I mean….yeah…right on nc.

Joe

More than what you can say for some folk.

I didn’t need to get ugly. It is my honest opinion that you came back at these guys in a pretty derrogatory way. Not necessary. Yeah it was a question between you and I, but it’s a public forum, and comments are open for other comments, by nature. You yourself said you expected it. Knowing that, there was no reason to be mean about it when it did happen, in a very amicable way, I think.

I on the other hand, will ask, and will continue, as I’m not offended by the conversations here, even when I’m disagreed with heartily. No one is judging anyone’s salvation here. Least I’m not.

Peace to all

Joe

For one thing, I see we have similar views of “Way of the Master” (though I disagree that my question was similar to Ray Comfort’s questions). If you see it as a preference or conviction (even if you believe that it is based on scripture), then I don’t see that we have any disagreement. If, however, you see it (as did SBF) as some sort of absolute, then I would say that you are adding to the gospel…

Another thing I would observe is that for every poster/commenter on this site, there are 20 “lurkers” who read most threads, and there is a likelihood that of those 100’s of folks that some of them will not be familiar with the subject matter at hand and be in the process of forming their own opinions on such things as the RP, so even if your opinion doesn’t change and mine doesn’t change, there is a likelihood that someone has become more informed and/or more solidified in their belief.

To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the RPW, as I thought that the only ones who fought and died on it were A Capella Churches of Christ, and that many of them had finally come around to view it as an extra-biblical hedge to scripture. So, in essence, I did make some progress, though not likely in the direction you might hope.

I see discussions like this much like “Way of the Master.” Stop people on the street. Ask them a question you know they will answer incorrectly, then proceed to brow beat them into a shallow confession of how wrong they are.

Chris, you and I are brothers in Christ, but we are on opposite sides of many theological discussions. It’ll all be ironed out in the end. No need to “step back.” At this point it’s not important to me whether I am misunderstood/understood by you or not. Arguing for the sake of arguing is not productive and that’s all we are doing. Can you honestly say that we have made ANY progress since this thread started?

Just to step back and make sure that I am not misunderstanding you:

Following the convention from this article, would you consider your stance on the non-use of dramatic elements an (A)bsolute, a (C)onviction, or a (P)reference?

This is where I should have started, but I assumed, from your support of the original article, that you considered it an Absolute.

Have I assumed incorrectly?

I’d like to hear from folk like Keith…

Is it wrong to be frustrated and angered by people who absolutize their preferences and then make a whole “ministry” or “job” out of lying and bashing people?

Please don’t try to turn it around and say this site is the same thing…cuz it’s not. So don’t bother.

But I’d be interested in what you think people should do when they hear/read people who disfellowship people they disagree with or, as other writers have, full on question their relationship with God.

Why is it not ok to be angered by that?

The issue is taking “your” way of doing something, finding a public platform, and attacking the spiritual integrity of people who do something different then you.

We don’t do that here.
Nobody here says that if you follow RP then you are a fake Christian. We may vigorously disagree and say we believe you sorely mistaken, but nobody is disfellowshipping people and saying they are the “cult of liberal theology”, etc. etc. etc.

Why can’t people see the difference?

Bottom line:

Why is it wrong to “get going” about something unjust, divisive and sinful in its tactics?

Sometimes I get amazed at what people will find fault with.

this is called dialog. You make a statement, we respond — and visa versa. I know it is a novel idea to the ODM community (only a handful actually allow it). No one is frustrated that we don’t see eye to eye. We are trying to create a conversation so the truth can be known… either side.