Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[Tzaousios]

I thought (without checking) he was responding to a Catholic or EO (apostolic succession), not a Lutheran.

You people...LOL!!!

Right, because if one is not succinct in one's addresses around here, this kind of appellation could be the same as saying "those Catholics." Nothing positive can possibly follow from that.

 

[Tzaousios]

That was in a different topic, and it is also not what I said at all. What I said in the other topic was that archaeology proves the validity of the Bible. I pray that you do not twist scripture as you so frequently twist my words.

Oh? I don't recall that you had accused me of any "twisting" at the time. Well, at any rate, it is good to know that you do not wish to identify with the assumption that archaeology "disproves" Christian mysticism.

 

[Tzaousios]

Also, there are other mentions of households in say John chapter 4 that implicitly exclude infants, so yeah the household argument is garbage. Good day.

That was predictable. What do you mean, "implicitly exclude infants?"

Does the Apostle John disapprove of infant baptism so much that he "implies" that infants were not involved to make that point? If so, why didn't he just come out and say "here we are taught that infant baptism is wrong" in order that we might not believe other implied doctrines such as "that household garbage?"

 

[Gnarwhal]

As I was pondering whether or not you were being serious or facetious, I concluded that you were being serious and my brain fell out of my head. As such, I invite you all to continue this conversation without me while I just sit here and slobber all over my keyboard until somebody shows up who can help me...

The byproduct of your version of church, I'm sure.

 

[Tzaousios]

Actually, he believes that which was taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and so do I. Why not join us?

The ol' "I am neither Protestant nor Catholic just Christian" trope, once again.

 

[Tzaousios]

Congratulations.

As I was pondering whether or not you were being serious or facetious, I concluded that you were being serious and my brain fell out of my head. As such, I invite you all to continue this conversation without me while I just sit here and slobber all over my keyboard until somebody shows up who can help me...

LOL...was there a rather large hole in your head for your brain to fall out like that? You might want to see a physician for that.

 

[Tzaousios]

Read what was plainly written..

To interpret or not interpret, that is the question, or perhaps the temptation to admit having done so or not.

 

[Defensor Christi]

Actually, he believes that which was taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and so do I. Why not join us?

If that were the case you'd be Catholic...been there done that, got the t-shirt and came home to Rome...why not join us?

 

[Defensor Christi]

That statement is factually not true, St. Paul and St. Augustine among others prove thus. I understand the emotionalism behind your comments, as emotional comments will often stir up emotional responses.

Repeating a lie does not make it true...its amazing how people want to deny historical fact...love this thread!

 

[MamaZ]

To interpret or not interpret, that is the question, or perhaps the temptation to admit having done so or not.

If you can't plainly read a statment then maybe it is time to pull the beam out of your eye so you can see plainly.

 

[Tzaousios]

If you can't plainly read a statment then maybe it is time to pull the beam out of your eye so you can see plainly.

I did not say I could not. However, does that go for EVERY statement that one reads in the Bible?

 

[Dunban]

The biggest change in my beliefs came when I actually read the Bible and believed what it said, rather than what my church had told me it said.

But why does the bible have preeminence though? It was a collection of books chosen and established by the church. It seems rather silly to select one aspect of the faith to accept, then elevate it to the same level as God, and then discard the entire rest of church history, tradition and doctrine (despite the fact that the church itself was what produced the book you no call "The Bible"). It seems entirely counter-intuitive.

 

[BelievingIsObeying]

But why does the bible have preeminence though? It was a collection of books chosen and established by the church. It seems rather silly to select one aspect of the faith to accept, then elevate it to the same level as God, and then discard the entire rest of church history, tradition and doctrine (despite the fact that the church itself was what produced the book you no call "The Bible"). It seems entirely counter-intuitive.

I dont understand your use of "the church" as if it is a single physical entity.

 

[Dunban]

I dont understand your use of "the church" as if it is a single physical entity.

Then perhaps you should do some study of church history. It was always a unified structure, even going back to Nicaea and farther. Even the Nicene Creed states that there is "one holy and apostolic church" which must be believed in. The very concept of "heresy" hinges upon there being a "correct" - that is, orthodox - belief structure. Without that central authority, the term heresy loses all meaning.

 

[BelievingIsObeying]

Then perhaps you should do some study of church history. It was always a unified structure, even going back to Nicaea and farther. Even the Nicene Creed states that there is "one holy and apostolic church" which must be believed in. The very concept of "heresy" hinges upon there being a "correct" - that is, orthodox - belief structure. Without that central authority, the term heresy loses all meaning.

Can you describe "the church"?

 

[sonshine234]

Read what was plainly written..

That doesn't tell me anything. If you can't answer that's fine. So I will take from your post the answer is no and are outside Christianity. Thank you

 

[yogosans14]

But why does the bible have preeminence though? It was a collection of books chosen and established by the church. It seems rather silly to select one aspect of the faith to accept, then elevate it to the same level as God, and then discard the entire rest of church history, tradition and doctrine (despite the fact that the church itself was what produced the book you no call "The Bible"). It seems entirely counter-intuitive.

The Church is Crisis body. I used to be like you and think that a Physical building with a leader is so important but its not. Jesus said we get into Heaven by believing in him. Not some Church, the Church is Christs BODY not a building.

 

[Pteriax]

Bunk?!?! LOL...okay pal, yet you follow a theological doctrine that is roughly 500 years old. Too funny!!!!

Paul would be considered a Calvinist if he were alive today. He taught all five points. And he would probably avoid big "c" churches like the plague that they are.

Another thing I used to believe but do not anymore is that Catholics actually had something going for them. A read through the Bible and the grace of God cured me of that notion.

 

[Pteriax]

Actually, he believes that which was taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles and so do I. Why not join us?

With only one real difference that I know of. That is between us I mean.

 

[bornofGod888]

The Church is Crisis body. I used to be like you and think that a Physical building with a leader is so important but its not. Jesus said we get into Heaven by believing in him. Not some Church, the Church is Christs BODY not a building.

Shhhhhhhh...keep it down...keep it down.

Of course, the church is Christ's body, of which all believers are a part, but, around here, some people will tell you that you need to eat the church to be saved.

I know...I know...it sounds crazy, but after you've already been saved through infant baptism, then you're saved through eating the church.

What?

It doesn't make sense?

Just take out your brain and you'll be alright...