u/Good-Researcher-2503

I've been studying this question, and my personal conclusion is that when the Bible speaks about entering the Kingdom of God, it is ultimately referring to entering God's eternal kingdom in heaven—not simply experiencing a better life or a spiritual reality here on earth.

There are certainly verses that teach God's rule is active in the lives of believers today. Christians submit to Christ as King now (Colossians 1:13), but I don't believe that is the same thing as entering the Kingdom in its fullest sense.

I don't think regeneration is entering the kingdom

Consider these passages:

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Jesus speaks of a future entrance, not merely a present experience. He also contrasts those who think they belong with those who actually will enter.

Matthew 25:34

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'"

This takes place at the final judgment. The inheritance of the Kingdom is presented as a future event.

John 3:3-5

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Being born again is the requirement to enter the Kingdom

1 Corinthians 15:50

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Paul says our present physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom. That points to our future resurrection and eternal life.

2 Peter 1:10-11

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure... for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Peter describes entrance into the everlasting Kingdom as something still ahead for believers.

2 Timothy 4:18

"And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom."

Paul expected to enter Christ's heavenly Kingdom after this life.

Revelation 21:1-4 John describes the eternal dwelling of God with His people after sin, death, and suffering are gone forever. This is the complete fulfillment of God's Kingdom.

Some point to Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in your midst." I understand this to mean the King Himself was standing among them. God's reign had arrived in the person of Christ, but that is different from the final inheritance of the eternal Kingdom.

The New Testament repeatedly speaks of believers inheriting, entering, or receiving the Kingdom as something connected with Christ's return, the resurrection, and eternal life.

For me, the biblical picture is this:

We live under Christ's rule now. We are citizens of His Kingdom now (Philippians 3:20). But we fully enter and inherit His everlasting Kingdom when we are with Him forever. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please keep the discussion respectful, and let's let Scripture be our authority.

I've been studying this question, and my personal conclusion is that when the Bible speaks about entering the Kingdom of God, it is ultimately referring to entering God's eternal kingdom in heaven—not simply experiencing a better life or a spiritual reality here on earth.

There are certainly verses that teach God's rule is active in the lives of believers today. Christians submit to Christ as King now (Colossians 1:13), but I don't believe that is the same thing as entering the Kingdom in its fullest sense.

I don't think regeneration is entering the kingdom

Consider these passages:

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Jesus speaks of a future entrance, not merely a present experience. He also contrasts those who think they belong with those who actually will enter.

Matthew 25:34

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'"

This takes place at the final judgment. The inheritance of the Kingdom is presented as a future event.

John 3:3-5

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Being born again is the requirement to enter the Kingdom

1 Corinthians 15:50

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Paul says our present physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom. That points to our future resurrection and eternal life.

2 Peter 1:10-11

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure... for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Peter describes entrance into the everlasting Kingdom as something still ahead for believers.

2 Timothy 4:18

"And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom."

Paul expected to enter Christ's heavenly Kingdom after this life.

Revelation 21:1-4 John describes the eternal dwelling of God with His people after sin, death, and suffering are gone forever. This is the complete fulfillment of God's Kingdom.

Some point to Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in your midst." I understand this to mean the King Himself was standing among them. God's reign had arrived in the person of Christ, but that is different from the final inheritance of the eternal Kingdom.

The New Testament repeatedly speaks of believers inheriting, entering, or receiving the Kingdom as something connected with Christ's return, the resurrection, and eternal life.

For me, the biblical picture is this:

We live under Christ's rule now. We are citizens of His Kingdom now (Philippians 3:20). But we fully enter and inherit His everlasting Kingdom when we are with Him forever. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please keep the discussion respectful, and let's let Scripture be our authority.

I've been studying this question, and my personal conclusion is that when the Bible speaks about entering the Kingdom of God, it is ultimately referring to entering God's eternal kingdom in heaven—not simply experiencing a better life or a spiritual reality here on earth.

There are certainly verses that teach God's rule is active in the lives of believers today. Christians submit to Christ as King now (Colossians 1:13), but I don't believe that is the same thing as entering the Kingdom in its fullest sense.

