Daniel P. Barron

What is cult behavior?

Wednesday, September 4, 2019 

Axelxoxo: Renth, for the longest time I had these thoughts that I was a bad Christian for my beliefs because I wasn't the conservative Christian. I felt a bit empowered by the Bible and how Jesus was, but the more I read about Quakers and their beliefs, the more I don't feel bad about how I believe. Also last night my fiancé and I were talking about Calvary Chapel and he said what the pastor said to me was a red flag and we were talking and we came to conclusion that the pastor sees me as someone who might make people question his teachings and what not. And that not all pastors are like that but there are quite a few.
Renth: I am so sorry, Axelxoxo, I completely forgot to reply to you. I'm sorry to hear you felt like you did or believed something wrong. And yes the bible has a lot of empowerment both with Jesus and others. I think I might have missed something, what did the pastor say to you?
Axelxoxo: I think I didn't post it, but he said that he needed to protect his flock from wolves, and referring to people who question his teachings as wolves.
Daniel: To question isn't necessarily wrong, but if two don't agree on scripture, one or both are not saved. i Not to say that your pastor is in the truth (he probably isn't, and for that matter you probably aren't either)
Axelxoxo: According to him I'm going to hell for being queer, and that's the literal interpretation of scripture that doesn't take into account that historical differences.
Daniel: He's right. Homosexuals go to hell. ii
Renth: You should take Mathew 7. 1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you" a bit more to heart if you ask me. Also you can't know who is and isn't going to hell and you are not and will not be the authority of who is and isn't going to hell because that is for God to judge not anyone else. So I am hoping you aren't saying you have God's authority in any matter especially not on judgement. Anyway, Axelxoxo, in general I believe when any person in authority talks about protecting people from any kind of knowledge or ideas that's a big red flag. But also as I've already mentioned judgement is not for man to make, our job is to love our neighbor so to speak.
Daniel: Renth, Judging is believing.
Renth: For you it clearly is. And that's all I will say on that matter.
Axelxoxo: Today I had to go to CC and boy did I get something from God. I didn't believe it was a cult but cult like and today once again the pastor was calling Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses cults. iii And boy I heard a voice while he was saying that and it said "A cult like yours?" I so wanted to go to the meeting for worship today. But His will be done. Plus one of the church goers gave me something from the Family Research Council so I'll look over it. It's about "Family".
Renth: Yeah religious institutions can sadly be used and is used too often for cults and cult-like behavior. And once you're in it it's harder to see it because not everything with such behavior is bad or even necessarily damaging. I always miss going to worship the Sundays I can't, but reading a bit and taking some time out of the day to have private worship helps a bit.
Daniel: What is cult behavior?
Renth: Someone telling you what to do, how to behave and think is the top of that list.
Daniel: Doesn't the Bible tell you what to do, how to behave, and how to think?
Renth: No.
Daniel: Huh, I can find very many verses that say what to do and what not to do. I can find many that say what to think and what not to think.
Renth: A person and a book are two different things and you give a book be it the bible or any other book the power you want it to a person telling you how to think or behave is quite different. And what I meant when I said the bible doesn't tell me what to do and so on is because for me the bible is a very grand book written by many many different people who wrote it a long time ago with their own emotions, cultural norms and experiences and as such I reserve judgement on what I do and don't think about the things they have written.
Daniel: So you don't believe the whole Bible?
Renth: No I don't.
Daniel: Matthew 4:

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

I guess you don't believe that verse too then. You are going to hell.
Renth: You are free to believe I'm going to hell as much as you want to. Does not change anything with my relationship with God or how I live my life for that matter.
Daniel: You have "a relationship" with a false God that cannot save you from eternal destruction.
Renth: Okay.

  1. TonyM: In the link about cult behavior, Daniel makes a statement about two people not agreeing on scripture and says that one or both aren't saved. That's not found in the scripture. He is making up his own doctrine. This seems to be a common thread with Daniel's church. We truly don't fight against flesh and blood.

    This comment was made after publishing and it was made somewhere other than the comment section of this article that it is a comment on.
    I then showed him the following verses.
    1 Peter 3:

    8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;

    Philippians 2:

    2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

    Philippians 1:

    27 Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,

    2 Corinthians 13:

    11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Become complete. Be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

    Romans 15:

    5 Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6 that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Romans 12:

    16 Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.

