Incarnation of Christ is evidence that earthbound believers can be delivered from sin in the here and now by Christ, their Example.]

3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil… For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin….

3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God….

From these Scriptures it is evident that the proof of one being in Christ is his not sinning—“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not.” See my discussion at 1 John 1:8...In-depth Discussion, page 356. We have quite an extensive treatment there, which will show the position of Calvinists and others on sin with respect to this Epistle. Numerous sources are discussed—Condition of John’s readers; study Bibles; Commentaries, etc.

You can go to most any commentary and see how the passages that teach deliverance from sin in this life are explained away. Essentially, the Christian (?) world agree with the Gnostics that we cannot be free from sin and that sin does not separate one from God, as it used to in Eden when man sinned. They are in Christ, they say.

The Calvinistic statements in defense of sin in the here and now, as that of others, are discussed at 1 John.

We here simply show the similarity between the Gnostics and Calvinists on the sin issue. Reformation and Reformed systems, as with all forms of the “sinning Christian,” have tenets of Gnosticism. The Gnostic believes that sinlessness can only be experienced by pure spirit; Calvinists believe that one cannot be free from sin while in the body, only after death. The Gnostic believes that the spirit is not contaminated, though the body was inherently sinful. Calvinists believe that one can be sinful and accounted holy at the same time. So, both for the Gnostic and Calvinist, Christianity and sin are possible at the same time, in the same life; and there is no deliverance while in the body.

In the process of this discussion it will be seen that the Pagans, Gnostics, and Calvinists are in disagreement with the Scriptures on the sin issue; but while in disagreement with the Scriptures, agreement among them will be clear.

The Pagans on Sin:

The Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus said:

“How, then: is it possible to be sinless? It is impossible; but this is possible, to strive not to sin.”[5]

The Calvinists agree with Epictetus, but see how they disagree with the Apostle John at 1 John 1:8...In-depth Discussion.

Earlier the Greek philosopher, Plato, had articulated these words:

“But having become good, to remain in a good state and be good, is not possible, and is not granted to man. God only has this blessing; but man cannot help being bad when the force of circumstances overpowers him.” [6]

Note the corresponding kinship between Greek philosophy, Gnosticism, and false Christianity—Calvinism—that all despair of any hope for deliverance from sin while in the body. Later, we will hear the outbreak of hopelessness in what we call the Christian Church as the advocates of the “sinning Christian” speak in behalf of sin.

The Gnostics on Sin and Perseverance:

Irenaeus, in Irenaeus Against Heresies, speaking of Gnosticism, says:

“2. …. But as to themselves, they hold that they shall be entirely and undoubtedly saved, not by means of conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature. For, just as it is impossible that material substance should partake of salvation (since, indeed, they maintain that it is incapable of receiving it), so again it is impossible that spiritual substance (by which they mean themselves) should ever come under the power of corruption, whatever the sort of actions in which they indulged. For even as gold, when submersed in filth, loses not on that account its beauty, but retains its own native qualities, the filth having no power to injure the gold, so they affirm that they cannot in any measure suffer hurt, or lose their spiritual substance, whatever the material actions in which they may be involved.

“3. Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the ‘most perfect’ among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that ‘they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God….’ Some of them, moreover, are in the habit of defiling those women to whom they have taught the above doctrine, as has frequently been confessed by those women who have been led astray by certain of them, on their returning to the Church of God, and acknowledging this along with the rest of their errors. Others of them, too, openly and without a blush, having become passionately attached to certain women, seduce them away from their husbands, and contract marriages of their own with them. Others of them, again, who pretend at first to live in all modesty with them as with sisters, have in course of time been revealed in their true colors, when the sister has been found with child by her [pretended] brother.

“4. And committing many other abominations and impieties, they run us down (who from the fear of God guard against sinning even in thought or word) as utterly contemptible and ignorant persons, while they highly exalt themselves, and claim to be perfect, and the elect seed….”[7]

…they run us down: This sounds like the Calvinists in their condemnation of Christian perfection as “perfectionism.”