I don't think regeneration is entering the kingdom

Consider these passages:

Matthew 7:21

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

Jesus speaks of a future entrance, not merely a present experience. He also contrasts those who think they belong with those who actually will enter.

Matthew 25:34

"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'"

This takes place at the final judgment. The inheritance of the Kingdom is presented as a future event.

John 3:3-5

"Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God... Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Being born again is the requirement to enter the Kingdom

1 Corinthians 15:50

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Paul says our present physical bodies cannot inherit the Kingdom. That points to our future resurrection and eternal life.

2 Peter 1:10-11

"Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure... for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Peter describes entrance into the everlasting Kingdom as something still ahead for believers.

2 Timothy 4:18

"And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and preserve me for His heavenly kingdom."

Paul expected to enter Christ's heavenly Kingdom after this life.

Revelation 21:1-4 John describes the eternal dwelling of God with His people after sin, death, and suffering are gone forever. This is the complete fulfillment of God's Kingdom.

Some point to Luke 17:20-21, where Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is in your midst." I understand this to mean the King Himself was standing among them. God's reign had arrived in the person of Christ, but that is different from the final inheritance of the eternal Kingdom.

The New Testament repeatedly speaks of believers inheriting, entering, or receiving the Kingdom as something connected with Christ's return, the resurrection, and eternal life.

For me, the biblical picture is this:

We live under Christ's rule now. We are citizens of His Kingdom now (Philippians 3:20). But we fully enter and inherit His everlasting Kingdom when we are with Him forever. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Please keep the discussion respectful, and let's let Scripture be our authority.

I'm trying to understand what the Bible teaches about salvation.

Jesus said:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (John 6:47)

Paul wrote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8–9)

"To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

So here's what I'm struggling with:

If salvation is truly a free gift received by faith, why do some Christians say I have to deserve it, prove myself, or earn it through my obedience? Doesn't that make it something earned instead of a gift?

I often hear that salvation is a free gift from God through faith in Jesus, not something we can earn. But I also read passages about obedience, repentance, good works, and enduring to the end. That sometimes makes me wonder if I have to somehow prove I'm worthy or deserve salvation after all.

How do you reconcile Jesus' simple statements about believing with the idea that salvation has to be deserved? Do people actually think it's a gift

I'm trying to understand what the Bible teaches about salvation.

Jesus said:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (John 6:47)

Paul wrote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8–9)

"To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

So here's what I'm struggling with:

If salvation is truly a free gift received by faith, why do some Christians say I have to deserve it, prove myself, or earn it through my obedience? Doesn't that make it something earned instead of a gift?

I often hear that salvation is a free gift from God through faith in Jesus, not something we can earn. But I also read passages about obedience, repentance, good works, and enduring to the end. That sometimes makes me wonder if I have to somehow prove I'm worthy or deserve salvation after all.

How do you reconcile Jesus' simple statements about believing with the idea that salvation has to be deserved? Do people actually think it's a gift

I'm trying to understand what the Bible teaches about salvation.

Jesus said:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life." (John 6:47)

Paul wrote:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (Ephesians 2:8–9)

"To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

So here's what I'm struggling with:

If salvation is truly a free gift received by faith, why do some Christians say I have to deserve it, prove myself, or earn it through my obedience? Doesn't that make it something earned instead of a gift?

I often hear that salvation is a free gift from God through faith in Jesus, not something we can earn. But I also read passages about obedience, repentance, good works, and enduring to the end. That sometimes makes me wonder if I have to somehow prove I'm worthy or deserve salvation after all.

How do you reconcile Jesus' simple statements about believing with the idea that salvation has to be deserved? Do people actually think it's a gift?

I've been studying different interpretations of the "outer darkness" passages in the Bible, and I keep running into a question that I can't seem to reconcile.

Some Christians argue that the outer darkness refers to believers—specifically unfaithful believers who are excluded from certain rewards or from reigning with Christ, rather than being condemned to eternal punishment.

