Eternal Life: Please read

[OrthodoxyUSA]

That's assuming that there is an ongoing corporate body called "The Church Of Jerusalem" ... I do not subscribe to the idea that the church is a corporate body.

I suppose then that the councils of The Church have no meaning to you. Do you think in terms of general apostasy or perhaps mass apostasy of some kind?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

DOGMA always has an impact on salvation, and is always an Apostolic teaching. (Embrace it or don't call ourselves Christian)

Doctrine (from a doctor) is the teaching of 'a person' that has been embraced by the community, has no impact on salvation and may be discarded and still be Christian. IOW ~ It really doesn't matter.

A dogmatic statement is sometimes spoken of as a 'doctrine of the Church'. The Church being that teacher... not a person.

It's important to recognize what DOGMA is when it is spoken of.

As long as a group agrees to DOGMA, it can be easily called Christian. If not, there is no way to call it Christian, because its teaching are anti-dogmatic.

I can appreciate this explanation. It still seems a little backwards to me though. What good is doctrine from the church if it is possible error? I think this separating doctrine and dogma is a way of providing oneself with a safety net

If we say that the human soul ends at our physical death we are being anti-dogmatic.

It's only anti-dogmatic if it's a lie. In which case you are right. Problem here is that there is no way to actually demonstrate whether or not someone is wrong about the state of the dead. What we end up doing is taking sides on the issue. You submit that the Orthodox church has the truth. I submit that Adventist church has the truth. Appealing to history is not the way to determine who is correct on the issue, because history is remembered only the way it is recorded. The only steadfast truth we have is the word of God, as such, for all issues regarding "dogma" and "doctrine" we ought to appeal to the word of God to see what it says is true.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I can appreciate this explanation. It still seems a little backwards to me though. What good is doctrine from the church if it is possible error? I think this separating doctrine and dogma is a way of providing oneself with a safety net


It's only anti-dogmatic if it's a lie. In which case you are right. Problem here is that there is no way to actually demonstrate whether or not someone is wrong about the state of the dead. What we end up doing is taking sides on the issue. You submit that the Orthodox church has the truth. I submit that Adventist church has the truth. Appealing to history is not the way to determine who is correct on the issue, because history is remembered only the way it is recorded. The only steadfast truth we have is the word of God, as such, for all issues regarding "dogma" and "doctrine" we ought to appeal to the word of God to see what it says is true.

I submit that the entire 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' holds the truth on this subject for they all agree, and this is the area for their Christian Truths to be discussed.

The SDA argument belongs in the unorthodox section. Their lack of belief means nothing to us but offense. SDA and Messianic's have no business speaking from an authoritative position in this section. Questions... great.

End of discussion.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

I submit that the entire 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' holds the truth on this subject for they all agree, and this is the area for their Christian Truths to be discussed.

Is that so? If they did it would agree with the scriptures. All of it.

The SDA argument belongs in the unorthodox section. Their lack of belief means nothing to us but offense. SDA and Messianic's have no business speaking from an authoritative position in this section. Questions... great.

End of discussion.

Glad you don't get to determine who has authority

I submit to the scripture as the highest for of authority. If it says something different than what your One Holy Apostolic church says, I'm not the one with the problem.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is that so? If they did it would agree with the scriptures. All of it.



Glad you don't get to determine who has authority

I submit to the scripture as the highest for of authority. If it says something different than what your One Holy Apostolic church says, I'm not the one with the problem.

Fine, you say they (we) have a problem.

Would you at least agree that this is the area for their (our) beliefs and not the SDA's belief to the contrary?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Unorthodox Theology (403,034 Posts in 8,454 Threads) What is Preterism? by The Boxer, 22nd November 2013 03:52 PM
A forum to discuss/debate theological doctrines not accepted by mainstream evangelical Christianity (eg. Full Preterism, Unitarianism) Orthodox* and Unorthodox members welcome
Topics or theologies that CF sees as unorthodox or speculative are:

Universalism
Annihilationism http://www.theopedia.com/Annihilationism
Open Theism
Full-Preterism
various non-Trinitarian theologies (Nestorianism, Modalism)
faiths that have beliefs that are contrary to the Nicene Creed

Jehovah's Witness
LDS
Oneness Pentecostal
​

__________________

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

from http://www.theopedia.com/Annihilationism

Annihilationism today

Today many traditionalists claim that the doctrine is most often associated with groups descended from William Miller and the Adventist movement of the mid-1800s, including Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Adventist groups. However, a number of evangelical theologians, including Anglican John Stott, Church of Christ elder Edward Fudge, Open Theists Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, as well as Philip Edgecombe Hughes and others have offered support for the doctrine, touching off a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity.
Since the 1960s, Annihilationism seems to be gaining as a legitimate minority opinion within modern, conservative Protestant theology. It has found support and acceptance among some British evangelicals, although viewed with greater suspicion by their American counterparts.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What, a dog's ma defines doctrine?

kawaii ne!

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No comments on post 70?