Jerome, Augustine, and the Pope Fought Jovinian[8]

Rome Against Truth:

The harlot church thus fought the truth advocated by Jovinian; so does the daughters of the harlot church of today, Calvinists and others.

But we note here that not all people, then or now, can be silenced with respect to the truth. We call attention to Jovinian:

“There arose another voice of dissent on the ecclesiastical scene who did not travel with the crowd—Jovinian by name (350?-405). This great worthy of righteousness was known by some as an unorthodox monk or a heretic; others called him ‘the last bright witness of first century Christianity and the first torch-bearer of the Reformation.’ Dr. Harnack, that great historian of Christian doctrine, says of Jovinian:

“‘His main positions were as follows:—1. The natural man is in the state of sin. Even the slightest sin separates from God and exposes to damnation. . . . 3. Regeneration is the state in which Christ is in us, and we are in Christ; there are no degrees in it, for this personal relationship either does or does not exist. Where it does, there is righteousness. . . . 8. To him, too, the truth applies that there are no small and great sins, but that the heart is either with God or the devil. 9. Those who are baptized in Christ, and cling to Him with confident faith, form the one, true Church.’” [9]

“Finally, Jovinian’s position against the ‘sinning Christian’ drew the resistance of the great theologians of his time. Augustine and Jerome wrote against him; both Ambrose and the Pope called synods against him for his condemnation.

“Thus, apostasy rolls on to deeper, darker falsehood!”[10]

The Calvinists on Sin and Perseverance:

Calvin denies, as do all Calvinists, the solemn truth that sin brings death and separation from God to the believer. He says:

“. . . the sins of believers are venial [not causing death of the soul], not because they are not deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, ‘there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;’ because they are not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon.”[11]

So, believers are the only persons on the planet who can sin with impunity? Nonsense!

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer says:

“Through the present priestly advocacy of Christ in Heaven there is absolute safety and security for the Father’s child even while he is sinning.” [12]

Steele and Thomas say:

“…. True believers do fall into temptations, and they do commit grievous sins, but these sins do not cause them to lose their salvation or separate them from Christ.”[13]

The Gnostics and Calvinists on Grace
The Gnostics on Grace:

Hippolytus, in his Refutation of all Heresies, says:

“For (they would have us believe) that they are not overcome by the supposed vice, for that they have been redeemed….and that they do whatsoever they please, as persons free; for they allege that they are saved by grace. For that there is no reason for punishment, even though one shall act wickedly; for such a one is not wicked by nature, but by enactment.”[14]

The Calvinists on Grace:

Muller says:

“Since justification is viewed by the Protestant orthodox as a counting righteous rather than a making righteous, it rests not merely on the merit of Christ, but upon the union of the believer with Christ by grace through faith. An individual is counted righteous because he is in Christo, in Christ, covered as it were by the righteousness of Christ. . . .

“Thus sinners are considered positively righteous by the impu­ta­tion of the active obedi­ence of Christ.”[15]

The Gnostics and Calvinists on Elect
The Gnostics on Elect:

Clement says:

“These quotations I have adduced in reproof of the Basilidians [Gnostics], who do not live rightly, either as having power (exousian) to sin because of their perfection, or as being altogether assured by nature of future salvation, although they sin now, because they are by dignity of nature the elect.”[16]

The Calvinists on Elect:

Muller says:

“Only the elect are therefore effectively called.”[17]

Steele and Thomas make the following observation:

“The doctrine of election declares that God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals from among the fallen members of Adam’s race to be the objects of His undeserved favor. These, and these only, He purposed to save…. He chose to save some and exclude others.[18]

The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

“I. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

“II. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election….

