Some churches try to increase the impact of doctrinal statements on people’s lives by requiring their teenagers and potential members to memorize the doctrinal statement, or at least read it as part of every Sunday church service. The usual result of this practice, however, is that while a doctrinal statement can be memorized and recited, it rarely leads to real life change. The words can be faithfully spoken while the mind wanders to problems at work, what Mrs. Pilsnick is wearing in church today, and who is going to win the NFL game.
A better practice than memorizing and reciting the creeds might be taking people out into the community to love and serve others. In this way, they will truly learn about the truth of Scripture, the significance of death and resurrection, the importance of sanctification and holiness, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. A better practice than catechism and creedal recitation might be service in a community housing project or clearing trash from underneath the bridge where homeless people sleep.
Even among those who can memorize and recite the creed, does it really make that much difference in their lives? Have they really understood the gospel? If one believes all the right things, and can sign on the dotted line of the best doctrinal statements that the church has ever written, but their life is full of hatred, greed, and selfishness, I would argue that while they may have eternal life, and while they may believe some good truths from the gospel, they really have not understood the most essential parts of the gospel.
Yet the way many of our churches are structured today, a person can sign on the dotted line of their church doctrinal statement, and as long as they attend church regularly and put some money in the plate as it passes by, they can usually be a “member in good standing” even if their personal behavior follows more closely that of Judas Iscariot than to Jesus Christ.
We have all known people who believe all the right things, but are some of the most hateful and hurtful people you ever want to be around. They are porcupine Christians: they have lots of good points, but they stick anybody who gets too close. Have such Christians really understood the gospel? I think not. They may have believed some of the essential truths of the gospel, but they have not understood the central focus and point of the gospel, which is that as believers in Jesus, we must also follow Him into a life of love and service to others.
Therefore, the gospel cannot be summarized in a doctrinal statement because statements of belief usually do not also contain statements of behavior, and even if they did, such “lists” soon become legalistic rules, which undermines the gospel even further.
So in general, doctrinal statements lead people to think that if they just believe the right things, and sign on the dotted line, then they can live any way they want. In such a way, doctrinal statements have gutted the gospel of any real importance or significance in our lives.
And I would argue that belief that does not lead to following Jesus, including loving our neighbors as ourselves, is no belief at all. It is knowledge, memorized information, but not belief. It’s the idea that knowing the right information is all that’s needed. Isn’t that basically a rehash of Gnosticism?
Interesting thought. Especially the equation with Gnosticism. Could it be that Christendom has swallowed Gnosticism hook, line, and sinker?
Now that would be an interesting study!
Thanks, Jeremy! I appreciate your emphasis on “show” Jesus rather than just “speak” Jesus. One of my favorite verses in all of Scripture is John 1:14. The Message renders the first part this way, “The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood.” What an amazing discription of who Jesus is and why He came! He loved people where He found them, in all of their mess and unworthiness. Yet we struggle so much to be that kind of people. I wonder, at times, if this idea is so difficult for American Christians to understand because we tend toward the Greek way of looking at philosophy. We want to know that we are right in our ideas and that knowing the right things is enough to give our message credibility. We make grand statements of belief to show our knowledge. In comparison, the Jews really had very little concept of knowledge for the sake of right knowledge. The only true knowledge was that which was applied. They would have understood Jesus’s life and teachings as one and the same. We would live differently if we applied the same concept.
I guess I say all that to say this, I am of the opinion that how we demonstrate Jesus in our day to day lives to those in our “neighborhood” is the only thing that earns us the right to speak Jesus into their lives. In our church, we have adopted the mission statement–“We are a community of the Spirit on God’s mission to be the grace-empowered, grace-bearing “hands and feet” of Jesus to each other and to our world.” We do have a long Doctrinal Statement on our website, but this short mission statement is the one that is continually put before us.
Charity,
I think you are right. Speaking the truth of the Gospel is important, but in our culture (and in most cultures), people really don’t care what you have to say until they know that you actually care for them. And that takes lots of time.
It may seem quicker to go stand on a street corner and pass out tracts or shout into a bullhorn, but in the end, I think such practices are counterproductive, and accomplish more harm than good.
That has been my experience.