    1 Corinthians 1:

    10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

    1 Corinthians 2:

    16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

    Emphasis added. ^

  2. See also "Homosexuality and Marriage." ^
  3. Whatever they are, they are false religions that lead to hell. See: Mormonism, A Polytheism of Corruptible Man and "Jehovah's Witnesses" Are Not Jehovah's Witnesses^

46 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    Funny how you left out the rest of the chat with Tony M.. easy to make yourself look right when you dont give all the information. Post the entire discourse...from the Broadway argument down. I challenge you. Leave NOTHING out.

  2. Why don't you post it? This tony fella coulda made his comment here in the first place and then the rest would have followed. Whatever it is you think I left out, I left out for the sake of brevity. Also, I updated this post immediately after the comment was made, and the rest of the conversation to which you are referring took place afterwards.

  3. TonyM

    I guess I'll post my question here. Where in those verses does it say what you are teaching? Mainly, that if 2 disagree on scripture than one or both are unsaved.

  4. Anonymous

    Well, I thought you'd like to post it since Tony M corrected you and you "love correction".

  5. Funny how you and Tony share the same IP address. Anyway, I think the verses in the footnote make it pretty clear: believers are to be of "one mind." If two people are not in agreement over Scripture, they are not of one mind and therefor at least one of them is not a believer. I don't mean if there is a disagreement that gets settled. I mean if the two cannot come to a mutual understanding of Scripture. That is, if they "agree to disagree."

  6. TonyM

    It's really not that funny that we share the same ip address. I've been talking to my friends and family about these things and one of them posted here. I've showed them our conversations. Your original comment says nothing of agreeing to disagree. Even if they did, it wouldn't prove them to be lost. Those verses still don't teach what you are saying. Where do you get this idea of what one mind means?

  7. The verses I cited specifically say to be of one mind in regards to "striving together for the faith of the gospel" and "speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." You have to be deceived to say that this means you can disagree with a fellow believer on what Scripture says. If we disagree, we don't have the same judgment. If we disagree, we are divided. If we disagree, we cannot "glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" with "one mouth."

  8. TonyM

    We all need be striving together for the faith. We should all be one mind on that. The Bible never says that we need to be one mind on every single issue in order to be saved. That teaching is directly against Romans 14. Romans 14 is an example of believers agreeing to disagree on scriptural matters. In fact, it calls some scriptural matters "doubtful things".

  9. TonyM

    When it says "no divisions", it's in a specific context. If you understand what was going on in 1 Corinthians than you would know that he is not saying to have no divisions on every matter. The divisions that were happening in the Corinthian church were not doctrine related but rather who each person believed by.

  10. TonyM

    Same goes for the "same judgment". Not all of them were in agreement on a specific sin committed by one of the members. Some were puffed up. The "same judgement" refers to judging those on the inside as 1 cor 5:12 says, not on every biblical matter.

  11. TonyM

    Your last two sentences are not true. The people in Romans 14 didn't have the same beliefs on certain matters but they still could glorify God with one mouth. There doesn't have to be a division just because 2 people don't agree on certain matters. There are some biblical matters that would create a division if there was no agreement.

  12. That teaching is directly against Romans 14. Romans 14 is an example of believers agreeing to disagree on scriptural matters. In fact, it calls some scriptural matters "doubtful things".

    You're adding to the Word. It doesn't say it's okay to disagree on Scripture. It says it's okay to disagree on what should be eaten and what days should be celebrated. This is because under the law, certain things were not to be eaten, and certain days were to be observed. We are no longer under the law, and observance of these things is a matter of conscience.

    When it says "no divisions", it's in a specific context.

    Romans 14 is a specific context, but you cast that aside to suit your faulty argument. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul is saying we shouldn't be divided into groups based on who baptized us, but be one in Christ. He says we must speak the same thing. If we disagree on Scripture, we will speak different things when contending.

    The "same judgement" refers to judging those on the inside as 1 cor 5:12 says, not on every biblical matter.

