Christian is a more general name that doesn't refer to the wide diversity of Christian beliefs. If I wish to refer to Christians who believe beliefs that other Christians do not, I will use words referring to one and another name for the other. This seems natural and is not meant to demonize. I understand the point that JFB is making on the passage but it does not completely answer the point I was making. The people of that church were within Christ and it was Christ who said that he would vomit them out. I don't see how I'm going out of context: this is the context.
Excuses, excuses. Did Peter refer to the Gentiles (unto whom Paul's ministry was given) as Protestants because they had "differing beliefs"? Of course not because they were ONE in the body of Christ. Your excuse is ALSO flimsy because in that case, then Protestants shouldn't be under one name since they also have a "wide diversity of Christian beliefs". All Catholics don't believe the same things either so why call them all Catholics. This is simply unjustified efforts at denominationalism which must be cursed. As one in Christ, in the household of God, we are not divided.
Wow, I'm guessing in that case you ignored the rest of the verses I gave you in my post so you could make this comment. It always baffles me that you are unable to simply respond to my comments and rather opt to bypass most of it. If Christ is going to vomit them out then they certainly weren't members of his household. God doesn't abandon those He washes in His blood. Of course, if you had even bothered to answer my earlier question about losing salvation this would have been settled. The context is the verse from Revelations that you read in contradiction to the Scripture I provided. Answer my comments on those verses from Scripture in your reply. In Christ,
True. Ok, I'll use "Christians who believe in sola-fide" instead of Protestants. In general they believe in sola-fide and sola-scriptura. Ok, how about the place where Jesus says in Matthew "whoever shall deny knowing me before men, the Father will also deny know him." This verse would not making any sense unless if the person knew Jesus beforehand. He doesn't abandon anyone.
No, perhaps the verse isn't in Matthew. It's in one of the four gospels, however. (It's not to be interpreted as unforgivable, otherwise Peter wouldn't have been forgiven.)
I know that. I was giving you a similar verse from the same chapter in Matthew to show that you did indeed take it out of context. And I did state that Peter repented.
