Search results

The teaching presented here, that claims that moral non Christians will be accepted into the kingdom without Christ, and the fact that it is tolerated.

One of the reasons why I read saints from the past is, because I am not walking in the Spirit anymore and therefore am not reliably led by the Spirit and my discernment is not as good as it was so I check my beliefs against scriptures and the olden saints in case I am misled.

They were recognised in their lifetimes as sinless or in other words in theosis or in the kingdom, not because they said so but because they were given testimony by those who knew them well.

So they were still under the old covenant as many are today.

Knowledge of interpretations of the scriptures by holy sinless men who were in the same culture and spoke the same language helps us avoid errors that we may be unaware of. It was through studying them that I was cured of Protestantism. Any doctrine not found in them is out of whack. Original...

Have you read Barclay's Apology? He argues with scripture that point very well.

Big fan of the early quakers who I am starting to see that they were right about when the apostacy started, since I withdrew from EO. Scriptures are the fountain but not the source of it which is direct revelation or coming to Christ,

So we have J & D from the OT whom you think, did not consult with others, and P & P who did not consult with others even though they could, but made big errors. Both at opposite sides yet you follow the OT examples and think you are better than P & P.

Both Peter and Paul had holy ones to consult, but they did not, they thought that their faith was enough but they were wrong. This is a very real temptation from Satan. We never have a time when we cannot open books from the past, and read about holy men and search for their wisdom as a check...

Yes we disagree as that is what the RCC believe, the one man papal ruling, (and to the same type, Protestants) who is granted more revelation and greater spiritual knowledge than others. But the apostles did not follow one man, they worked as a team. 'Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard...

Okay then, throughout church history, which saints were living in the kingdom and understood the deeper meaning of the word and walked without sin which is the distinguishing feature, we agree on?

Yes I agree that the deeper spiritual meanings of scripture are hidden till the recipient is 'in the same spirit' as the writers. But do you think that the apostles were wrong about some things which are revealed later?

Question: Has there been further revelation of doctrine since the apostolic times and writing of the holy writ? Must this further revelation be confirmed by scripture?

Under the New Covenant, scripture tells us that the Spirit will teach, immediately, objectively and continually. "I will put my laws into their minds and write them in their hearts and I will be unto them a God and they shall be to Me a people" (Heb. 8:10-11) We can know whether a man speaks...

God has to use me as there are no men around He can use to plead holiness.

Revelations will be in reference to the situation but nothing new. We know spiritual things through our spirits not our intellects. You say that because you do not understand how the spirit works.

Psychopaths are not led by their emotions - they do not have them. Nor me because I am autistic. A numbr of men have told me I have very good analytical skills. But I agree about the state of the church.

I believe that the faith was handed down by word of mouth and written by the apostles and there is nothing new to be added.

I am on a discussion board. Do you want to ban women? Not surprised if yes.

"Progressive Christianity—is a contemporary religious movement that reinterprets traditional doctrines through modern science, historical-critical biblical scholarship, and an emphasis on social justice, inclusivity, and continuous questioning over rigid dogma,"