    It's not wrong to judge those on the "outside." Suppose someone wants to join your fellowship; you will have to judge whether they believe or not. If two in your fellow disagree on that judgement, one might say "he may join us" and the other might say "he may not join us."

    Your last two sentences are not true.

    I've already addressed this part at the beginning of this comment.

  13. TonyM

    Im not adding anything to the word. It says that one person believes he has freedom to eat all things and another believes that he doesnt have freedom to eat all things. They disagree on what they believe about the biblical matter of eating meat. Its not unclear in scripture what the truth is. Its mentioned several times, but we are still to consider one another brothers even in this disagreement. One is considered weaker but still a believer and we are not to argue over these doubtful things. This specific doubtful thing is part of every word of God and we are instructed to not judge someone on this. We are to receive the weaker one and not cast him out as you say with your words of "either one or both aren't saved". What part of Romans 14 have I cast aside? Is the freedom to eat meat a scriptural matter? Are two believers allowed to disagree on this issue? Are either to judge one another?
    The "no divisions" is about being divided by who baptized us and when you do that, you are not speaking the same thing. Pretty simple what the no divisions means and the speak the same things. You are not rightly dividing the word (2 tim 2:15).
    I never said it was wrong to judge those on the outside. I was just pointing out that Paul was talking about judging those on the inside when he said "same judgment".

  14. Romans 14 speaks of "doubtful things," and those "doubtful things" are matters of ones own personal conscience before God, as it says near the end of the chapter,

    Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. (Romans 14:22)

    The specific matters the chapter deals with, if left to a matter of one's own personal conscience, are doubtful things. It is nothing to contend over (Romans 14:3-4, 10-13). But, if it is a matter of doctrine, the teaching of Scripture, it is not a doubtful thing at all.

    Paul speaks of eating meat or not eating meat in Romans 14:2-3. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 such teaching is one of the two doctrines given in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 that identifies those who have departed from the faith and follow doctrines of demons. When it is a matter of doctrine, it is of utmost importance. If it is a matter of one's own personal conscience, we are not to judge (Romans 14:3).

    Likewise, Romans 14:5-6 speaks of observing days. Here in Romans 14, because it is in the context of personal conscience, it is not something to contend about. But, this very same issue, when it is a matter of doctrine, the teaching of Scripture, it is a matter of life or death, heaven or hell, as Paul wrote to the Galatians,

    You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain. (Galatians 4:10-11)

    This is written in the context of the Galatians being bewitched by another gospel (Galatians 1:6; 3:1). That other gospel was one in which the law was propagated as having to be kept, thus, Paul's mention of the observances of days. In Romans 14 day observance is no big deal (Romans 14:5-6), because it is a matter of personal conscience. In Galatians 4:10-11 day observance is a big deal, because it is a matter of doctrine, the teaching of Scripture.

  15. Also, for all believers believing the same things, see 1 John 4:6.

    "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."

  16. Also, John 8:47.

    "He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

    And John 10.

    "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." (John 10:27)

    And 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.

    "3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
    4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds,
    5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ"

    Note: "every thought"

  17. TonyM

    I brought up Romans 14 to show that Daniel's statement about two people disagreeing was wrong? It's not biblical to judge someone as lost simply because they disagree. It depends on what the disagreement is about. Romans 14 shows that two believers can agree to disagree and still be saved. I was hoping that Daniel would answer my questions since he accused me of disregarding the context of Romans 14. I would still like to know how I have done that and how my argument is "faulty". Maybe Darwin can answer that. Daniel's statements about believers being one mind also contradict what Darwin has said about Romans 14. If Romans 14 is personal conscience on certain scriptural matters than "one mind" does not mean every word of God. The freedom to eat all meat is a scriptural doctrine/teaching and believers do not need to believe the same on this in order to be saved. I understand what you are trying to say about 1 Tim 4 and Galatians 4 but I don't think you are explaining it well. The things mentioned in Romans 14 and Galatians 4 are scriptural teachings but the problem comes when someone makes them a commandment. When they do this, then 1 Tim 4 says that they are not in the faith. It's like the pharisees that would bind heaven burdens on people and teach commandments of men. Simply holding to a different belief would not fit 1 Tim or the Galatians. Those who make it a commandment are preaching another gospel.

