What all christian denominations are here on the boards?
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
I am a Christian who attends a southern Baptist church, I have also attended Fundamental Baptist and Non-Denominational. I also echo that denominations are too heavily focused on. I would attend any bible believing church regardless of what the sign out front said.
Technically speaking, the Mormons are a seperate faith.I am a Christian who attends a southern Baptist church, I have also attended Fundamental Baptist and Non-Denominational. I also echo that denominations are too heavily focused on. I would attend any bible believing church regardless of what the sign out front said.
Careful, just because a church claims to be "bible believing" doesn't mean thats all they believe. For example, LDS churches believe in the bible but also supplement the scriptures with the writings of Joseph Smith.
Not according to the Mormons, which is, I believe, DaClock's point.Technically speaking, the Mormons are a seperate faith.I am a Christian who attends a southern Baptist church, I have also attended Fundamental Baptist and Non-Denominational. I also echo that denominations are too heavily focused on. I would attend any bible believing church regardless of what the sign out front said.
Careful, just because a church claims to be "bible believing" doesn't mean thats all they believe. For example, LDS churches believe in the bible but also supplement the scriptures with the writings of Joseph Smith.
It doesn't really matter if the Mormons think they are christians or not. They're not.Not according to the Mormons, which is, I believe, DaClock's point.Technically speaking, the Mormons are a seperate faith.I am a Christian who attends a southern Baptist church, I have also attended Fundamental Baptist and Non-Denominational. I also echo that denominations are too heavily focused on. I would attend any bible believing church regardless of what the sign out front said.
Careful, just because a church claims to be "bible believing" doesn't mean thats all they believe. For example, LDS churches believe in the bible but also supplement the scriptures with the writings of Joseph Smith.
I'm Lutheran!!!Schweet.
I was unaware that Mormons referred to themselves as "Christians"; therefore, I stand corrected.Not yet.
Mormon hereReally?
Did you read the above posts?Yes, and I'm not sure how that matters. I was wondering if he was serious or if he was just saying it because of the comments about Mormonism.
What is a nth?
You guys should be more conscientious to the Christians on these boards who don't believe in the bible to the nth degree.
You guys should be more conscientious to the Christians on these boards who don't believe in the bible to the nth degree.I find it hard to be a Christian without believing the Bible. Also, just because somebody says, "I'm a Christian." doesn't mean they really are.
"nth" is a mathematical term.'Twas what I thought ::). Also, you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in the Bible, unless you are a [edited by R.O.S.E.S].You guys should be more conscientious to the Christians on these boards who don't believe in the bible to the nth degree.I find it hard to be a Christian without believing the Bible. Also, just because somebody says, "I'm a Christian." doesn't mean they really are.
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Sola Scriptura?
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Sola Scriptura?
That has nothing to do with any sort of "tradition" in my comment. FWIW, Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines that Cameron doesn't like.
How can he say 100% based on the Bible and not like Sola Scriptura?Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Sola Scriptura?
That has nothing to do with any sort of "tradition" in my comment. FWIW, Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines that Cameron doesn't like.
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Sola Scriptura?
That has nothing to do with any sort of "tradition" in my comment. FWIW, Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines that Cameron doesn't like.
You're right, my mistake. I was just thinking that sola scriptura sounds a lot like the 100% bible, 0% tradition/doctrine that Cameron mentioned. However, they are defined differently.
Ok if you want to go that way.Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Non-denominational here. 100% based on the Bible, not doctrines or tradition.
Lol Wow what a shot at denominations, especially Catholics and Lutherans. Man, whoever said tradition was bad?
Sola Scriptura?
That has nothing to do with any sort of "tradition" in my comment. FWIW, Sola Scriptura is one of those doctrines that Cameron doesn't like.
You're right, my mistake. I was just thinking that sola scriptura sounds a lot like the 100% bible, 0% tradition/doctrine that Cameron mentioned. However, they are defined differently.
Ok if you want to go that way.
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Ok if you want to go that way.Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.
I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)
I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.
The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.From a scholarly perspective, the Bible is the chronological foundation of an evolving tradition. Catechisms and works of theology have developed over the course of Christian history which would be very foolish to ignore.
I don't see how it is offensive at all.Ok if you want to go that way.Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.
I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)
I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.
And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.
dude delete this! it totaly stops this topic cause you cant say anything without ofending someone.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to for your own self. However, to assume that your opinion is universal is somewhat vain.The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.From a scholarly perspective, the Bible is the chronological foundation of an evolving tradition. Catechisms and works of theology have developed over the course of Christian history which would be very foolish to ignore.
ah!... i agree ther is only one way to heaven and that is through the bible and other stuf. you cant get to heaven babtised as a baby cause you dont know what is happening. the only way to get to heaven is pray the prayer and when your saved get babtised! (and i lack this(the babtised part <.<)). ther is no other way but through God.