Jeremy:
I learned an interesting truth this past Sunday that I thought appropriate to the discussion here. (I am sure it is not new to you). The same root word is used in Hebrews 13:1 AND 2. Although translators have always used “love” when speaking of our “brothers” in v. 1, but “hospitality” for “strangers” in v. 2. The roots are the same. I guess I found the idea that our love for those who are not our brothers or those who are not known to us should be the same as our love toward those we consider kindreds a convicting idea. The same idea is paralled in Luke 6:32-35 where the emphasis is on loving our enemies and those who can not return the favor.
P.S. I agree that passing out tracts can do more harm than good. We have a group here that leaves tracts laying around that look like money folded up. They look quite real, but when you open them up they tell you a Gospel message. This is very painful for my friends in the homeless community, where even a dollar found on the ground can buy a cup of coffee and a chance to be warm for a few minutes. The result is that Christians are seen as pretty heartless.
I have picked up one of those fake ads before. The best was when I was a server in a restaurant, and someone left me one of these fake bills which turned out to be just a tract for “Eternal life! Something way more valuable than money!”
There was no other tip. Just the tract. Unbelievable.
That sucks. Even in the days when I was drinking the koolaid, I would leave a large REAL tip with propaganda….
The ancient Greeks actually wrote a lot about treating your neighbors right. It was the Jews who were having trouble with these ideas in Jesus day. The Greeks were much more welcoming to Jesus and Christianity than the Jews ever were.
True enough, Kirk. My point was simply that those who heard Jesus understood that He was calling them to a lifestyle in keeping with His message and example not just to embrace the “rightness” of His teaching. They understood that to follow Jesus meant a sacrifice of themselves in the process. I guess I think the sacrifice piece often gets lost in the debate over correct doctrine. Just my observation.
And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, “What’s this I’m hearing about a human sacrifice for your sins!? What kind of Neanderthal idea is that!!? What are we, living in the Stone Age!!? Blood sacrifice!!!!!! Are you insane!!? Have you lost your minds!!!?”
And his disciples responded, “Umm, what kind of messiah are you?”
Well… the disciples certainly wondered what kind of Messiah Jesus was.
But as for the blood sacrifice, that seemed to be Jesus’ idea, and when He brought it up, the disciples said, “Ummm, what kind of messiah are you?” (cf. Matt 16:21-23).
I’m afraid your right about the creeds, The Lords prayer and sometimes the ten commandments plus the rest of the liturgy, we speak out as fast as possible so we can get home a bit earlier, or get to talking the latest bit of juicy gossip as we sit and drink coffee after the service in our plush cafe areas.
It goes right over our heads without touching our hearts and minds.
We come in as a blank page and leave the same way, untouched by Godly hands.
I have friends who have not been to Church for years because they used to come out worse than when they went in.
I still go to all three services 9.30, 11.15 and the 7pm, I here the same sermon three times, why, well eventually I might get it, sometimes I do. in spite of what I have just said, I love Church, the worship, prayers, readings, sermon, fellowship and in spite of their imperfections, I know my God is there cheering us on with His angels. There is always room for improvement, and it’s up to us all to encourage and challenge our negativity.
Look back 12 months and you will see an improvement no matter how small. To me Church is worth the effort, Jesus thought so, so should we. Your brother in Christ Clive X
Clive,
Are you on staff at your church? Why go to two morning services? I’m just curious.
I love the church too, in all of its forms. I just think there might be a way for some people who have become disillusioned with the singing, sermon, and smile format to see that they can be the church in the community. This is just another form of the church doing her thing.
“…taking people out into the community to love and serve others. In this way, they will truly learn about the truth of Scripture, the significance of death and resurrection, the importance of sanctification and holiness, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit…service in a community housing project or clearing trash from underneath the bridge where homeless people sleep.”
How is serving the enemies of Christ going to “truly” teach believers anything about the Word of God? Where do you read in the Bible that we are supposed to become slaves of the godless? Where does it say to do anything but preach to them?
Not only have you misunderstood the Parable of the Good Samaritan but I think your grasp on the Gospel has slipped. You ever heard the term “eisegesis”, bro?
Martus,
Your comment lacks love, which is revealing…
If you have not seen that the entire Scripture is about loving God and loving others, becoming their servants and slaves, even to those whom you consider the “enemies of Christ” (who is that, by the way? The poor people in the housing project or the homeless sleeping under the bridge?), then there is not much I can say.