    1 John 4:6 also doesn't mean that believers will believe the same on every point as you say on your website and in these comments. It's written in a specific context about who Jesus Christ is and loving one another. The "hears us" does not refer to every single scriptural matter as Romans 14 very clearly points out. Obviously the two people in Romans 14 are not hearing each other but they are told to leave it alone and not dispute or judge. It's interesting that in Romans 15:5, Paul tells us to be like-minded "toward" one another and this is written right after talking about not believing the exact same on certain issues. This "like-mindedness" is defined in Romans 15:1-3. I have read all the verses that Daniel quoted on being of the same mind and I have yet to find one specifically in the context of "every single Biblical doctrine". I noted "every thought" as you said, and still this does not mean that believers will agree on every thought. Bringing every thought into captivity is something that I strive to do every day but we are not instructed to make other believers think exactly alike. We are never told to think the same on "every thought".

  18. Your argument is faulty, in that, you do not see that Romans 14 is not talking about a difference in doctrinal belief, but rather a difference in personal conscience in what one has the faith to DO or NOT DO (Romans 14:22-23). The doctrinal belief is identical in Romans 14. How do we know this? Neither are allowed to judge the other (Romans 14:3-4, 10). Because, the judgment is not on doctrine, but on whether one chooses to eat or not eat (v. 3), etc. based on their own conscience (Romans 14:22-23).

    If it were a matter of doctrine in Romans 14, and the one not eating does not eat because his doctrinal belief is that we MUST obey the OT food laws, then he has "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4). That is exactly what Paul deals with in Galatians, and Paul JUDGES anyone (even an angel) who preaches that false gospel. Likewise, with the keeping of days (Romans 14:5-6). If the one keeping certain days does so, because of his doctrinal belief that we are still under the law, he is no longer in the grace of God (Galatians 5:4). There is no salvation there, because of doctrinal belief.

    Finally, you also limit 1 John 4:6 to "who Jesus Christ is and loving one another". You shouldn't add to God's Word like that (Pro 30:5-6). There is MUCH more than those two concepts in 1 John. Moreover, 1 John 4:6 itself does not limit itself to only what is in 1 John. Nonetheless, there is much in 1 John that "Christians" today can't agree on (e.g. limited atonement or not, 1 John 2:2; living in sin, saved or unsaved? 1 John 1:5-10; 3:9-10; etc.).

  19. Anonymous

    In Romans 14 one has the faith to do something and the other does not. That is why he is called "weak in the faith". Faith and belief are the same thing (Rom 4:5). Notice Romans 14:2. He says that "one believes". I'm not sure where you are getting this idea that they are not doctrinal beliefs. Are you making a distinction between beliefs and doctrinal beliefs and where does scripture define it that way? Sounds like you are the one adding to God's word. Having a doctrinal belief does not mandate that the person is commanding others to do the same. Romans 14 doesn't say that they have identical doctrinal beliefs. That is an addition to the word. You have made that up to fit your own doctrinal beliefs. There would be no stumbling block or cause to fall if the two had identical beliefs(Rom 14:13). There would also be no speaking evil by the weaker brother if they had identical beliefs(Rom 14:16). The idea is to pursue peace even in the midst of these differences. Your statement about identical belief is also wrong based on the same idea found in 1 Corinthians 8 where it describes the weak brother as not having the same knowledge(1 Cor 8:7). If the doctrinal beliefs were identical than he would have that knowledge, but he doesn't. Notice verse 10-12 where one has knowledge and the one who doesn't is still called a brother. 1 Cor 8:4-6 describes the knowledge that not every believer has. That is the same as saying that they don't have the same doctrinal beliefs. Those who teach that you must obey the law to be righteous are preaching a false gospel. Romans 14 says nothing of the weak brother teaching this as a commandment and they are not to be judged if they believe it is wrong to eat meat. The strong and the weak are both not to force their specific beliefs on the other but they are called to peace in this situation. You still have not shown how my argument is faulty nor how I have set aside the context.