“III. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of the corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins….”[19]

Doctrines of Calvinism on Sin, not Christian, But Pagan and Gnostic

The evidence speaks for itself! Calvinism is a Gnostic mutant, mutating from the “Christian heresy” known as Gnosticism. Accordingly, there is no parent type of the Calvinistic “sinning Christian,” election, predestination, or effectual calling to be found in the Scriptures. The issues on sin, etc., are not an in-house disagreement among evangelicals. It is Christians in disagreement with professed Christians, Calvinists, and others, on doctrines of sin that have Gnostic and pagan tenets. And there can never be agreement with this enemy of the cross. Let me be clear on the matter: Calvinism is a mixture of pagan philosophy and Gnosticism on the sin issue, and therefore not Christian. And Christians must so regard Calvinism as not being Christian. Christians that may be in Calvinistic circles that hold the doctrine as a concept, but deny it as a practice must come out of this harlot system!

To Follow The Evolutionary Process Go to Origen:
(Not Further Discussed in This Book)

All references to page # 's are to the book


Theological Note: The Dark Wonders of Calvinism

Theological Note: The Gospel Pillaged By Five Points

Theological Note: Calvinist Affirm Your Position

Chart on Sin Brings Death


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Calvinism evolved through Roman Catholicism on important doctrinal issues: the atonement, sinning religion, and predestination.

[2] See page 26.

[3] For excellent insights on Augustine and his apostasy see: Daniel D. Corner, The Believer’s Conditional Security, Evangelical Outreach, P. O. Box 265, Washington, PA 15301-0265, pp. 24-34 (E-mail: gospel@voicenet.com). This is a powerful work against Calvinism, bringing to light its present day advocates as well as those of the past.

Steele and Thomas say: “For example, the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position have been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century” (The Five Points of Calvinism, page 19).

[4] Five Point Calvinism has teachings characteristic of Paganism, Gnosticism, and Roman Catholicism; further, evidently the evolutionary process of this error continues to evolve into what is now being popularized as moderate Calvinism. In this evolvement process over the millenniums some of the teachings of the preceding groups, Pagans, Gnostics, Roman Catholicism, are dropped, forming Five Point Calvinism; and now some moderates have dropped enough of the Five Points to make the lie more acceptable. But do not forget, it is a sure ticket to hell whether one lives by one or Five Points.

[5] Epictetus, iv., 12, 19, cited by Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 Vols., Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946, Vol. 2., p. 319. Emphasis added for this article.

[6] Plato, Protagoras, 344, cited by Ibid. Emphasis added for this article.

[7] Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 1, Chap. VI, 2, 3.

[8] “JOVINIAN (d. c. 405), an unorthodox monk, condemned by synods at Rome (under *Siricius) and at Milan (under *St. Ambrose in 393). He denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating. He also attacked the tendency to associate differences of reward in heaven with different earthly states (virgins, widows, wives; monks, priests, laymen), and shared the disbelief of *Helvidius in the perpetual virginity of *Mary. *Jerome (Adversus Jovinianum, i-ii, A.D. 392) and *Augustine (in De bono conjugali and De sancta virginitate, A.D. 401) both wrote against him” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. Jovinian). An asterisk (*) preceding a word indicates a relevant article in the Dictionary under that (or a closely similar) heading.

[9] Adolph Harnack, Vol. 5., History of Dogma, pp. 57-58.

[10] Malcolm L. Lavender, The Fallacy of the “Sinning Christian,” pp. 10-11.

[11] Institutes, (Trans.: J. A.) 3.4.28; brackets added. But see Ezekiel 18:24-28 where it is clearly stated that sin brings death, and that to do righteously is to live. See The Fallacy of the “Sinning Christian,” Appendix C, p. 241.

[12] Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1953, p. 54, cited by Robert Shank, Life in the Son, p. 133.

[13] David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended, Documented, Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, N.J., p. 56.

[14] Hippolytus, The Refutation of all Heresies, Book 6, Chap. 14.

[15] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, pp. 162-163; emphasis added.

[16] Clement Strom. III. i. Emphasis added.

[17] Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, p. 329, s.v. vocatio: calling.

[18] David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Defined, Defended, Documented, p. 30; emphasis added.

[19] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XVII, Of the Perseverance of the Saints. Note in the Calvinistic system how the terms, elect, effectual call, perseverance, predestination, etc., all hang together.

