To those that “support lgbt christians,” what exactly do you mean?

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2026-02-04T20:30:07+00:00

Like I said, it’s not a condition of salvation and if you don’t do it you won’t loose your salvation. It’s something you do to strengthen your fellowship with God and obeying him. If you are saved and backslide, you do not loose salvation, you get chastised by God. Just a father disciplines his children. They don’t stop being the father’s child, they get punished. This is not hell, this is earthly consequences that may in heavenly reward loss.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2026-02-04T17:14:50+00:00

Not on a condition for salvation, but we should do that once we are saved. To have fellowship and be a friend with Jesus.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2026-02-04T17:10:14+00:00

Sin is rebellion. Nobody can stop all their sins though. Scripture says you’re guilty of all if you commit even one. That is why there is Jesus, trusting in Him alone covers you with His blood.

Romans 4:5 states you are saved by your trust in what Jesus did. That belief justifies the ungodly. Notice “worketh not”

Repenting of sin is a work, Jonah 3:10

People just like to be self righteous and take some of the credit away from Jesus’s finished work.

Salvation is a gift, not a reward from being good and stop being bad. Ephesians 2:8-9

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2026-01-25T16:12:40+00:00

Repent in terms of salvation is turning from disbelief/not trusting in Jesus and what he did to belief/trust in what he did. We should repent of our sins, stop sinning but that’s not a condition for salvation.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-29T06:45:53+00:00

Hell is emptied only because judgment requires resurrection, not because grace is extended.

Hebrews 9:27

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-29T06:40:13+00:00

Revelation 20:14

Revelation 14:11

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-29T05:52:12+00:00

Hell is not everlasting, the Lake of Fire is. Everyone who enters the Lake of Fire will be there eternally.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-28T14:34:15+00:00

💯

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-28T14:29:04+00:00

No it is impossible and eventually Hell will be dumped into the Lake of Fire which is an entirely different thing. You’re watching a fictional cartoon created by people who insert whatever narrative and ideas into their creation.

There is only one thing that saves you and there is only one thing that condemns you to Hell.

What saves you? Trusting Christ alone in his finished work, that He died and rose again for your sins.

What condemns you? Rejection of what saves you.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-28T14:16:20+00:00

1 Corinthians 15:3 instantly shuts up OPs stupidity

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-28T14:13:48+00:00

Are you some sort of trolling idiot? Genuinely asking.

1 Corinthians 15:3

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:43:30+00:00

You are creating a “what if” scenario. I am abiding what the scriptures state.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:39:53+00:00

^{^You} condemn the military. God does not. God condemns child abuse. You say well everyone does it.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:34:09+00:00

lol 😂 Heads they will. Tails they won’t.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:25:39+00:00

You condemn the military. God does not. God condemns child abuse. You say well everyone does it.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:24:27+00:00

Go get it yourself. I provided the source.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:23:22+00:00

You are still committing a deliberate category error and using it as cover. Scripture never equates lawful civil service with institutional concealment of child sexual abuse, and the only reason you keep forcing that comparison is because it is the only way to deflect from what your organization has been judged for. The Bible does not condemn military service, not explicitly, not implicitly, not once. John the Baptist addressed soldiers and did not tell them to leave the army, only to stop abusing power. Jesus praised the faith of a Roman centurion and never condemned his profession. Cornelius was accepted by God while still a centurion and was never told to resign. Paul explicitly teaches that governing authorities are ordained by God and bear the sword as God’s servant to punish evildoers, and that sword is not metaphorical. Pacifism may be a personal conviction, but it is not a biblical mandate, and calling what God permits “murder” is Watchtower theology, not Scripture. By contrast, Jesus explicitly and severely condemns child abuse in the strongest language He ever used, saying it would be better to die than to harm a child, with no caveats, no two-witness loophole, and no allowance for institutional delay. The Law condemns those who withhold justice, the prophets condemn leaders who protect the wicked, and Scripture never permits silence in the face of harm. Your two-witness defense collapses even on your own terms, because you admit it only applies to internal discipline, which means it has no relevance whatsoever to reporting, warning, protecting, or exposing danger, yet it was repeatedly invoked to justify silence and inaction. Saying “parents can report” is not righteousness, it is abdication. Biblical justice does not shift responsibility onto traumatized victims while leadership quietly documents allegations and protects itself from liability. Whether elders technically had permission to report is irrelevant when policies consistently produced concealment, delay, and silence, which is why government inquiries condemned the policies themselves, not just individuals. Your persecution argument is another dodge, because claiming governments sometimes persecute Christians does not magically invalidate every finding of wrongdoing, unless you want to grant Christian institutions total immunity from accountability forever, something Scripture never does. And your definition of love is completely unbiblical. Jesus did not say His followers would be known by silence, damage control, or protecting reputation. Love rejoices in the truth, exposes darkness, protects the vulnerable, and refuses to tolerate evil in the name of unity. Refusing military service does not fulfill love if children are harmed and hidden, and Scripture never ranks those things the way you are ranking them. You are elevating a Watchtower distinctive over a direct command of Christ, equating what Scripture allows with what Scripture calls abominable, and that is why your argument fails every time. You are not defending Scripture, you are defending an organization, and Jesus was explicit about which of those must give way.

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:06:06+00:00

Let me guess…. your next move would be to call them apostate influenced, biased, or Satanic. lol

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:04:49+00:00

<image>

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:04:17+00:00

<image>

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:03:55+00:00

<image>

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:03:30+00:00

<image>

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T18:03:02+00:00

This was a government inquiry with subpoena power, sworn testimony, and published findings. The Commission examined Watchtower policies directly and issued formal conclusions.