    I have not added anything to 1 John nor have I limited it. I simply stated the context of the verse. I said nothing about it being limited to only those things that John mentions. Note how we are to test the spirits in chapter 4 verse 1-3. in verse 4 it talks about the children of God overcoming "them". The "them" is those who do not confess Jesus as coming in the flesh, which is the spirit of the antichrist. They are of the world and the world "hears them". This "hears them" is not meaning that the world agrees with them on every single point but rather on Jesus not coming in the flesh as the context dictates. Likewise, the "hears us" in verse 6 is also speaking in the context of Jesus coming in the flesh and this is how we know the spirit of truth and error. There is no mention of "every single doctrinal belief" in 1 John 4. This is also something that you have added to the chapter. John doesn't tell us that the disagreements that you mention are a way to test whether someone is saved or not. He does mention believing who Jesus is, loving one another and practicing righteousness, but he doesn't mention that all believers need to believe the same on all things or one or both are not saved.

  20. Romans 14 doesn't say that they have identical doctrinal beliefs.

    It doesn't say they have different beliefs. It says that one eats all things and the other eats only vegetables, and that they must not judge each other for this. To judge someone over what they eat is to not believe.

    There would be no stumbling block or cause to fall if the two had identical beliefs(Rom 14:13).

    Precisely. The instruction in this verse is to not put a stumbling block.

    There would also be no speaking evil by the weaker brother if they had identical beliefs(Rom 14:16).

    Yes, again the instruction is to not speak evil of a brother. That is, to not accuse a fellow believer of opposing Scripture over doubtful matters.

    The idea is to pursue peace even in the midst of these differences.

    The differences in this chapter are of a doubtful nature; that is, they are not matters of salvation. It doesn't matter what you eat or what days you celebrate. We can disagree on what to eat and when to celebrate and that's okay. If you accuse me of error in doing so, you are at risk of hell fire.

    1 Corinthians 8 where it describes the weak brother as not having the same knowledge

    The chapter starts with the explanation, "if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." Salvation is not based on your knowledge of Scripture, but rather on your belief in Scripture. If a believer doesn't know that they may eat anything, a fellow believer must not offend him in eating. That isn't to say the latter may not correct the former saying, "these things are good to eat."

    That is the same as saying that they don't have the same doctrinal beliefs.

    No it isn't; this is something you have added.

    He does mention believing who Jesus is

    Christ is Scripture. If you change Scripture, you change Christ. If you believe in that changed Christ, you don't believe in the true Christ but rather a false one. (Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22)

  21. TonyM

    Your response is sorely lacking in dealing with the things that I brought up. I showed you that Romans 14:2 uses the word "believes" and that one person has faith to eat and the other doesn't. That's why he is weak in faith. I also showed you that faith and belief are the same (Romans 4:5). That would mean that the two people in Romans 14 don't have the exact same beliefs. It's pretty simple, but you twist it all around to fit your idea of truth. It doesn't make any biblical sense the way you are explaining it. Why write Romans 14 if the two had identical beliefs? Why would the weak brother be told not to speak evil or judge if they had the same beliefs? You add to the text by saying they believe the same but choose to eat or not eat. Only one believes that they have the freedom to eat all things and that is why he is strong. The other is weak because he doesn't believe that he has the freedom to eat all things. If they both believed that they had the freedom to eat all things, than no one would be considered weak in the faith. How would anyone put a stumbling block before a brother if they both knew they had freedom to eat whatever they wanted? It wouldn't be a stumbling block. 1 Cor 8 is clear that one person does not have the same knowledge as the other.
    "If a believer doesn't know that they may eat anything,"
    I thought you said they had identical beliefs. How can they if one doesn't know? That's like me saying that you have the same beliefs as I do, but you just don't know it yet.
    "That isn't to say the latter may not correct the former saying, "these things are good to eat.""
    Once again your argument contradicts itself. There would be no need for correction if they both had identical beliefs. I'm wondering why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's really straight forward.
    Your last two sentences apply to you since you have added and "changed Christ". You did this with our debate on what the broad road is referring to by saying there is a third road and that the broad road is only false Christians. Now you are doing it with Romans 14 by adding that they have identical beliefs. You believe in a false Christ by your own words. One last thing, how am I at risk of hell fire by saying you are wrong on this topic?