I may occasionally be guilty of eisegesis, but it appears you have simply failed to read 95% of the Bible. Maybe reading from The Message will help…
You didn’t answer any of my questions…
And you’re using the ridiculous English word “love” as though it has anything to do with the word Jesus used–it doesn’t. John defines what Jesus’ love means in 2 John 1:16 “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. ” It has nothing to do with liking emotionally or comforting wicked people (the world) who hate Jesus in their evil lives our mourning the death of the ungodly, etc.
As for our enemies–the ones who hate us and persecute us–look at the context of Matt 5:44. It’s all about not reacting carnally when you’re under attack (fiery trials) “as though some strange thing has occurred to you” (1 Peter 4:12). He’s telling us to recognize persecution when we see it and bless the “hand of the Lord” in it and be grateful for it, because we are suffering for His sake and, throughout the persecution, keep telling of and doing His commandments—the Truth.
We are told that, if we are His disciples we will spread His light (Truth) in the world and be hated by the world for that. We are to be kind and charitable to one another (believers, children of God, not every wicked person in the world!) and comfort and care for one another in order to help each other endure our earthly lives of ostracism and hatred (even by our natural families Matt 10:36).
We are to preach the Gospel to everyone and anyone we encounter in order to see whether they reject Christ or not. Those who reject Him, we are to walk away from (Mark 6:11). Those who don’t, well, we deal with those small number of people when we come to them.
The Message is a horrid abomination which seeks to hide the Truth by mistranslating and twisting the words and commandments of the Lord. Reading it to be armed against liars is a good idea, but passing it off as some kind of evangelical instrument is reprehensible.
Martus,
You suffer from SBQ: Selective Bible Quotation. It is a very serious illness.
There are numerous other statements in Scripture which talk about love, whether we are talking about the “ridiculous English word” or the “word that Jesus used.” You quoted from 2 John, so here is a few from 1 John:
“Whoever does not love his brother abides in death” (3:14).
“My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth” (3:18).
“And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as He commanded us” (3:23).
“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love another” (4:10-11).
And so on, and so on, and so on throughout pretty much the entire Bible.
You’re suffering from carnality & egoism.
God’s loving us is different from us loving God. That’s why the word agape was used–it refers to familial relationship; the children’s duty to obey the father & the father’s to provide for the children. He is the Lord we should obey (who does the will of the father is his son & why do you say you love me but don’t do what I say?); we are the ones He has chosen to love Him (obey His commandments).
Again, “his brother”, “one another” are all addressed to believers–brethren–not those who don’t do the commandments of God. Did you not realize that the books & epistles of the Bible are addressed to believers only? (the carnal man cannot receive the things of God because they are spiritual).
[pls excuse the paraphrasing; i was in a bit of a hurry]
Martus – If you don’t like The Message, don’t use it. Why do you have such a strong need to judge other people, whether it be Eugene Peterson or Jeremy? That is Jesus’ job, not yours or mine.
When Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as ourselves, He is clearly telling us to love everyone, including those whom we may not consider “Christian brothers”. His story about “the good Samaritan” illustrates His point. If you don’t get that from reading your translation, perhaps you need a different translation.
Sam, why do you have such a strong need to defend false teachers, whether Eugene Peterson or Jeremy? Oh, I know, because you can’t tell the difference and you didn’t know that calling them out and exposing their falsity is every believers job.
Which also explains why you call a misreading of the Lord’s words “clear”. I didn’t get what I wrote from translation; I got it from the original Greek text. You’ve been taught a lie based on the overly-emotive, English word “love” and because the lie suits your carnality, you drink it down like water. Now, do yourself a favor, go and reread what I wrote about the context and meaning of the word agape as the Lord uses it in Matthew 5 and then check the text for yourself. Time to give up all that false doctrine and learn who the real Jesus is. Those vipers didn’t kill Him because He wanted to give them all a nice, big friendly hug.
Martus,
You are hard to take seriously when your comments and blog are anonymous.
Come out from hiding. The only people who hide online are those who don’t want to be held accountable for their words and actions.
Come out into the light. It’s better out here.
Jeremy,
Nice. That was a very sly and passive-agressive way to make me a pariah and give yourself license to dismiss everything I write. “I’m sorry, I just can’t listen to you because you haven’t given me your address and phone number. What have you got to hide? Have a nice day!”.
