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

[Tzaousios]

Prophesy is of God, divination is of man / Satan. Avoiding a number because it has a six in it is numerology and has nothing to do with the number of the beast's name in Revelation.

Perhaps you could do well to turn your blazing sixguns on some of the resident numerologists in the Eschatology subforum.

 

[Rick Otto]

Tell that to saint John the divine.

Bite that wagging tongue because St John would agree that numerology is demonic, which is not the same as saying God's scriptural numerics are demonic.

 

[Pteriax]

Perhaps you could do well to turn your blazing sixguns on some of the resident numerologists in the Eschatology subforum.

Oh my, no. Far be it from me to poke a hornet nest with a stick. Same reason I avoid posting in exclusively Catholic or SDA sub-forums. Same reason I avoid preaching YEC on evolution / atheist forums for that matter lol!

 

[Rick Otto]

Mine would be that jesus is micheal the archangel and that hell doesnt exist.

Name one that you have thought was biblical but found out it was heretical?

Pelagianism/Arminianism
Also that the eucharist more than a sacramental symbol
And the doctrine that Baptism is more than a symbolic act made as a personal choice to demonstrate personal faith

 

[MoreCoffee]

Bite that wagging tongue because St John would agree that numerology is demonic, which is not the same as saying God's scriptural numerics are demonic.

Numerology was not my word. I referred to 66 and 666 and 73 and 7 and 3. But said nothing about numerology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Prophesy is of God, divination is of man / Satan. Avoiding a number because it has a six in it is numerology and has nothing to do with the number of the beast's name in Revelation.

I didn't mention any of the stuff you're writing about. What I wrote was this:

I gave up using a 66 book bible - 73 seems so much more holy

66 being close to 666 while 73 is a 7 for perfection and a 3 for the Holy Trinity ​

 

[Rick Otto]

Numerology was not my word. I referred to 66 and 666 and 73 and 7 and 3. But said nothing about numerology.

Yes, it was not your word. You said about numerology that St. John would disagree that it's demonic.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, it was not your word. You said about numerology that St. John would disagree that it's demonic.

That's not quite right. I advised brother Pteriax to take his accusation about numerology to saint John the divine because his quarrel was with numbers that are mentioned in the apocalypse of saint John. Specifically, 666, and 7; 3 may be mentioned obliquely, 66 is the number of books in the table of contents for common KJVs.

 

[Knee V]

False.

If we assume that the Reformed understanding of "grace" is valid, then I could understand your misunderstanding. But it is not, and it should be abandoned.

 

[Knee V]

I didn't mention any of the stuff you're writing about. What I wrote was this: I gave up using a 66 book bible - 73 seems so much more holy

66 being close to 666 while 73 is a 7 for perfection and a 3 for the Holy Trinity

I assumed that your use of those numbers was not entirely serious.

 

[sonshine234]

This sound like one sitting in a judges chair declaring what they say as truth.. I stand inside of Christ and He in me. Only one who can judge and it is not man. For men are mere creations running around trying to be who they really are not. When one sees who Christ really Is then they can stand and preach the Gospel. Until then it is like children running around too and fro saying your not this because I said so..

You must be a politician because you can't give a straight answer. I wasn't judging just stating a fact you do not believe Christ was a man because you said God is not a man, which Christ is fully God and fully Man. I have seen you advocate heresy here so I just want to know if you really believe in Christianity and one of the big things is the hypostatic union

 

[MoreCoffee]

One more to add to my list.

I gave up 45 minute sermons

 

[MoreCoffee]

I assumed that your use of those numbers was not entirely serious.

No, it was not entirely serious as the wink and the smile ought to have indicated.

 

[Pteriax]

Numerology was not my word. I referred to 66 and 666 and 73 and 7 and 3. But said nothing about numerology.

I didn't mention any of the stuff you're writing about. What I wrote was this:

I gave up using a 66 book bible - 73 seems so much more holy

66 being close to 666 while 73 is a 7 for perfection and a 3 for the Holy Trinity ​

That is numerology. I had to study almost every form of occultism, and this is most definitely a form of numerology. Which is equal to divination. Which is universally condemned as a terrible sin repeatedly in the Bible.

 

[Pteriax]

If we assume that the Reformed understanding of "grace" is valid, then I could understand your misunderstanding. But it is not, and it should be abandoned.

It's the Biblical understanding. I understand that as a big 'C' you don't necessarily hold the Bible as authoritative, at least not as you should, but I do.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That is numerology. I had to study almost every form of occultism, and this is most definitely a form of numerology. Which is equal to divination. Which is universally condemned as a terrible sin repeatedly in the Bible.

 

[Pteriax]

You must be a politician because you can't give a straight answer. I wasn't judging just stating a fact you do not believe Christ was a man because you said God is not a man, which Christ is fully God and fully Man. I have seen you advocate heresy here so I just want to know if you really believe in Christianity and one of the big things is the hypostatic union

I think it is clear that she was referring to God the Father, not Jesus. God is spirit and has no body and is not a "man". Jesus is. There are three separate persons that together make up what we call the trinity. Three separate persons which are equal, yet distinct, yet as one. I know it is a difficult concept to grasp, but to make wild accusations on someone like this is just ridiculous.

 

[Knee V]

It's the Biblical understanding. I understand that as a big 'C' you don't necessarily hold the Bible as authoritative, at least not as you should, but I do.

It's only Biblical because you think it is. In that model, truth is whatever you want it to be. Another doctrine that I have rejected.

 

[Pteriax]

It's only Biblical because you think it is. In that model, truth is whatever you want it to be. Another doctrine that I have rejected.

False.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Come to think of it, I also gave up believing every individual has a right to interpret the bible and teach their interpretation.

Obviously anybody can do these things but they have no right to it. They just do it.