  22. Perhaps, you can explain the difference between a man in Romans 14 who believes he MUST keep the old covenant food and day laws, and the man in Galatians who believes the same thing. In Galatians Paul judges the person as "fallen from grace" (Galatians 5:4). In Romans 14 Paul says there is no judgment upon the person. What's the difference between the two?

  23. TonyM

    To begin with, I didn't say the one in Romans 14 believes he MUST keep the old covenant laws. What it does say, is that he considers(believes) that meat is unclean and the strong one is convinced(believes) that meats are clean. The weak brother who doesn't eat is doing it for the Lord as Romans 14:6 says. The one in Romans is doing it in faith even though he is week in it. We know it is in faith because verse 23 says that whatever is not from faith is sin and the weak brother is never told that he is sinning to consider meats unclean. So, on the biblical matter of meats, these two brothers disagree and do not have the same beliefs. This proves that your idea of "one mind" and "hears us" is against the teaching of scripture. I will say that these two brothers do have the same beliefs concerning matters of salvation. They both put their trust in Jesus Christ as Galatians 2:20-21 says.

    Now, those in Galatia had a completely different belief. It's mentioned all over Galatians. I won't reference all the verses but I will give you some that show where the difference is between the two groups. Galatians 1:6-7 show that they were perverting the Gospel and those in Romans were not. Galatians 2:4 shows that false brethren came in to bring them into bondage and this bondage is trying to be righteous through the law(Gal 4:3,23-26). Galatians 2:18 describes what was going on with that church and verses 19-21 is what was going on in Romans 14. Galatians 3:3 shows that the church was trying to be made perfect in the flesh instead of through faith in Christ and no one is justified by the law for "the just shall live by faith". Yet the law is not of faith(3:11-12).

    Galatians 4:9 sums up what was going on there. It says that they "desire again to be in bondage" and it's in this context that he mentions observing days and seasons. They wanted to be in bondage again because they thought righteousness came through the law. They didn't believe this at first, but someone came in a "troubled" them(5:10) and persuaded them to believe this lie. Galatians 4:21 again proves that they "desire to be under the law". This was not the case in Romans 14 because both parties were eating or not eating for the Lord and they were told not to judge one another. If both parties understood that, then they both knew that it was not a matter of being righteous before God and that their different beliefs could be left alone without judgment. Again, Galatians 5:1 tells us not to be "entangled with a yoke of bondage", which is what they were doing. This is very different than Romans 14. Galatians 5:4 teaches that you are not in Christ if you try to be justified by the law and this was not the case in Romans 14. If the two in Romans 14 obeyed what was told them, then Galatians 5:6 would be lived out as well as verses 13-14 of the same chapter. That's not what was happening in the church of Galatia since they were walking in the flesh and warned of "biting and devouring one another". Judgment was necessary in Galatians because they had turned from the true gospel and followed a "destructive heresy"(2 Peter 2:1). In Romans, no one was turning away from the true gospel but they each were fully convinced in their own minds, not compelling anyone to be under bondage to the law.

  24. So, the guy in Romans 14 who "esteems one day above another" (Rom. 14:5), because he believes he must keep the law (old covenant), he is to be judged?

  25. TonyM

    "because he believes he must keep the law(old covenant)"
    You have added this. I never said this and Romans 14 never says this. My previous comment addresses your question. Did you even read what I wrote? Perhaps you can deal with what I have said.

  26. TonyM

    Are you not interested in answering my questions? Seems to be a common thing for you to avoid my arguments when you can explain it.

  27. TonyM

    I meant can't explain it

  28. I have been out of state for over a week.

  29. TonyM

    Ok, I look forward to your response and your answers to my questions.

  30. Romans 14 mentions "unclean" things, which is a reference to the Old Covenant.

    14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

    The following chapter discusses "whatever things were written before," (Romans 15:4) and circumcision. (Romans 15:8) This is regarding the preaching of the Gospel to gentiles, because some Jews were still resistant. The book of Romans has many references to the gentiles and the keeping of the law.

  31. TonyM

    I'm not sure how this addresses my arguments. I explained the differences between Romans and Galatians. If I have said something wrong please let me know. I don't see where you get your idea that they have the same beliefs regarding the meats and days. You miss a major point in Romans 14 by saying that. Why is it so important that you add that idea in the text?