Do you recognize what is happening?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Back to the OP then...

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Under the eldership of James, yes.

And you feel that St. James and St. Paul are at odds.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

Fine, you say they (we) have a problem.

Would you at least agree that this is the area for their (our) beliefs and not the SDA's belief to the contrary?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

I believe this thread is the place to speak according to what the OP says. I believe the GT area is the place to speak about Christian beliefs. Accepting something as true simply because that's what we've been told is not the way we are to receive truth. We have to examine every belief by what the bible says, not by what some organization says.

I respect your thread enough to not argue that here, as that was not your intent, but I make no apologies for holding to what I believe. As I told Rev, you show me where I err from the scripture, and I'll take a selfie (it's a sad thing that selfie is actually a word now) of myself at our closet Orthodox church and upload it here

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Accepting something as true simply because that's what we've been told is not the way we are to receive truth.

Incorrect... and that is the very point of the OP.

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2Th 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

I respect your thread enough to not argue that here, as that was not your intent, but I make no apologies for holding to what I believe. As I told Rev, you show me where I err from the scripture, and I'll take a selfie (it's a sad thing that selfie is actually a word now) of myself at our closet Orthodox church and upload it here

Thanks for the respect. I take it you would hold the OP to be historically incorrect? Do not apologize for your belief, be honest about them. Perhaps with a foundation of understanding that we have such a thing as DOGMA that means a great deal to us will further our conversation.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

Incorrect... and that is the very point of the OP.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


If I'm simply supposed to accept what I'm told as true without means of verifying it, how will I know I'm not being lied to?

Thanks for the respect. I take it you would hold the OP to be historically incorrect? Do not apologize for your belief, be honest about them. Perhaps with a foundation of understanding that we have such a thing as DOGMA that means a great deal to us will further our conversation.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

I'm always willing to learn. I can't honestly say what is and isn't historically correct. As I said before, history is only as true as the record that bears it. What the church in Antioch actually was like vs what we're told it's like, I couldn't say one way or the other.

Edit: I would also hold that the traditions the apostles spoke of are not the same as the ones you practice.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


If I'm simply supposed to accept what I'm told as true without means of verifying it, how will I know I'm not being lied to?

I'm always willing to learn. I can't honestly say what is and isn't historically correct. As I said before, history is only as true as the record that bears it. What the church in Antioch actually was like vs what we're told it's like, I couldn't say one way or the other.

Edit: I would also hold that the traditions the apostles spoke of are not the same as the ones you practice.

Without this part...

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

...we would be dealing with only half of what was given. As your argument keeps showing.

Can't unbundle the package.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

...we would be dealing with only half of what was given. As your argument keeps showing.

Can't unbundle the package.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

My question is how do you know you have the right package?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I would also hold that the traditions the apostles spoke of are not the same as the ones you practice.

What is being pieced together as an attempt to following the letter of the scripture has been a huge success hasn't it? This site is a testament to where it can be taken without the context of the services.

Where are all the posters from all the other Apostolic Churches that disagree with the OP as a historical fact?

Over a thousand views and the only ones who have stated disagreement are those who are the farthest away from the Apostolic beliefs.

Their silence is deafening.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

What is being pieced together as an attempt to following the letter of the scripture has been a huge success hasn't it? This site is a testament to where it can be taken without the context of the services.

The scripture isn't being followed though. This forum (and most of Christendom) is a testament of what happens when man does what is right in his own sight.

Where are all the posters from all the other Apostolic Churches that disagree with the OP as a historical fact?

Over a thousand views and the only ones who have stated disagreement are those who are the farthest away from the Apostolic beliefs.

Their silence is deafening.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

Again, how do you know you have it right? Obviously we wouldn't expect individuals who hold similar beliefs to disagree with you. That's why they have similar beliefs. My question remains the same for them.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The scripture isn't being followed though. This forum (and most of Christendom) is a testament of what happens when man does what is right in his own sight.

Correct. As you have just demonstrated, you disregard the parts you find hard to accept... that there is a 'verbal and written' tradition for us maintain.

Commanded to maintain none the less. How will you ever get us to disregard it as you have? Those who have been exposed to more than yourself.

The Apostolic Churches teach that death is a thin veil that love can reach through. We pray prayers of supplication and intercession along with the prayers of thanksgiving (the OP) and we will never quit.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Stryder06]

Correct. As you have just demonstrated, you disregard the parts you find hard to accept... that there is a 'verbal and written' tradition for us maintain.

Commanded to maintain none the less. How will you ever get us to disregard it as you have? Those who have been exposed to more than yourself.

It's not about finding it hard to accept. I think belief in an immortal soul is rather an easy thing to accept, which is why most people do. I disregard what is not biblical.

The Apostolic Churches teach that death is a thin veil that love can reach through. We pray prayers of supplication and intercession along with the prayers of thanksgiving (the OP) and we will never quit.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

That may be what your church teaches, but what I want to know is if it's what the bible teaches.