My question is this: If the people cast into the outer darkness are genuinely saved believers, how would that be distinguished from the "second death" described in Revelation?

The second death is typically understood as the final judgment in the lake of fire, and Revelation 20:6 says it has no power over those who are saved. That makes me wonder how some interpretations understand the outer darkness as a severe judgment for believers without equating it to the second death.

Are the outer darkness and the second death completely different events with different purposes, or is there biblical evidence that connects them?

I'm not trying to argue for a particular view—I genuinely want to understand how people reconcile these passages. If you hold the view that the outer darkness refers to believers, how do you distinguish it from the second death? If you believe it refers to unbelievers instead, what scriptural evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I've been studying different interpretations of the "outer darkness" passages in the Bible, and I keep running into a question that I can't seem to reconcile.

Some Christians argue that the outer darkness refers to believers—specifically unfaithful believers who are excluded from certain rewards or from reigning with Christ, rather than being condemned to eternal punishment.

My question is this: If the people cast into the outer darkness are genuinely saved believers, how would that be distinguished from the "second death" described in Revelation?

The second death is typically understood as the final judgment in the lake of fire, and Revelation 20:6 says it has no power over those who are saved. That makes me wonder how some interpretations understand the outer darkness as a severe judgment for believers without equating it to the second death.

Are the outer darkness and the second death completely different events with different purposes, or is there biblical evidence that connects them?

I'm not trying to argue for a particular view—I genuinely want to understand how people reconcile these passages. If you hold the view that the outer darkness refers to believers, how do you distinguish it from the second death? If you believe it refers to unbelievers instead, what scriptural evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I've been studying different interpretations of the "outer darkness" passages in the Bible, and I keep running into a question that I can't seem to reconcile.

Some Christians argue that the outer darkness refers to believers—specifically unfaithful believers who are excluded from certain rewards or from reigning with Christ, rather than being condemned to eternal punishment.

My question is this: If the people cast into the outer darkness are genuinely saved believers, how would that be distinguished from the "second death" described in Revelation?

The second death is typically understood as the final judgment in the lake of fire, and Revelation 20:6 says it has no power over those who are saved. That makes me wonder how some interpretations understand the outer darkness as a severe judgment for believers without equating it to the second death.

Are the outer darkness and the second death completely different events with different purposes, or is there biblical evidence that connects them?

I'm not trying to argue for a particular view—I genuinely want to understand how people reconcile these passages. If you hold the view that the outer darkness refers to believers, how do you distinguish it from the second death? If you believe it refers to unbelievers instead, what scriptural evidence leads you to that conclusion?

I've been thinking about John 6:44, where Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them.

My question is: Does "drawing" mean that God irresistibly causes someone to believe, or does it mean He enables or invites them to believe while they still have a choice?

Also, does the Bible ever say that someone can come to God without the Father drawing them?

I don’t believe Psalms 51supports the idea that we can’t come to God without Him drawing us because we’re too corrupt, as in the original sin doctrine, so please don’t use that verse when responding. I think it means he was born into a fallen, sinful world rather than being sinful as a newborn. That’s how I interpret Psalm 51. Not sure what the doctrine is called.

I'm looking for biblical arguments from different perspectives and would appreciate seeing the passages you think support your view.

I've been thinking about John 6:44, where Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them.

My question is: Does "drawing" mean that God irresistibly causes someone to believe, or does it mean He enables or invites them to believe while they still have a choice?

Also, does the Bible ever say that someone can come to God without the Father drawing them?

I don’t believe Psalms 51supports the idea that we can’t come to God without Him drawing us because we’re too corrupt, as in the original sin doctrine, so please don’t use that verse when responding. I think it means he was born into a fallen, sinful world rather than being sinful as a newborn. That’s how I interpret Psalm 51. Not sure what the doctrine is called.

I'm looking for biblical arguments from different perspectives and would appreciate seeing the passages you think support your view.

I've been thinking about John 6:44, where Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws them.

My question is: Does "drawing" mean that God irresistibly causes someone to believe, or does it mean He enables or invites them to believe while they still have a choice?