  32. Darwin

    Earlier I wrote, "Paul speaks of eating meat or not eating meat in Romans 14:2-3. In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 such teaching is one of the two doctrines given in 1 Timothy 4:1-3 that identifies those who have departed from the faith and follow doctrines of demons." That is Not to say that the identification would ONLY be based on one of the two doctrines. There is always context in proper judgement, and false teachers twist all the Word (2 Peter 3:16).

  33. Darwin

    So, let me ask, so I can try and understand what you are saying. From your perspective, in Romans 14, why do they eat or not eat? Because, they have different beliefs on what the Bible teaches?

  34. Darwin

    Nevermind, I reread your posts. I can see that is what you believe. So, what "faith" is to be contended over (Jude 3)?

  35. TonyM

    I'm not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding this. Can you please tell me what beliefs the two in Romans have that are the same? Is there any difference in belief between the two of them? Is faith and belief the same?

    I don't know why you are bringing up Jude 3-4. Clearly the matters in Romans are nothing to be contended over. There are several things mentioned in the Bible that we should not argue about and some of them are matters in scripture. So obviously "the faith" in Jude does not refer to those specific things. I can get more specific if you would like but I don't see it as pertinent to Romans 14 at this point.

  36. The original context is disagreeing over homosexuality. Do you think someone can be saved while also believing homosexuals inherit the kingdom of God? That is, after having been shown Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?

    We can return to the argument of disagreeing in general, but first I want to establish if there are at least certain things that believers must be of one mind on.

  37. TonyM

    There certainly are certain things believers need to be one mind on. Your original statement isn't based on your context. It's another blanket statement that you made that is false. I will answer your question after you answer mine.

  38. You asked:

    Can you please tell me what beliefs the two in Romans have that are the same? Is there any difference in belief between the two of them?

    One eats meat and the other doesn't. If one says to the other, "you are not saved because you eat meat," he has said a wrong thing. If the other says, "you are not saved because you don't eat meat," he has likewise said a wrong thing.

    You said:

    It's another blanket statement that you made that is false.

    It's a blanket statement confirmed by Scripture. If you say it's wrong to eat meat, but you'll fellow with me anyway, then you aren't of one mind with me. Romans 14 isn't saying we can agree to disagree on Scripture; it's saying we must not argue over "doubtful things." It's doubtful whether or not I should eat meat, because Scripture doesn't say I must go one way or the other. Neither one of us should hold it against the other over our dietary choices. It's not doubtful that Scripture says we shouldn't argue over doubtful things, because Scripture says exactly that.

  39. TonyM

    You didn't answer any of my questions. Your interpretation of Romans 14 is not accurate. However, I agree with you that neither of them should judge the other and say they are not saved. You've twisted simple concepts to fit your faulty doctrine.

  40. Darwin

    "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his OPINIONS." (Rom. 14:1 NAS)

    So, "opinions" = doctrine (the teaching of Scripture)?

  41. Darwin

    Or, to follow the NKJV "doubtful things" (Rom. 14:1), how, or in what way, are the issues raised in Romans 14 (eating or not, esteeming a day or not) "doubtful"? The Scriptures are quite clear on these. "Doubtful" hardly describes the teaching of Scripture on these.

  42. TonyM

    Is it too difficult for you to answer my questions? You said they have the same beliefs, yet you haven't told me what those are. Your latest comments actually prove my point. The "opinions" are not the doctrine. The doctrine is as you say: "quite clear" yet these two believers are allowed to have differing opinions about these clear teachings. It proves your statements about believers agreeing on all doctrine to be a lie.

  43. [...] Two people cannot "agree to disagree" on Scripture and both be saved. [...]

  44. [...] He teaches that you can agree to disagree on what Scripture means. [...]

  45. [...] We can agree to disagree on "non essentials?" What in the Bible is not essential? How many things can we disagree on and still be on the narrow path? How many of the words that come out of God's mouth are not essential? How many things can we disagree on and still be of "one mind?" [...]

  46. [...] All that person needs to do is believe in God. If this person later meets a fellow believer, the two will agree on what Scripture says, even if one of them has never actually read any of Scripture. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your criticism is welcome. Your name and website are optional. Some HTML tags are allowed.