Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And that is the crux of the matter. You call churches sects because they are not your group and do not follow your doctrines.
You therefore take the word at is most simplistic. Like taking the word heresy at its most simplistic. I"f you disagree with me you are a heretic."
Just throwing your words around like you do makes it clear that you are not able to actually discuss anything. You spout your garbage, declare that it is true, and ignore everything else.
You use non-scripture to actually support your positions. It is hard to call your use of scripture as much more than litter because there is often a lot of it, but it does not truly support anything you are talking about. Just has some words that you declare mean more or other than what is clearly there and move on as if your point is made and accepted.
It is hard to see scripture abused so constantly. And harder to accept that the ones doing it are trying to convince everyone else that they are the only right ones around.
If you think I am trying to drive you away, you are wrong. I am trying to shock you into some even slight realization that your closed system needs review from the inside. The way you support (or more truly fail to support) your positions is evidence that you have no idea what is being said. You repeat the pre-packaged drivel with gusto but cannot actually discuss what it says or how it is supported. Just say it is so.
|
I call them sects because they do not fit what the bible says about churches:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/denominations
The Catholic encyclopedia also calls and considers them to be sects. history can be useful sometimes!
The continued lack of use of scripture by you on this topic to either refute what I say, or present your own view is noticeable. And yes, scripture should be accompanied by non-scripture like theological resources and bible commentaries. It was you people who said Witness Lee was not a theologian. But you don't use the theologians yourselves.