Yes, statements of faith are man made compilations of what they believe the Scriptures are teaching.
I would say that the odds of going astray are far less if you have to change the statment of faith than if the door is open for anyone to claim whatever they want about what the Scriptures mean - which they do. Which is why we got summary statements as heresy came into the Church.
At this point, with nothing to put forth except a old and new testament, your understanding of them and a primitive house church that is not an organized group, I am left with your posts alone. On the basis of much of what you’ve posted over the past year, I think you are involved with a fringe group.
I believe you are well meaning, but into some bad teaching that has led you into heresy. I feel for you, obviously.
My experience with those in these types of groups is that they are not open to being taught, but highly desirous to tell everyone else why they are wrong and their small group alone holds the key to truth - hidden until now.
I do wish you well FRiend. Thank you for the discussion and again, I am sorry I thought you were in the Rood group. I take you at your word that you are not.
.
Get a grip!
You are protecting what offers you comfort, regardless of what scripture says.
That is dangerous in the same way that the creeds and statements of faith are dangerous.
Yes scripture is the fringe in today’s world, and I will celebrate that I have not fallen off that fringe of solid scripture, into the well accepted gang of Matthew 7.
.
Say what??? Some slight or words going on?
On this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3120992/posts
[and others]
You outed yourself as a follower and respecter of the teachings of the cultist Rood. The whole thread is worth reading for anyone unfamiliar with the cultic teachings of Michael Rood.
anyone interested in editor-surveyor’s view of Rood can view this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3120992/posts?page=158#158
For this reason and because you denied it earlier, I take back my apology for linking you with the cultic teachings of Rood and Rood himself. There is obviously a link there.
This began because I pointed out that you were associated with Rood. You denied it.
Was your post a lie? It appears to.
In any case, I reinstate my ealier comments to verga that you are involved in a cultic heresy - in this case a fraud.
Your post in answer to mine was false. This is noted. I hope others who were unaware of your affiliations now have a context to evaluate your posts.