Replies

"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

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?

No, you're not prodding at all. I hope to have more time to discuss this with you next week. I don't have much more time online today or this weekend.

Let me be more clear about one thing. It's not what all early christians believed that I follow - as I am sure you will agree there was heresy in place even as the apostles wrote. It is that which the Holy Spirit delivered to the Apostles that I follow, the inspired word of God. I don't consider the above mention people as inspired (as I also believe from previous comments you would also agree).

My studies have shown that not even the above authors were in agreement with each other on the various topics on which they wrote, nor are they always in agreement with all roman catholic positions as they now stand. I do not see the Holy Spirit as the author of such confusion. But must charge it to men not enduring sound doctrine and changing such to suit their itching ears.

As I stated, I believe the Word of God to be sufficent for salvation, and to go beyond what is written is to be done at great peril. I previously followed and taught the doctrines of man as the word of God - the many 'isms' I spoke of earlier. Now I simply follow the Bible. Before, I worshiped God as I was taught by some man-made organization and was told would please Him, now I worship Him as He has revealed He desires to be worshipped. I don't know how many thousands-word 'biblical' articles I see posted on this forum without a single Bible verse associated. It is because many are following men rather than God. And it is my fear that they are doing so at the expense of their soul. It is for this reason I deny such labels.

Until next time.