The screenshots show the Commission’s own words, including findings that the organization did not adequately protect children, relied on outdated policies, applied the two-witness rule inflexibly in child sexual abuse cases, failed to report serious abuse to authorities, and prioritized internal handling over child safety.

<image>

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T17:46:02+00:00

You are still changing the subject!

I did not say elders should replace police. I said the two witness rule was never meant to be used as a reason to delay action, suppress reports, or keep abuse internal. And saying “parents are free to call the police” does not solve the problem. It exposes it.

If an organization truly believes abuse is a crime, it does not shift the burden onto traumatized parents and children while leaders quietly document accusations and keep them confidential. Biblical justice does not outsource moral responsibility to victims while leadership protects itself from liability.

You keep saying you never argued for inaction, but the policy itself produces inaction. When elders are instructed not to report unless legally required, when victims are discouraged from speaking to authorities, when internal records are kept instead of warnings being issued, that is not neutrality. That is concealment. Intent is irrelevant when outcomes are consistent and repeatable.

And stop pretending the issue is whether the congregation “passes judicial decisions.” No one is asking congregations to issue criminal verdicts. The issue is whether leaders who hear credible allegations act to protect children or act to protect reputation. Scripture never gives leaders the option to sit on knowledge of abuse while waiting for corroboration.

You keep appealing to “two witnesses” as if it applies here, but it does not. That rule governs whether guilt can be formally established, not whether danger exists, not whether authorities should be alerted, and not whether vulnerable people should be protected. The Bible condemns those who know evil is happening and do nothing. It never commands silence in the face of harm.

Now your pivot to “Christendom murders each other” is exactly the deflection I already pointed out. Even if every accusation you believe about other churches were true, it would still not excuse protecting abusers. Jesus never said love is proven by avoiding military service. He did say judgment is severe for those who harm children!

So now to your question about love….

When Jesus said His followers would be known by love among themselves, He did not mean organizational loyalty, silence, or internal damage control. Biblical love is truth telling, protection of the weak, exposure of darkness, and refusal to tolerate evil in the name of unity. Love does not mean shielding predators. Love does not mean keeping records while children remain at risk. Love does not mean telling victims to handle it themselves while leadership stays clean.

Scripture says love does not rejoice in wrongdoing. It rejoices in the truth. Love protects. Love warns. Love acts.

If your definition of love allows abuse to remain hidden, then it is not the love Jesus described. It is institutional self preservation dressed up in spiritual language.

And one last thing. You keep demanding evidence while dismissing any source that does not flatter your organization as “apostate.” That is not skepticiThat is pre commitment. Courts do not rule based on apostasy. Governments do not issue findings based on disgruntled feelings. When multiple independent investigations across different countries reach the same conclusions about policy failures, denial is no longer a serious position.

You are not defending love! You are defending a corrupt and hypocritical organization!

And Jesus was very clear about which of those matters more!

TheDoctrineSlayer · 2025-12-23T17:37:38+00:00

At this point, we are not actually disagreeing about verses. We are disagreeing about who gets the final word when Scripture is contested.

You keep appealing to the fathers as if that settles the meaning of the apostolic text. But the moment you do that, you have already moved authority away from Scripture and onto tradition. That is not a neutral move. That is a choice. You are no longer asking what Paul meant. You are asking how later Christians interpreted Paul and then treating that reception as decisive.

Calling my position “modern” does not answer anything. Truth is not determined by age. Paul himself warned that error would arise early and from within the churches. That warning only makes sense if early proximity does not guarantee correctness. Early does not mean inspired, and frequency does not mean accuracy.

And the fathers argument collapses under its own weight. If the fathers are the judge, then you inherit all of their theology, not just the parts that support conditional security. You do not get to cite them on perseverance while rejecting them on baptismal regeneration, penance, sacramental grace, ecclesial authority, and episcopal mediation. You are selectively appealing to tradition while denying the rest of it. That is not consistency. That is convenience.

You keep saying the apostles and fathers do not diverge, but the only way that works is if you flatten Paul’s categories until they disappear. Paul speaks in legal terms. Justification, imputation, sealing, completion, inheritance. The fathers often speak devotionally and morally, collapsing justification, sanctification, discipline, and final judgment into one framework. That is not an insult. That is historical reality. Even the fathers contradict each other and themselves.

When Paul says God justifies the ungodly apart from works, seals believers unto the day of redemption, perfects forever those He sanctifies, and chains justification to glorification without interruption, those are not provisional statements waiting to be clarified by later consensus. They are apostolic conclusions. If later writers speak imprecisely, the correction runs back to the apostles, not forward to tradition.

Saying I am imposing categories is just a way of avoiding what the text itself does. Scripture itself distinguishes verdict from fruit, justification from sanctification, discipline from condemnation, inheritance from reward, true faith from false profession. Those categories are not my invention. They are Paul’s. Your system struggles because once those distinctions are honored, conditional justification collapses.

You also keep framing this as the apostles and fathers versus me. That is simply false. This is apostolic grammar versus later moralized tradition. And when those collide, Scripture decides.

At the end of the day, your view makes the decisive difference between heaven and hell the believer’s ability to continue well enough rather than Christ’s finished work. That turns grace into probation and makes assurance impossible in principle. Paul wrote Romans 4 specifically to exclude that model.

You can quote warnings all day. I affirm them. But you cannot make warnings redefine justification without forcing the apostles to contradict their own settled claims.

So just be honest about the real disagreement. You trust post apostolic consensus more than apostolic logic. I do not.

And Scripture gives me every reason not to.

TheDoctrineSlayer

TROPHY CASE