What should be done with different divisions?

[achilles12604]

While recently debating with Aqua, I have run into something new for me. I am not used to debating against other christian viewpoints. This is totally wierd and I am having trouble deciding if it is worse (ethically, morally, spiritually) to point out the errors in Christian cult thinking (IE LDS, JW, etc) or to just let their own doctrines slide so long as they follow Jesus as a key focus.

What do you all think? Should all people who claim Jesus as Lord be one the same "side" in debating while ignoring the differences in theology?

LDS is especially confusing for me because I think the Book of Mormon is an invented document which one man used to create a sideboat for Christianity which he could lead. However, they also claim to believe in Jesus as Lord. On the other hand they also hold that Jesus death only purified us from the original sin and we need to do works to earn salvation from all the sins we are doing now.

I am so confused. What do you all think?

[Aqualung]

While recently debating with Aqua, I have run into something new for me. I am not used to debating against other christian viewpoints. This is totally wierd and I am having trouble deciding if it is worse (ethically, morally, spiritually) to point out the errors in Christian cult thinking (IE LDS, JW, etc) or to just let their own doctrines slide so long as they follow Jesus as a key focus.

What did Jesus himself say? He who is not against me is with me. Are different denomations trying to work against Christ? I don't think so. Paul said that christians should meet together often until they become perfected in the faith. This leads me to believe that most, dare I say all, christians are not perfect. Not all of their doctrines are perfect. Everybody must have SOMETHING they aren't right on. Does that mean they're not Christians? I don't think so. Remember the guy in the NT who was casting out devils in the name of Christ? The desciples reprimanded him and said that only THEY were allowed to do that. But Christ said that the man was allowed to, as well. He didn't ask if the man believed in the trinity, or believed that the Bible was not corrupted at all, or whatever. The only thing he cared about was that they were doing good works in the name of Christ.

I guess you can come to whatever conclusion you want about that. I'll tell you what I do, though. I don't try to prove that anybody isn't a christian simply because they believe differently than me. If people will ask, I will tell them what I believe (including telling them that praying about it is a good way to figure out if things are true). I try to give them the information they need to make an educated discision (which sometimes includes pointing out areas in which they are wrong about my beliefs). I try to back up my beliefs with Biblical evidence. But I don't try to prove that anybody else is wrong. I don't try to "prove" that I am right. I can't. It's impossible for any person to prove faith to another. That's for the Holy Spirit to do, not me.

On the other hand they also hold that Jesus death only purified us from the original sin and we need to do works to earn salvation from all the sins we are doing now.

Well, at the risk of side tracking the discussion, that's not true. Mormons don't beleive in original sin. They believe that faith is justified by works, but that, in the end, they are only purified by Jesus's death through their faith.

[otseng]

Should all people who claim Jesus as Lord be one the same "side" in debating while ignoring the differences in theology?

If someone accepts Jesus as his/her Savior, that's good enough for me, regardless of their theology.

We're all going to have differences in theology, even for those that go to the same church. But as long as we present the truth in love to others, I see no problems in debating those on the same "side". (And even debating those on the other side, the same principle would be a good idea.)

It is easy to see the faults of others from the outside and often blind to our faults from within. So, though there are times to remove the speck from others, we shouldn't ignore spending time removing the log from ourselves.

We shouldn't let our nuances of theology divide Christians. Sure, some people hold to weird teachings, but that doesn't mean that everything else they believe is wrong. We can even learn some things or two from the "cults". I believe the evangelical church can learn from the dedication of the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I even used to be a member of a group that was considered to be a cult. But I grew more spiritually during that time than any other time since. I saw more people excited about God than the boring (but theologically correct) churches around. One of my friends and I half jokingly say, "I wish we could join a cult again where there's at least some excitement."

[achilles12604]

Should all people who claim Jesus as Lord be one the same "side" in debating while ignoring the differences in theology?

If someone accepts Jesus as his/her Savior, that's good enough for me, regardless of their theology.

We're all going to have differences in theology, even for those that go to the same church. But as long as we present the truth in love to others, I see no problems in debating those on the same "side". (And even debating those on the other side, the same principle would be a good idea.)

It is easy to see the faults of others from the outside and often blind to our faults from within. So, though there are times to remove the speck from others, we shouldn't ignore spending time removing the log from ourselves.

We shouldn't let our nuances of theology divide Christians. Sure, some people hold to weird teachings, but that doesn't mean that everything else they believe is wrong. We can even learn some things or two from the "cults". I believe the evangelical church can learn from the dedication of the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. I even used to be a member of a group that was considered to be a cult. But I grew more spiritually during that time than any other time since. I saw more people excited about God than the boring (but theologically correct) churches around. One of my friends and I half jokingly say, "I wish we could join a cult again where there's at least some excitement."

I agree that following Jesus is ultimatly the only thing that matters. I have been giving this a LOT of thought since last night. It has caused me more than average stress concerning topics on this forum.

I think after discussing with my family and friends, that it was not the LDS in general that I was argueing so strongly against. What caught my attention was Aqua's attack on the Bible.

Aqua, you attacked the validity of the bible. You also spread a lot of incorrect facts concerning the archeology of the New Testament and less so but still a little incorrect information about the Old Testament.

I felt like your grip was that if the Book of Mormon didn't have anything supporting it, then nothing could have support. But this is just not so, and I will battle ANYONE including fellow christians, who say it is.

My self-appointed task is not to convert. It is not to say I am right and you are wrong. My task is to find the best and most accurate information I can. If you disgree on the validity of the facts then by all means lets have it out in the forum. But I will not sit there and allow incorrect information to be spread by anyone, including other christians. . . . Especially other christians.

As a side note, while I do not agree with some of your doctrines, I think you hld view different then most of the other Mormons I hve talked with and most of the Mormon sites. I will never attack you on your faith. I will question you on it however, and in reality this is a good thing for you because you will learn the facts and then be able to determine what views you wish to hold to and then be able to defend them. This is why I engage the atheists all the time. They do their best to rip my faith apart, but really in the long run, it will become stronger and I will know more facts surrounding it. During the course of this I have had to give up several views because here simply was no evidence for them and the athiests had tremendous evidence against them. But no matter there. This is simply pruning and I welcome it as it makes me stronger.

Bottom line . . .

1) I never tried and never will try to attack you personally about your faith. If you felt that I did then I am sorry from my inner most being.

2) I will also never allow you to say things which I have found to be untrue based on facts, without challenging you on these points. To allow misinformation to spread is not right even under the false guise of "tolerance".

[otseng]

Bottom line . . .

1) I never tried and never will try to attack you personally about your faith. If you felt that I did then I am sorry from my inner most being.

2) I will also never allow you to say things which I have found to be untrue based on facts, without challenging you on these points. To allow misinformation to spread is not right even under the false guise of "tolerance".

Very good conclusions. Thanks for sharing.