What is a cult

Yes, the scriptures primary, and the First Baptist Confession

 

Sects sometimes refers to various groups with Christendom, while cults would always been outside!

 

Van against them, as they are Calvinist!

 

All of us here are into individuals studying, know, and applying the truths of the Bible ourselves, but do also see the need for a Confession of faith!

 

Van does not like the ones that teach Calvinist theology!

 

Any move toward accuracy is appreciated.

I am a Baptist, thus for autonomous church polity. The top down folks have creeds, confessions and the like which are imposed on affiliated local churches.

So why are you against developing through study your own view of Biblical doctrine. Why not test the spirits behind creeds and confessions written hundreds of year ago. In my experience, they do not stand up to study.

 

I see no evidence for you not just parroting the views of others.

 

I do not like bogus doctrine, whether Reformed or RCC or JW or....

 

Better bring Barry in on this


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

reformed not in that same category. right?

 

Bogus doctrine is in the same category as other bogus doctrine. If it conflicts with God's word, it is bogus.

 

There is no issue that a church writes their own Statement of Faith (SoF) however I see no reason why a church can't take an existing SoF if they agree with the position of the SoF. Why write the same SoF differently?

If another church agrees fully with your "What we believe" and cannot make improvement can they not adopt the same SoF?

 

None of the above is what happens in "top down" affiliated" churches. Please address the issue.

 

We are not talking about church polity. Again this an issue of usage rather than confessions themselves. I'm arguing that Creed = Confession = Statement of Faith = "What we Believe". Thus there is nothing wrong with creeds/confessions. The issue comes from how they are used/viewed. Which seems like what you have the issue with too.

 

That's what happens when one reads the Bible and comes to the orthodox conclusion ... millions of Christians have believed what you believe before you were born and thousands have said it before you said it.

Only heretics read the scripture and see something that nobody else in the history of Christianity has ever seen before, expressing a completely new idea (and most of those "new ideas" are just variations on an old false idea like "JW: Jesus is really Michael the Archangel and not God" = Arianism reheated and served up as a "fresh" revelation).

 

Take any confession. Link to it. Lets see if it contains unbiblical bogus doctrine! I do not care if it is only used as wall paper, bogus doctrine is bogus doctrine.

 

I am not the one peddling reheated hogwash.

 

I never said (or even thought) that you were.
One might question whether you have discovered an interpretation that no Christian has seen in 2000 years (m.o.l.) of studying the word of God. Unfortunately, you are more articulate about what "Calvinists" believe and why it is false than you are clear about explaining your own personal beliefs. You tend to say what you DON'T believe (as in "I never claimed to believe that!")

 

All my views are shared with a great many published authors. Lots of people do not buy total spiritual inability, or Christ not dying for all mankind, or unconditional election, or irresistible grace.

 

Jesus is not the only "son of God." Adam was a "son of God." Also every born anew believer is a "son (child) of God.

Folks, we should study God's word and determine what we believe. We certainly need to look to others to help us, mentors, and study aids, but we need to study to show ourselves approved.