Yes they are great, no quite as to get away from being mocked as such, but with the same faith, the love and the enjoyment, almost like a sort of heaven compared with the world.

Thanks Bowman,

I'm not aquainted with that, and thanks for the link. But even in the NT there were times Christians responded to a world that punished faith in Christ with persecution. After all Jesus said "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Lines in the sand isnt about 'how', its about what. The battle is not against flesh and blood but against spiritual powers.

Only one of ten healed leppers came back to praise God. .. but one did. Believers see God working even now. 

Hi Bowman,

Thanks for another prompt response, bless you.

I used the ECUSA as an example, my subsequent post shows the same attitude at work in the CofE. Its good to keep the dialogue open, Fulcrum is invaluable, but the two sides are light and dark. Sure revisionism talks of unity, but shows they intend to oust anyone who disagrees with them. Its a sham.

There is no unity, the two sides are as believers and non-believers in the same church.

So if those who are advocating the church with its official position doesnt have integrity and doesn't deserve to be listened to...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjhExkEh4Hw

One has a split doesn't one?

Bowman,

If one is not persuaded by the Biblical Testimony that splitting is correct in such circumstances, then it is either because one does not believe what the Bible says about the issue, or what the Bible says about splitting over it, or both.

What the NT describes is the believers should expel the non-believers, your post seemed to imply the believers would split, leaving the church as the non-believers.

Looking at the developments with the ECUSA that seems to be the thinking for one side. The ECUSA have not only broken the moratorium, but pretty much ousted those who wanted to stick with the majority even taking them to court. (1 Corinthians 6 again) You know for believers it is evident the ECUSA is acting out exactly what the NT is describing is false and warning against, yet they don’t even recognise it.

If the reason as described in the NT for division is not so deeply important, do you have any things at all that you think is worthy of division?

How do you see a split not taking place where the majority simply couldn’t recognise the minority revisionism?

Another David,

I have to agree the Bible doesn’t says much directly but it is pretty specific when it does. I think it only specifically says God is love once, but would one ignore that based on frequency, or is the Bible not actually describing that throughout anyway?The condemnation of homosexual practice is also throughout the Bible, OT and NT covenants. Besdies, in holistic context the Biblical testimony says a lot about sexual immorality, it has more NT warnings about sexual immorality than instruction to  material help for the poor.

Is this an issue to split? Well yes the NT says so, not least 1 Cor 5 which says those who are wilfully sexually immoral and call themselves brothers should be expelled. We could look to Matthew 18, and the passages about false teaching. The other problem is that is homosexual practice is sin then to deny that is as the NT says a barrier to the Kingdom (ie 1 Cor 6, Rev 22, Romans 1) It is also an example of the truth not being in someone who denies they sin and it makes God out to be a liar (1 John 1)

So crucially the issue is whether homosexual practice is a sin, otherwise just how many passages of scripture is one going to ignore?

If it is then those wilfully practising and even promoting it don’t have the truth or the gospel, are not brother and sisters in Christ even though they call themselves.

But isn’t it clear? Even gay activists rip the relevant pages out of hotel Bibles, they know full well what it says and means. Many, and not just believing Christians, see the arguments against the passages that condemn homosexual practice as nothing more than lying about it. Lying is also a sin.

I doubt if there has ever been such an issue to split over than this one. It potentially can affect eternal life.

I would be interested in your response to these points Another David

I would be impressed if Fulcrum allow this post as factions such as the ECUSA like moratoriums on the subject whilst they go ahead and instigate liturgy for same sex blessings despite a moratorium in the Anglican Communion against it.

But this is very much a line in the sand issue. They call it glory to God whilst much of the rest of the church call it detestable  to God as God's Biblical testimony says. One should decide whether when the world starts forcing the church to accept homosexual relations, these people will side with, and stand with, their fellow members of the church, or the world and society against their fellow church member.

Already I see they are siding with the world.

Davidr,

Well I hope I have, and on review I am sure I have, given the evidence and reasoning for saying where I see your points as irrelevant and faulty.

Best wishes for your holiday.

The Higgs Bosun goes into a Roman Catholic church an the priest says 'sorry we dont want you here'. So the Higgs Bosun says 'well how are you going to have mass then?'

Davidr,

I am happy to debate with you, I was looking forward to your responses to my points yet all you have done is repeat once again that you disagree. Can you refute them? I think not, as I think refuting them is denying what the NT says. Denial is not necessarily ‘mad’ but rejecting it is what the NT instructs Christians to do whether you feel it is courteous or not.

Davidr,

Sorry but your first irrelevant question makes no sense. How could the all the churches mentioned in the NT have access to the NT when their mention comes at various times of writing?

Luke writes a gospel as did Matthew, Mark and John who was an eyewitness. Luke writes in Acts, of Peter, Paul, John etc. Peter affirms Paul’s epistles. Believers do not see contradiction, they see the same spirit throughout the NT.

There were plenty of documents in circulation the odd or two which might have made it into the NT, but mostly obviously rejected for clear reasons that they contain stuff that is not in the same spirit or considered authentic.

I note that it took the church several centuries to decide what was and was not to be in the canon, but what is in the cannon is still the same texts that were written in the 1^st century, so that doesn’t change the point I made and is also irrelevant on your part. .

I think the key here is that the writers are from the community that saw and heard the one who came in truth, and received the spirit. It doesnt matter when during the 1st century they imparted the revelation, its the same revelation of Christ.

And thus the false teaching was then, and still is now, stuff contrary to the NT witness.

Best wishes my friend

Dave,

I dont quite see what you are getting at.

Firstly despite the Romans 1:18 onwards passage being written primarily to the gentile members of the church in Rome, it is referring to all ungodliness, saying people actually have no excuse for not recognising what God has made evident in His creation. So it is saying God has made Himself evident by his creation, atheists take note, by whom He has created, lgbt factions take note, and every other kind of evil. Romans 2 however is primarily directed at the Jewish members who already knew these wicked things from the OT law and prophets. So in summary Romans 1 addresses the licence of gentile thinking and Romans 2 the legalism of Jewish thinking.

But I take issue with your statement "Even if becoming a Christian involves a repentance which involves an acceptance of our own sin and turning to Jesus as our Saviour, .. "

Not even if, it does. Would it have been better to say ‘As becoming’ rather than "Even if"?