Replies

I am not sure exactly what you mean here. I presumed correctly that you believe in using the Bible alone, although you don't like the label because some don't actually practice it? In corresponding with other Protestants, I agree that many claim to follow it, but don't practice it. That is why I find this an illogical idea (Bible Alone). A clarification would be appreciated by what you mean regarding the nuances of the above paragraph.

As Dennis Prager often says; "It's more important to have clarity than agreement". I'm glad we have had this chance to clarify each others positions.

Granted my resisitance to labels may seem strange, but in order to clarify I must object (for sake of example only) once again to your use of one. I do not consider myself a 'Protestant'. I am protesting nothing. I consider myself a Christian (Acts 11:26) only. I pattern my worship and beliefs after those of the first century church. As it was delivered by the Holy Spirit, it was recorded for us. As I have already stated my postion on revelation, these two should logically equate to an insistance on book, chapter and verse for what is to be bound religiously.

The Bible as God's revealed word must be both sufficent and efficient for our salvation. If a doctrine states what the Bible already states, it is at best redundant; if it states something different than the Bible, it is superfluous to our salvation. I believe God is best suited to tell us his desires, and we are best advised to follow them. Thus my comment about letting the 'Word of God' be the word of God.

Most of the labels that I resist actually come from the different 'isms' developed by men and not from the Bible. Having left a man-made religion for the Lord's church, I no longer wish to be associated with those labels. It is in fact these labels that many times blind believers to the truth. Many who profess belief follow after men rather than God. As often happens, the meaning of a phrase (Sola Scriptura) is most often lost as it is used as an identifier among those of like mind; with little concern as to whether it is actually followed.

I hope this clarifies my position.

"I consider myself a Christian (Acts 11:26) only"

Interesting. I am seeing more people making this claim, and again, I am curious about it. What exactly is your definition of Christian, presuming it differs from what we see in Scripture? I know Mormons who call themselves Christians. For one to claim the title and referring me to the first century Christians, is it safe to presume that you follow their beliefs as well? For example, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the idea of sacrifice during this Eucharistic meal, bishops as leaders of local churches and so on? And again, these early Christians did not have the same idea that you seem to have regarding "God's total revelation comes from Scripture". It is clear from the Scriptures themselves that this is not the case.

Although I understand you distaste in being labeled a Protestant, what, in reality, has changed vis a vis your beliefs before and after? Again, I am curious. If I am prodding too much, let me know, but I am still confused on the stance that you are taking - which seems to be more common. If you claim to follow what the early Christians believed, doesn't it make sense that you also believe what Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin the Martyr, Clement of Rome, etc. believed? Certainly, the Bible is a "must read". We (Christians) must continue to read it. But I am confused why you hold to the philosophy that God reveals His Word to us ONLY through Scripture. Again, this is a Protestant doctrine, not a doctrine found in the Bible!

By discarding the name, but retaining the same beliefs, what is the difference? Is it that your particular beliefs do not match a current "denomination"? Perhaps you haven't found a community of faith, such as Episcopalians, that you can worship with? Where can we find the Lord's Church?

Again, I am curious.

Regards