The question continuationists must answer

[W2L]

By the way, when i say that these churches are not called to teach, im not saying they are not called to follow the Lord. Im only saying that they are not called to teach their divisive traditions/doctrines.

 

[Saint Steven]

What other conclusion can i come to? Who is teaching the pure truth without mans fallible traditions and doctrines added to it?

If you don't know, then you have answered your own question.
Will you now wallow in despair, or might there be another solution to your dilemma?

 

[Saint Steven]

I know I was called of God. I was also born and raised a RCC and then spent 2 years as a Lutheran. So I can definitely say yes they are both wrong too. And concerning 'that point' I can also say SO WHAT??? Peter and Paul were divided...SO WHAT??? The church has had division and error from the beginning and anyone who thinks that means something is horribly wrong, are just as deceived as they believe the church is.

Thanks. That's what I have been trying to say all along here.

 

[Saint Steven]

By the way, when i say that these churches are not called to teach, im not saying they are not called to follow the Lord. Im only saying that they are not called to teach their divisive traditions/doctrines.

Has it come to this? Let it go.

 

[Hillsage]

Divisions being proof of heresy, i would ask you who is deceived?

I already told you, Peter and Paul were divisive heretics according to your standard. So you tell me who is deceived? Them or you? Give it up W2L, your time would be better spent trying to pick 'fly spots' out of spilled pepper.

 

[Hillsage]

Thanks. That's what I have been trying to say all along here.

I understand, the only thing missing is 'ears to hear' what you/others have been saying. That's why I quit, but decided to check in once more.

 

[W2L]

I already told you, Peter and Paul were divisive heretics according to your standard. So you tell me who is deceived? Them or you? Give it up W2L, your time would be better spent trying to pick 'fly spots' out of spilled pepper.

How am i calling them heretics? Im saying that two opposing churches with opposing doctrine cannot both be called by God to teach that doctrine. Its logical. Both Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be inspired by God. To say otherwise is illogical.

 

[W2L]

If you don't know, then you have answered your own question.
Will you now wallow in despair, or might there be another solution to your dilemma?

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Saint Steven]

I have no idea what this means.

It has occurred to me that perhaps this whole thing is your excuse for not attending (or joining) a church. A refusal on "moral" grounds. Which is nonsense.

Here's a question (or 2) for you.
Jesus said he would build his church.
Are you claiming that He has failed to do that?
Where is the church Jesus said He would build?

 

[W2L]

It has occurred to me that perhaps this whole thing is your excuse for not attending (or joining) a church. A refusal on "moral" grounds. Which is nonsense.

Here's a question (or 2) for you.
Jesus said he would build his church.
Are you claiming that He has failed to do that?
Where is the church Jesus said He would build?

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem. You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective

1. 1.
   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks

 

[Saint Steven]

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem. You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective

1. 1.
   (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
   "vicious ad hominem attacks

You dodged three questions with a false "ad hominem" plea.
And I didn't attack your character. I asked a basic and easily answerable question.

What I was saying is true then?
This whole thing is your excuse for not attending (or joining) a church. A refusal on "moral" grounds. Which is nonsense.

Here's a question (or 2) for you.
Jesus said he would build his church.
Are you claiming that He has failed to do that?
Where is the church Jesus said He would build?

 

[W2L]

You dodged three questions with a false "ad hominem" plea.
And I didn't attack your character. I asked a basic and easily answerable question.

What I was saying is true then?
This whole thing is your excuse for not attending (or joining) a church. A refusal on "moral" grounds. Which is nonsense.

Here's a question (or 2) for you.
Jesus said he would build his church.
Are you claiming that He has failed to do that?
Where is the church Jesus said He would build?

You did attack my character. Whether or not i go to church is irrelevant to this topic. Stay on topic and please do not use ad hominem fallacy. As far as Jesus building His church goes, i am a member of His Church.

 

[Saint Steven]

You did attack my character. Whether or not i go to church is irrelevant to this topic. Stay on topic and please do not use ad hominem fallacy. As far as Jesus building His church goes, i am a member of His Church.

Which division of the church are you a part of?
Or are you claiming that ONLY your church is the "true" church?
How convenient.

And, there was no attack on your character.
I wanted to clarify your motives.

 

[W2L]

Which division of the church are you a part of?
Or are you claiming that ONLY your church is the "true" church?
How convenient.

And, there was no attack on your character.
I wanted to clarify your motives.

You judge my motives which you cant possibly know. Its also off topic and doesn't address my argument at all, but simply attacks my character. The funny thing is i actually explained my motives in this thread. This thread is a response to the other thread started by continuationists.

Im not part of any denomination, but i belong to the Lord. As far as me always being right goes, i already said im not always right. Are you even reading my posts? Im not perfect and neither is any denomination, which is my point. I however am not claiming to be an apostle or to have their authority.

 

[Saint Steven]

You judge my motives which you cant possibly know. Its also off topic and doesn't address my argument at all, but simply attacks my character. The funny thing is i actually explained my motives in this thread. This thread is a response to the other thread started by continuationists.

Im not part of any denomination, but i belong to the Lord. As far as me always being right goes, i already said im not always right. Are you even reading my posts?

It seems that your basis for feeling you are being attacked is that my inquiry was correct. What does "not part of any denomination" mean? Non-attendance? (seems so, due to all the question dodging)

This thread has NOTHING to do with either Continuationism or Cessationism.

 

[W2L]

It seems that your basis for feeling you are being attacked is that my inquiry was correct. What does "not part of any denomination" mean? Non-attendance? (seems so, due to all the question dodging)

This thread has NOTHING to do with either Continuationism or Cessationism.

Let me decide what is on topic please. You're a judge of motives but i never judged any ones motives, not even the churches i disagree with. Lets get back on topic. And this thread is a re to the other thread, i have said as much, please dont call me a liar. I never judged motives or said someone was purposely being dishonest. Please give me the same courtesy, thank you.

 

[Saint Steven]

Let me decide what is on topic please. You're a judge of motives but i never judged any ones motives, not even the churches i disagree with. Lets get back on topic. And this thread is a re to the other thread, i have said as much, please dont call me a liar.

Still evading. That speaks volumes.
This thread has been a train wreck from post one.
You never judged the churches?
You claimed the leaders were not called by God.

 

[W2L]

Still evading. That speaks volumes.
This thread has been a train wreck from post one.

Thanks to you its a wreck. Your ad hominem has derailed this topic. Whats your motivation?

 

[W2L]

Lets get back on topic please. Here is my question. Denominations have had hundreds, even close to thousands of years possibly, to work out their differences. It has been stated that Peter and Paul had a difference of opinion, once, but did it take them 1500 years to fix this? No, they were real apostles and had real authority, and God straitened peter out, along with paul. They came to an agreement. Why cant modern apostles do this as well? Where are the modern apostles? We been waiting for at least 1500 years for them to come to an agreement, but there is none it seems.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thanks to you its a wreck. Your ad hominem has derailed this topic. Whats your motivation?

Oh, now I'm the scapegoat. Nice.
You matched every one of my replies with a post.
Seems fair that you would take at least half the blame.
It's your thread. Ultimately you are most responsible. ​