I’m not worried if you have to work a bit to take me seriously; it’s good for you.
You think your community is the enemy of Christ? Who is suggesting becoming slaves of the godless? Is this comment supposed to be a response to this post or something else?
Jesus says to love our neighbors as ourselves. That most certainly includes more than just preaching.
See my reply to Jeremy above. Sorry for such a late reply; I couldn’t get to a computer yesterday.
Oh, and to any other commenters here, if you ever get the urge to quote The Message in order to validate some doctrinal point; fight it. You’d be taken more seriously if you quoted Benny Hinn…
You are too hard on the Message. It is not intended to be a translation for academic research. Thank God for that!
Just what is it “intended to be”?
Hmm…in listening to the above exchange, I am struck by two things….
1) If I had to choose which of the above commenters was suffering from “carnality & egoism,” hands down, it would be Martus…
2) Martus reminded me of the Apostate Cleric in C. S. Lewis’ book The Great Divorce.
Nothing of substance to offer the discussion, eh Katherine? Pity.
Okay…
“So he answered and said, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.'” ~ Luke 10:27 (KJV)
This uses ‘agapao’ and applies it to God and neighbor. And Jesus tells him he’s got it right and goes directly into the parable of the Good Samaritan to illustrate who our neighbor is….
Strong’s definition of ‘agapao’: to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
The word translated ‘neighbor is ‘plesion’.
Strong’s definition of ‘plesion’:
a neighbour
a friend
any other person, and where two are concerned, the other (thy fellow man, thy neighbour), according to the Jews, any member of the Hebrew nation and commonwealth
according to Christ, any other man irrespective of nation or religion with whom we live or whom we chance to meet (emphasis mine)
Better!
Firstly, to Strong’s definitions, the final definitions in both of your citations are heavily influenced by his exegesis; what he thinks the word means based on his interpretation of the usage (this is common with Vine, Thayer, etc, and is often cross-referenced with the usage in the LXX). The phrase “according to Christ” is not a lexicographer’s phrase, but a theologian’s. That doesn’t nullify the final definitions, but it does call them into question with regards to strictly formal dictionary meaning. It therefore lends added weight to the initial definitions in that regard. With agapao, this means that “to welcome” and “to entertain” are the closer dictionary meanings (according to Strong). With plesion, this weighting means that the first few definitions are closer to the dictionary meaning of the word.
The more formal definitions of Greek words are based on their use in the pagan Greek literature (naturally). The word agapao was rarely used in this literature but when it was it usually denoted an affection for a spouse or family member (remembering that in ancient cultures, any member of the household doing the bidding of the householder were part of the family including servants), and always used in contrast to the more common word for a “fondness for”, fileo (the one closest to our word “love”).
However, that being said, our final arbiter of the meaning of Greek words should be God Himself, as voiced through His amanuenses, the writers of Scripture (where one is available.) Where a definition isn’t written in the Bible, then we look to usage. So, the dictionary meaning is used as a basis, but then is expanded or contracted depending on the Biblical definition.
We must also keep in mind that the active (verbal) idea of agapao is closer to the sense of the word where English favors the abstract noun. This is why the “greatest commandment” says to “agape with all your strength” (it’s not referring to hugging real hard).
Both Christ and the Apostle John have defined agapeo for us. Jesus says to love Him is to do what He commands (John 14:15 & 21). John wrote that “this is agape is walking according to (the Lord’s) commandments (1 John 3:23; 2 John 1:6). This squares with the idea that, to be a son, or member of a family, requires that you do the will of the father of that family. Satan was the father of the Jewish leaders, or conversely, they were his children, because they did his will (John 8:37-45).
So, “loving as a Christian” means acting like a member of the family of God, by doing what the Father commands. That’s the primary activity of agape; it’s not feeling something for the love object—that’s fileo (or, eros, if sexual or romantic).
Now, all this relates to plesion and the Parable of the Good Samaritan (you thought I’d never get there, right?) in that the neighbor to the Jewish lawyer who asked “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29) was other Jews, which squares with Strong. This is clearly not the neighbor as God intended, because the Bible mentions that this man “wanted to make himself righteous”, thereby marking him as evil.
