Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
They did not "deny the Master who bought them," but added extra conditions to the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
|
Adding extra conditions by definition is to deny the truth. For example, the NT says "whosoever will may drink freely". The minute you add conditions to that then you have denied that truth.
If you say that there are "extra blessings" if you follow my special teaching then you are denying the truth of God's blessing.
If you say that you don't have a proper stand before the Lord without my special teaching then you are denying the truth concerning our stand before the Lord.
If you say that you lose the blessing of the Lord if you leave the LRC then you are creating non biblical conditions on God's blessing and by definition you are denying the truth of the NT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
If we apply this level of judgment to Lee, then we must also apply the same judgment to Lutherans, Pentecostals, Methodists, etc.
Is there anyone left who can then be properly acknowledged as "orthodox."
|
Sure, Peter, Paul, John and the rest of the NT writers.
There was a time when you had to be baptized by a certain group to be able to partake of the Table with that group. That has for the most part been recognized as "a damnable heresy denying even the Lord who bought them". As a result people have backed away from that and become much more inclusive.
The cost for admitting an error is not in any way a valid reason to say there is no error.