[Guest]

Weep? I thought the Gospel message was supposed to produce joy.

No matter what your argument might be, are you sure you have the right approach?

Damon

[Guest]

Weep? I thought the Gospel message was supposed to produce joy.

No matter what your argument might be, are you sure you have the right approach?

Damon

You’re ignoring the Question at hand, soft voice, loud voice, you were to strong, and you were to soft. The Word is the Word. Strong or Willing Christians see though the flesh of man and are humbled by the truth of GOD. This isn't about winning an argument its about the Truth, for all of us. Don't just pick at things because you are offended. We don’t live in relationships with one-liners. Have a discussion worth talking about. This is about winning souls not about personal Pride.

[Guest]

CFC,

I have to admit that I didn't quite catch your meaning in that last post. Were you speaking about people generally, or about Damon in particular. If the latter, I think you were unfair to him, since nothing in his response justified his being villified. Could you clarify your meaning?

[Guest]

Weep: weep bitter tears of remorse.Romans 12:15 - Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Weep does not just contain one emotion but it is produced by many, the one I was calling for is the one of joy through repentance, a willing full act from knowing one was wrong and has now found the truth.

Damon said: “No matter what your argument might be, are you sure you have the right approach?”

Is it easier to see the speck in my eye Damon & Aussie Pentecostal? Do you have a suggestion or just judgment call?
I do not see a suggestion in your message! This message is not meant to be personally combative but it seems that some would like to make it so. What approach do you suggest Damon?
Where am I wrong Damon? If I am the one in the ditch, then do you point and say he is in the ditch and pass bye do you gather a crowd of on lookers and say look he is in the ditch and offer no help. James 2: 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Thus Steve I was not vilifying Damon on a mute point but one of unanswerable questions. I cannot
Say Damon has personal pride for I do not know him that well, this is for people in general that it only applies to. I still say thou… Quote

You’re ignoring the Question at hand, soft voice, loud voice, you were too strong, and you were too soft. The Word is the Word. Strong or Willing Christians see though the flesh of man and are humbled by the truth of GOD. This isn't about winning an argument its about the Truth, for all of us. Don't just pick at things because you or we are offended. We don’t live in relationships with one-liners. Have a discussion worth talking about. This is about winning souls not about personal Pride.

Thank you and God Bless you All

[Guest]

*sighs*

There's more to an issue than just being intellectually "right." That seems to be your entire focus, and I think it's misplaced. Are we supposed to "know them [Christians] by their fruits" or know them by their doctrines?

I'm saying this because I used to be just as much of an intellectual as you appear to be right now. When all is said and done, how effective has your intellectual approach been to people you've talked to or in posts you've made on forums like this one? Has anyone changed their minds based on your arguments?

I respectfully submit that another approach would work much better. Focus on issues of the heart over issues of doctrine. Doctrinal issues will get sorted out when it's appropriate. Also, if your concern was only to share your position and try to get discussion going, why did you need to come across as being intellectually superior to everyone here? That's only going to push people away.

Damon

[Guest]

3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work?which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers?and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

The connection is clear. "contrary to sound doctrine" and "conforms to the glorious gospel" The gospel and sound doctrine are in many ways one in the same

1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Nobody will be saved because of your "heart" or "Zeal"

your heart may convince them to open up there own, but if you present a FALSE GOSPEL or a GOSPEL CONTRARY TO THAT WHICH PAUL LAID OUT. then they shall not recieve the salvation of Jesus Christ.

Paul was very easy going on issues of the heart/mannerism/attitude when it came to presenting the truth of Christ. A good example of this is found in phil 1:15

15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.[c] 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

look at him, he hardly cares. "what does it matter" But.. when it comes to people distorting it. If people begin to try to mess with the objectivity of the sound DOCTRINE.

gal 1:8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

So.. Proper doctrine is a signifigant factor in preserving the objectivity of the gospel which brings salvation.

Second. We are commanded to rebuke and oppose anyone who teaches false doctrine.