Also, does the Bible ever say that someone can come to God without the Father drawing them?

I don’t believe Psalms 51supports the idea that we can’t come to God without Him drawing us because we’re too corrupt, as in the original sin doctrine, so please don’t use that verse when responding. I think it means he was born into a fallen, sinful world rather than being sinful as a newborn. That’s how I interpret Psalm 51. Not sure what the doctrine is called.

I'm looking for biblical arguments from different perspectives and would appreciate seeing the passages you think support your view.

The verse most often mentioned is Psalm 16:10, quoted again in Acts 2:27:

"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:10, KJV)

Peter explains this prophecy is about Christ:

"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 2:27)

The point of these verses is not that Jesus was tormented in hell I believe, but that He would not remain in the grave (Greek: Hades, the realm of the dead) and His body would not decay he resurrected his tomb was empty

Jesus Himself said:

"It is finished." (John 19:30)

His work of atonement was completed on the cross.

He also told the repentant thief:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

Not "after I suffer in hell," but "today...in paradise."

Peter writes:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)

And Hebrews says:

"When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

So where does Scripture explicitly say Jesus burned or was tormented in hell after the cross? I haven't found a verse that says that.

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ suffered for our sins on the cross, died, was buried, and rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Before building a doctrine, it's worth asking: what do the Scriptures actually say?

What would make someone come to the conclusion he burned in hell?

I've seen ruckmanites say he did but not sure if it's widespread belief among Protestants

The verse most often mentioned is Psalm 16:10, quoted again in Acts 2:27:

"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Psalm 16:10, KJV)

Peter explains this prophecy is about Christ:

"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 2:27)

The point of these verses is not that Jesus was tormented in hell I believe, but that He would not remain in the grave (Greek: Hades, the realm of the dead) and His body would not decay he resurrected his tomb was empty

Jesus Himself said:

"It is finished." (John 19:30)

His work of atonement was completed on the cross.

He also told the repentant thief:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

Not "after I suffer in hell," but "today...in paradise."

Peter writes:

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." (1 Peter 3:18)

And Hebrews says:

"When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Hebrews 1:3)

So where does Scripture explicitly say Jesus burned or was tormented in hell after the cross? I haven't found a verse that says that.

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ suffered for our sins on the cross, died, was buried, and rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Before building a doctrine, it's worth asking: what do the Scriptures actually say?

What would make someone come to the conclusion he burned in hell?

I've seen ruckmanites say he did but not sure if it's widespread belief among Protestants

I've been wondering about this lately.

I've noticed a lot of people who come to faith and then, within a year or two (sometimes even less), start YouTube channels where they're teaching theology, correcting other Christians, debating doctrines, and building an audience.

I don't really understand the rush to teach. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend several years studying Scripture, learning church history, growing in spiritual maturity, and being discipled before taking on the role of publicly teaching others?

I've seen quite a few examples where newer believers ended up promoting some really unusual doctrines because they didn't seem grounded yet. There are also cases where someone built a large Christian platform only to later leave the faith entirely. One example that comes to mind is Young Don, who was teaching online for a while but has since walked away from Christianity.

I'm not saying newer believers can't share their testimony or talk about what they're learning. That's different from presenting yourself as someone qualified to teach doctrine to thousands of people.

Passages like James 3:1 seem to treat teaching as a serious responsibility:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

Paul also tells Timothy to entrust teaching to "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2), and qualifications for elders include being "able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2), which seems to imply maturity rather than simply being enthusiastic.

What do you all think?

Do you believe someone should spend more time growing in biblical knowledge and spiritual maturity before publicly teaching on platforms like YouTube? Or is it fine as long as they're sincere and accurately handling Scripture? I'm interested in hearing different perspectives and any Scriptures you think are relevant.

I've been wondering about this lately.

I've noticed a lot of people who come to faith and then, within a year or two (sometimes even less), start YouTube channels where they're teaching theology, correcting other Christians, debating doctrines, and building an audience.