The Lord then continues with the Parable and shows us by it that the neighbor you are to “love as yourself” is the person who treats you like a brother regardless of what genetic family he belongs to (the Samaritan’s were not considered true Jews). Again, the parable is not showing that the neighbor was the victim and that we should therefore copy the Samaritan’s actions in order to show “love to our neighbor”, but rather, it is highlighting the way to tell who the neighbor is—and who we should “love” like one of the family—by noting his actions towards us (the victim in the parable); and not judge on the basis of apparent allegiance, or who we feel more comfortable with, or who does our commandments (acts like us).
The Lord ends the parable with the commandment to His disciples to “go and do likewise”. Do what? “Love” the ones who show mercy to you like yourselves (as kin).
So, putting it all together, the neighbor is not just anyone living next door or in your community. They are people who show mercy to those in need even if that person doesn’t like them (the Samaritan would’ve assumed a Jew lying in the ditch would’ve been horrified to be touched by a non-Jew), because doing the right thing regardless of self-interest is an inherently non-pagan thing to do; making it an indicator of godliness (a good tree baring good fruit). We are not to agapeo godless pagans and wicked people who reject the Gospel just because they are starving or homeless or in a dire straights. That might make us feel good, but it is not what God commands; nor is it what the Parable of the Good Samaritan teaches.
Martus,
Seems to me that you have an agenda here. You are guilty of exactly what you accuse Strongs and Vines of doing. Your choice of passages to define love is very limited. You seem to have come to this argument with a pre-concieved conclusion, then chose the verses that most support your position. All the while ignoring or explaining away any verses that do not line up with your already set conclusion.
I do have one question. By your definition, the greatest commandment is to love God with all yout heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself, then you say that loving God means keeping His commandments. This is a visious circuitous logical dead-end. If the only definition of Love is keeping God’s commandments, and the greatest commandment is to love our neighbor, then we are stuck in a loop that never resolves itself. There must be more to the definition of Love than keeping God’s commandments. Maybe, for example, 1 Cor 13 a place where one of God’s amanuenses actually sets out to explain what love looks and acts like. This moves us out of the circuitous logical circles and gives us a practical definition of what loving actually looks like.
Lastly, you are very set on declaring those who disagree with you as false teachers and condemning them. This does not reflect the love of God toward those who are claiming the name of Christ and seeking to obey His commands. Just saying it seems like you could still use a little work in both keeping God’s commands and loving your neighbors or brothers, or whoever.
God Bless,
FedEx,
President,
Men of Praise Motorcycle Ministry
Sam,
No, I wasn’t on this site a few months ago posting under another name. Just found it the other day when I posted my comment.
Martus – Were you not on this blog a few months ago posting comments under another name?
Taking your points in order…
1) I don’t have an agenda here, per se, but I certainly have a point I’m trying to make regarding the teaching (which I regard as false) that we Christians are commanded to love (English word) every human being. That is the reason for my first comment and all the subsequent comments on this thread. In short, I contend that the teaching that we are to love every human being is based on a mistranslation of the Greek word “agapeo” into the English word “love” combined with a misunderstanding of the Parable of the Good Samaritan (and, what I haven’t touched on yet, a misunderstanding of the nature of God). One of the reasons for this false doctrine being so accepted is because it appeals to people’s emotionality and pride.
2) I didn’t accuse Vine or Strong of anything; I merely pointed out how they arrived at the multiple definitions they give and why they are ordered the way they are.
3) As for my use of limited passages, well, time, space prevents me from going to far into all the proofs I could. We are talking about a Biblical-spanning doctrine, after all. And besides, how many times does a thing have to appear in the Bible before you consider it authoritative?
4) My argument and conclusion are preconceived in that I arrived at them before I ever brought them up here. And is that an accusation of some kind of wrongdoing? Would it make them more acceptable if I came up with them on the spur of the moment?
5) I haven’t intentionally ignored any verses that anyone has brought up to refute my assertions. What were they? I’d be happy to look at them. As for “explaining things away”, well, that’s a tricky accusation to avoid—one man’s explanation is another’s explaining away. It seems to me that it usually means the explanation wasn’t sufficiently convincing. Again, let me know where I’ve done this and I’ll try to be clearer.
6) You said you had one question then didn’t ask me anything. However, I’ll take the rest of your paragraph as a sort of challenge to my primary assertion and try to respond to it as though it were a question.
