Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I do have a verse for you but I would think the OP would want you to start a new thread as this is not what the thread is about . Tag me when and if you start a new thread . I will not reply again to you on this thread about the subject you started .
I used Adult Baptism as an example of how individual groups end up with different doctrines and this example as an indication of how the mainstream Catholic and Protestant Churches rejected them and persecuted them. We live in an age of more tolerance, mainly because these mainline Churches lost their power to persecute after the French Revolution and other developments. I claim that Orthodoxy is the Apostate Church and many of its teachings are erroneous. Adult Baptism is only one of the doctrines where the Apostolic teaching is restored, and I have hinted at another which is the subject of this thread.
We seek to pattern our beliefs and practices on the Apostolic example, not by following Church tradition.
The orthodoxy is not defined by adult baptism or by a nice history. It is defined by the New Testament, by the teaching of the first apostolic church and by the ecumenical creeds.
Could you give an example or two of "the ecumenical creeds". Does this include the Athanasian Creed?
My fellowship does not get involved in politics or warfare and this agrees with my assessment of the Apostolic Faith.
The Apostles’ and Nicene creeds and the Chalcedonian definition. The Athanasian is not an ecumenical creed, because it was not produced by the ecumenical council. It was created in the West and is authoritative in the RCC and in the Anglican church, I guess.
Because it is easy as pie today, in the 21st century, for some small "fellowship" and after the separation of the state and church.
As the old saying goes, 'I are too (a Protestant)!' - Revelation 17 - Hydra Therapy, The Cure For A 7 Heads Ache : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I assess this as when they declared Jesus is God and the second when they added the Holy Spirit as God. My first major discussion on the Trinity was on a forum and it was quite measured as I would post one day/evening in Australia and the main participant would respond the next day/evening in the USA. We covered quite a range of verses on either side and the thread ran into something like 19 pages. The Moderator joined in with a few posts and his favourite reference was 1 John 5:7. I suggested that this was spurious and also a.number of the Trinitarians objected to this verse. Towards the end the Moderator added his favourite verse again and then closed the thread.
Some of my fellowship have and did encounter problems in some countries. I missed out on a call up before the Vietnam War, but others have had to face the Judiciary. This was especially the case in the two World Wars. Our fellowship gained exemption in the American Civil War. My assessment of the earliest Anabaptist is that they did not get involved in politics and warfare. The Amish and Mennonites seem to carry on this tradition.
SDAs today endorse some form of the Trinity even though some of their founding pioneers did not accept the Trinity.
This is not how words work. Protestants in Christian theology is terminus technicus for specific group of people, it is not just "anybody who protests against something".
Your hardships being active in Christians Only sections of online forums without believing that Jesus is true God, are only logical and to be expected.
1 Jhn. 5:7 is definitely not spurious, since it is evidenced throughout historical record, see Chap. 13, pages 179-240 - Godhead - The Eternal Heavenly Trio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
I "praise the LORD" and "thank God" that I am "not an orthodox Christian". What a mess such persons have made of scriptural Christianity.
That would limit my involvement in many threads. I like this forum as it is the only one that I am currently involved with that allows me to respond with my old Tablet and I use this early in the morning when time is limited. Other forums necessitate starting my old slow PC. I claim to be "Christian" and my policy is to attempt to honestly participate as long as I discuss Scripture and in my opinion give a correct assessment of what this is teaching. If I state the Truth and still get banned, then so be it. I have a large library of books that I have not read as yet.
The Title of the Book is sufficient for me to avoid reading the Book as I believe in the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. So many pages with a wrong doctrine for a Title. I also do not like the Book The Great Controversy that you mentioned earlier, especially EG White's speculation about the National Sabbath Law, resulting in the anticipated persecution of SDAs, and then the burning of the earth. I believe that Jesus will return to reign on earth for the 1000 years and restore and refresh all things Isaiah 2:1-4, Acts 3:19-21.
Yes, that is the point of "Christians Only" limitation, I suppose. To keep it for Christians Only (who would guess). You are tolerated by the moderators to be here, but it is unsafe for you and you can be banned/restricted in any moment, so it is at your own risk.
But you mislead other participants with that self-claimed definition. They expect that you accept basic Christian doctrines, when they talk to you or when they read your ideas.
But it did not limit you in sneaking into Christians Only forum to spread your propaganda, there. First, you pretend to be like orthodox Christians to get access to them and then you publicly despise them like in this post and generally try to convert them into your sect.
But I reject your definition of "Christian" as I have discussed earlier in this thread. There was a big difference between the early Ekklesias and their Elders Acts 20 and the growth of individual Bishops over a large area who then gathered to discuss in the Council with the outcome of the Nicaean Creed, partly imposed on many members.
Actually, yes, that is how "words work". They come together in a logical progression, using form, syntax, structure, &c. and form a meaningful sentence. That 'you' disagree with what I stated is not my concern. It is 'your' concern.