Titus 1:9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

Third. Paul on many instances claims the SOLE reason he was on trial was defence and confirmation of the gospel. and it was for that which he suffered "I am on stand for the gospel".

Doctrine and Main tenets of the faith are indesputable. We must preserve them both and dispute/rebuke/exhort using SCRIPTURE [2 tim 3:16]

Zeal and "heart" will hardly save anybody.

Romans 10

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

They had plenty of zeal to testify on Christ but lacked the knowledge of the true gospel.

I agree we must present the Gospel in Love if it is to be accepted but the idea that "lets despute sound doctrine later" is not in accordance with what God has said. God takes sound doctrine very seriously and if more people would establish such we would not have people like joyce meyer and other false teachers and false prophets.

intellectual superiority is by know means a profit to anybody. 2 cor 5:13 says "if we are out of our minds it is for Gods sake. if we our right in our minds it is for your sake" God loves the sillyness of joy but he also loves the ability to effectively communicate the truth.

but paul also said

1 Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. [ Or Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men]

What does this mean?

It means we must destroy human wisdom [for Gods foolishness is wiser than mans wisdom] and we must rely on Gods wisdom that he gives so generously [james 1:5] to teach.

Not about winning an arguement but about winning a soul.

but we must not get too caught up in that. If our ultimate purpose is to win souls than our approach must be with sound doctine otherwords our "zeal" is "meaningless" as you see.

I love you and I hope I may have done some good.

Me being finite i'm sure i might be wrong in alot of instances please let me know.

Take care!

Your 18 year old silly teenager, Steven

[Guest]

Steven, you're misunderstanding me. First of all, there's a big difference between sorting out doctrinal issues "later" versus "when it's appropriate" which I what I had said. If it's appropriate now, then by all means sort them out now. Preach the Word in season, as it were.

Secondly, read 1 Corinthians 13. Love is greater than all knowledge, all faith, etc. Also, in the very passage you quoted from you'll find exactly what I've been saying: "The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." If sound doctrine comes from envy, rivalry, pride in one's intellectual aptitude, or from any other source other than love, it will be much less effective than if it did come from love. Also, it might end up offending those who are weak in the faith, instead of strengthening them. (See Matthew 18:4-7.)

That's why it's so important to preach the Truth in love.

Damon

[Guest]

The world does not revolve around you Damon and who you are, our think you are, it is not about your global thinking, for the how world turns “ The world according to Damon” its about the WORD black and white not whats in-between the lines. It seems like you have given in to the whimpers of the world and to answer your question yes people do change there minds when I speak, I am not saying its always pleasant but it’s the truth they see it for what it is, its not about me it’s about Gods will and what he says. These are Christians I am talking about. Not new believer or non believers, different tone there, this is about doctrine when its discussed amongst Christians. If you want simple conversation you could go to a forum like cooking or cake decorating I am not diminishing that, but this forum is about doctrine. Paul admonished and rebuke people in his epistles time after time with a strong voice and most importantly Jesus did as well at one time Jesus had thousands of disciples and in one day lost all but 12 if you were there you could of told him to tone it down as well.

Damon the world was not built for you and only your ways of thinking. I cannot live by my opinion but by the living bread from the Father Above

Damon give me an example of a Heart issue, please.

I know that this conversation seems heated this is not my intension.

But I am still looking for Godly advise not what suit I should were to church on Sunday and what ever I choose to wear someone will have a problem with my choice it my not look good to them or offend them I will never please all of the people in my everyday pursuits. Also these people who look for the feely touchy parts of life don’t you think they are missing something?

Love you Damon

[Guest]

I must confess, I am confused. Why is Damon being picked on here? All I heard him says was, "Are you sure you are taking the right approach," and now he is accused of thinking the whole world revolves around him? What's up with that?

This forum allows for any brother or sister to express their convictions for review and criticism. However, the criticisms should not be vitriolic or contemptuous. Damon has made many worthwhile contributions to this forum. Why did his innocuous remark (above) get him so much criticism? I did not see any pride or judgmentalism in his comment? Am I missing something?