The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.
Ok if you want to go that way.Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.
I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)
I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.
And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.
dude delete this! it totaly stops this topic cause you cant say anything without ofending someone.
The Bible should be the sole source of religion. Tradition is typically just an interpretation of Biblical teachings, and if it is not, it should not be followed.From a scholarly perspective, the Bible is the chronological foundation of an evolving tradition. Catechisms and works of theology have developed over the course of Christian history which would be very foolish to ignore.
ah!... i agree ther is only one way to heaven and that is through the bible and other stuf. you cant get to heaven babtised as a baby cause you dont know what is happening. the only way to get to heaven is pray the prayer and when your saved get babtised! (and i lack this(the babtised part <.<)). ther is no other way but through God.
I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the BibleCould you define deify?
it plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.
I meant that the Bible is not some kind of "deity".I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the BibleCould you define deify?Quoteit plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.
Muzik Maker, everyone has a right to their own opinion.
And Colin is one of the smartest people I've ever met, you have no room to talk about someones education when you don't use any punctuation or grammar in your posts.
NOTICE: i said janisarry
Ah, okay well that I will agree with. It does not save you. However, so easily submitting the entire compilation of God's work on earth and all his promises that will to come as COMPLETELY meaningless to the Christian faith is a slippery slope.I meant that the Bible is not some kind of "deity".I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the BibleCould you define deify?Quoteit plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.
I don't think God put it together, but for sake of argument I'll explain what I meant. The Bible does is not our redemption. It does not "save" you; Christ alone does that.
So God stopped working after the Bible?Ah, okay well that I will agree with. It does not save you. However, so easily submitting the entire compilation of God's work on earth and all his promises that will to come as COMPLETELY meaningless to the Christian faith is a slippery slope.I meant that the Bible is not some kind of "deity".I personally think it's quite dangerous to deify the BibleCould you define deify?Quoteit plays absolutely no role in our salvation WHATSOEVER.That is not true. I don't think God would have put it all together if it was entirely pointless. I'd just read Lord of the Rings if I want entertainment.
I don't think God put it together, but for sake of argument I'll explain what I meant. The Bible does is not our redemption. It does not "save" you; Christ alone does that.
First, I would encourage you to use less sarcastic/abrasive speech. I am not ignorant of your opinion, and I respect it fully. However, I do disagree with it. ;) I think the problem in this argument is widespread and that many people who have posted on this thread have mistaken tradition for interpretation. I would argue that the two are very different aspects of a faith, and should not be mistaken for one another. Furthermore, I didn't say that you can't believe in both traditions and the Bible, but I tend to have a very cynical view of mankind. I believe that if it is non-Biblical, then it is worthy of research and questioning. (Not that the Bible isn't, but I would regard the Bible as an authority rather than the traditions of man. In a world filled with doubt and contradictions, I prefer to wield the weapon that is sharper than a double-edged sword than any faulty words of man which I think are about as sharp as bubbles :preach:.)Ok if you want to go that way.Maybe I am missing your point entirely, but it sounded to me like you just made the following argument:
Do you believe in the tradition that Jesus is God's Son? No, because then you wouldn't be 0% tradition. Face it, even if you say "bible-believing" your still in large amounts of traditional beleifs.
Do you believe that Jesus is God's Son? If you do believe that, then you are following tradition.
I would like to add that this is a Scriptural belief, rather than traditional. Unless you mean that the Bible is a tradition in of itself, your argument naturally contradicts itself. (I mean nothing personal, but I just thought I would point that out.)
I am also non-denominational, and I personally have a hard time agreeing with non-scriptural traditions. Furthermore, since everyone is free to express their opinion, that is where I stand. I do not hold people that I disagree with in contempt over this matter, and feel obligated to say so.
And it's also Christian Tradition. I just want to point out that tradition is much more valuable than more people think, but they toss it out because they "aren't catholic" or are "bible believing". Newsflash: You can believe in both, as long as you know which one is superior in conflicts.
So God stopped working after the Bible?Where did I say that? God is still working absolutely. That is his work ON EARTH. Until the end times.
The why should the Bible be considered...So God stopped working after the Bible?Where did I say that? God is still working absolutely. That is his work ON EARTH. Until the end times.
the entire compilation of God's work on earth and all his promiseswhen God has been doing a lot more since.
no i didnt ??? but if non of you have understood the bible verses i posted its telling us that ther is only one way through heaven and thats through christ alone.
I don't think God put it together [the bible]...
QuoteI don't think God put it together [the bible]...
In a sense he did, he just used Moses, Allah and a few other people to write it for him.
In a sense he did, he just used Moses, Allah and a few other people to write it for him.I'm not aware of any book of the Bible that was written by some dude named Allah.
just tell me what forums you dont moderate schaeff so i can be sure not to offendHe's an Administrator.