I did not say that loving God is keeping & walking in His commandments; Jesus and John said it. I explained that this relates to a child’s or family member’s relation to his father, the householder, the lord. We agapeo God actively, not emotionally, by doing what He says to do like children are supposed to, and with our whole understanding (heart), strength and minds focused on knowing doing and remembering His commandments. We agapeo the neighbor the same way, by keeping God’s commandments; treating him like God commands us to do, like ourselves, a child of God. The point is not to make the meaning fit English phraseology, but to see how English phraseology doesn’t fit the meaning.
As for 1 Corinthians 13 (interesting that the KJV translators used “charity” instead of “love” this time), the context is shown in the previous chapter to be about speaking in tongues no one understands and having spiritual gifts. Paul is saying that, no matter what language is used, if he’s not doing what God commanded, then his words are empty; he’s paying lip-service. The same with prophesying and understanding secrets and proclaiming to have faith, if he doesn’t do what God commands, it’s useless. He then goes on to say that doing the commandments is never useless (never faileth). We cannot count on our own gifts, but we can always count on doing the will of the Father.
7) I am not set on calling those who disagree with me false teachers. I called Eugene Peterson and Jeremy false teachers in a satirical reply to Sam’s accusation “Why do you have such a strong need to judge other people, whether it be Eugene Peterson or Jeremy?”. Several people have disagreed with me here and I haven’t called them false teachers. So, since I haven’t done what you thought I had, it is debatable whether or not I’ve “reflected the love of God toward those who are claiming the name of Christ and seeking to obey His commands”. Besides, calling someone who calls himself a Christian yet teaches false doctrine (or purposely mistranslates the Word of God) would be rebuking them; which we are commanded to do. Of course, if it turns out that the doctrine they are teaching is true, well, then I’d repent and apologize. But your entire judgment of me is resting on that oh-so troublesome English word “love”….
Okay, that was really long, sorry, but I thought it was necessary. I hope it at least helped to explain my point. I’m not too bothered if it is unconvincing; I’ll leave the convincing to the Lord.
Sorry, that last reply should’ve been addressed to FedEXMOP.
Martus,
I can agree with you on at least one point: your comment was really long.
Okay, last comment from me on this (unless someone asks for a clarification). I thought of a simpler way to say it:
The dictionary definition ofagapeo is “to have affection for” but in the NT it is referring to “keeping the commandments of a father” just as the dictionary meaning of euangelion (gospel) is “good news” but in the NT it is referring to “Jesus being the Messiah and having come as prophesied in the OT” (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Martus,
I actually agree with you that one of the steps in Greek word studies is to look at the how the word was used in extrabiblical literature.
But of course, as you somewhat point out, words sometimes get “baptized” with additional meaning and significance once they work their way through the New Testament. Euangelion is a perfect example, though I think your definition here is a bit limited. 1 Cor 15:1-4 is not the only place in the New Testament that defines euangelion.
Martus is an egotistical jackass who likes to hear the sound of his own keyboard clicking out rude comments on other people’s blogs. This makes him feel special. Everyone should just ignore him. By responding to his inane and longwinded comments, you only encourage him. He is this way in life too, so he had to move to Alaska where there are fewer people. If you put him in a room with someone else, they want to strangle him within 20 seconds.
Sut Ram
Is that your real name? If not, Jeremy says, “You are hard to take seriously when your comments…are anonymous. Come out from hiding. The only people who hide online are those who don’t want to be held accountable for their words and actions Come out into the light. It’s better out here.”
Does that make us kindred spirits?
Thank you. I was about refer him my earlier comment. I don’t mind anonymous comments, except when people use it to avoid being accountable for what they say.
You’re welcome.
Actually, I understand your concern about people using anonymity as cover while they spew vile rubbish all over your comments, but I don’t think everyone who uses an online nic is hiding something. Me, I just can’t be bothered changing all my account names (some I’ve had set up for 15 years!).
Besides, nobody wants to know me anyway. Sut Ram’s right; people find me just as unpleasant in person as they find me online (Praise Jesus!).
Ouch! Just last night my wife and I were discussing these comments and noted that name-calling (false teacher, carnal, or whatever) often elicits responses in kind (and so it did). Perhaps it is much preferred to say “I understand this in another way. Here is how I see it.”
Is that why your first comment to me was to “call” me judgmental? You were looking to elicit a response in kind? (Did you discuss that with your wife?)