I don't really understand the rush to teach. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend several years studying Scripture, learning church history, growing in spiritual maturity, and being discipled before taking on the role of publicly teaching others?

I've seen quite a few examples where newer believers ended up promoting some really unusual doctrines because they didn't seem grounded yet. There are also cases where someone built a large Christian platform only to later leave the faith entirely. One example that comes to mind is Young Don, who was teaching online for a while but has since walked away from Christianity.

I'm not saying newer believers can't share their testimony or talk about what they're learning. That's different from presenting yourself as someone qualified to teach doctrine to thousands of people.

Passages like James 3:1 seem to treat teaching as a serious responsibility:

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

Paul also tells Timothy to entrust teaching to "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2), and qualifications for elders include being "able to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2), which seems to imply maturity rather than simply being enthusiastic.

What do you all think?

Do you believe someone should spend more time growing in biblical knowledge and spiritual maturity before publicly teaching on platforms like YouTube? Or is it fine as long as they're sincere and accurately handling Scripture? I'm interested in hearing different perspectives and any Scriptures you think are relevant.

I've been trying to study this more, and I'm a little confused about the distinction between original sin and the sin nature.

I've seen a lot of Christians use the terms interchangeably, but I've also come across people who insist they're actually two different doctrines that often get blended together. Some even say people mistakenly combine them into one concept when they should be distinguished.

From what I understand, original sin often seems to refer to what humanity inherited from Adam (whether that's guilt, corruption, separation from God, or some combination depending on the tradition), while sin nature seems to refer more to our inward inclination or tendency toward sin. But I'm not sure if that's an accurate distinction or if they're simply two ways of describing the same thing.

So I'm curious:

Are original sin and the sin nature actually distinct doctrines, or are they essentially the same?

If they're different, how would you define each one?

Which passages do you believe teach original sin?

Which passages do you believe teach a sin nature?

Are there any verses that people commonly use for one doctrine that you think are actually referring to the other?

Does your answer depend on your theological tradition (Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, Wesleyan, Baptist, etc.)?

I'd really appreciate it if you could support your view with Scripture, not just theological statements. I'm especially interested in seeing how people distinguish (or don't distinguish) the two from the biblical text itself.

I'm trying to better understand the incarnation and Christ's human nature.

Christians generally agree that Jesus was fully God and fully man and that He never sinned. However, I'm struggling to understand exactly how His humanity relates to ours.

Was Jesus actually capable of sinning but simply never did, or was He incapable of sinning because He was God incarnate?

I'm also curious about the nature of His flesh before and after the resurrection.

Scripture teaches that:

• Jesus came "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3).
• He was made like His brothers in every respect (Hebrews 2:17).
• He was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
• He experienced hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering, and death.
• Yet Acts 2:27-31 and Psalm 16:10 say His flesh did not see corruption.

This raises several questions for me:

1. Did Jesus possess the same human nature we have, or was His humanity different in some way because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and without sin?
2. Was Jesus capable of sinning, or was sinning impossible due to His divine nature?
3. When Scripture says He was tempted, did He experience temptation exactly as we do, or only in an external sense since He lacked a sinful nature?
4. Before His resurrection, was Jesus' body corruptible and capable of suffering, aging, and dying just like ours?
5. If His body was capable of death before the resurrection, what exactly do Acts 2:27 and Psalm 16:10 mean when they say His flesh did not see corruption?
6. After the resurrection, did Jesus possess a glorified and incorruptible body like the one believers will receive in the future?
7. Was Jesus' resurrected body incapable of suffering, decay, temptation, or death?
8. How do different Christian traditions explain the relationship between Christ's humanity before the resurrection and His glorified humanity after the resurrection?

Was Jesus incapable of sinning and having some sort of special flesh unlike us?

Was Jesus flesh incorruptible before his resurrection.

Provide scriptures thanks

If someone is teaching or sharing a false gospel or doctrine, does that mean Christians are no longer called or obligated to treat that person with love, humility, and gentleness and kindness? It seems like we can strongly disagree with false teaching while still being respectful and loving toward the person sharing it. I'm curious what others think.