Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Can’t even be bothered watching the video
Of course, you could not. Since you could not be bothered by being corrected and reproved by the truth in it. You are a like a lot of modern Christians today, who answer a matter before they actually hear it.
A document and a statement of faith and ideology can be satanic if it contains the very mindset and agenda which Satan has always had, even from the very beginning, which can be summed up to the very first part of his question to Eve: "Yea, Hath God Said....?"
You should watch it though. It will really help you. And it surely will humble you, that is for sure!
I understand that taking correction is not easy, but as a Christian you have to eventually get to the point where you are willing to grow up, and mature in Christ Jesus and His holy word.
Yes, and? It still doesn't make a doctrinal statement "one with satan". My point stands: the title is silly.
A statement like this only shows your pride and arrogant attitude when it comes to this very important subject of the blessed word of God.
Bede, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for posting such a response.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
People not only MUST learn English to know what God has said but they must also learn an archaic form of it.
God makes it difficult for us, doesn't He?
What I believe they are saying is that the 1611 KJV is the very Text from the Original Autographs since it is the very words which God said in the original autographs of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, preserved and translated into the English tongue and language.
This is the main point also of the video: Reproving the double speak (YES & NO) statements made by many Christians and many churches today regarding the Bible and its Inspiration. Consider these following examples, which brother G. Jon Rov gives regarding this very subject:
YES Statement: "We Believe in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures without mistakes
NO Statement: As far as in the original writings, and autographs."
- Contemporary Church (Doctrinal Statement)
YES Statement: "Yea,
NO Statement: Hath God said...?"
- Satan (Gen. 3:1)
Furthermore, the following which G. Jon Rov states in his book is very accurate, precise and spot on:
"Plainly speaking, the thought that God has not finished a specific Bible is an upside-down thought. The thought that God's original manuscripts are of greater value than His finished manuscripts is also an upside-down thought. Because "the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom. 8:7)," there is a hostility from the start to the very thought that God has finished a Bible, especially the King James Bible as the very one."
Now Let us consider another example from brother G. Jon Rov:
FOUNDATION of the Christian: God has written the Bible
FOUNDATION of the Unbeliever: God has NOT written the Bible (Upside Down Foundation)
FOUNDATION of the King James Bible believing (KJB) Christian: God has written the Bible. It is the King James Bible: God has gathered the books, ordered the books, divided the chapters, divided the verses, numbered the verses, chosen the words, chosen the letters. God has finished the line of the Bible and it is the King James Bible.
FOUNDATION of today's Christian: God has not written the King James Bible. God has likely chosen the books, but God has not ordered them. God certainly has not divided the chapters and verses, the numbers mean nothing but handiness, and God definitely has not chosen the words in English and especially not the letters in English, because there is no specific Bible today that is God's Authorized Bible. There is no perfect Bible. Every Bible contains mistakes. Why is my profession of "faith" sounding more like the "unbeliever" the more I speak??? (Upside Down Foundation)
I sure am glad we don't have the "originals." It would be very difficult to learn Hebrew and Greek. I'm so thankful He preserved His words in English. Other languages? I'm not sure. He never promised to preserve His words in many languages, only that His words would be preserved.
I would guess the average Joe seated in church has no clue. Whatever their preacher says is the truth. They’ll sit there while the preacher wows them with his knowledge of Greek.
We believe in the absolute authority of the holy scriptures. We believe the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God and were without error. We believe the God who gave His word to man has taken upon Himself the responsibility for its preservation. We believe the incorruptible word of God which cannot pass away is available to the English-speaking world in the Authorized (King James) Version. This Bible is our final authority in all matters.
How is that so since all we have is early fragments from around 100 AD and later copies of early manuscripts (200-600 AD). Only comparing these manuscripts can we come up with an accurate representation of the originals. This is all all due to the fact that the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS DO NOT EXIST.
The NKJV is my favorite version. Trying to read KJV, especially names and places is just too tedious for me. However, I do love the first chapter of Hebrews as presented in the KJV.I know! NKJV only
Apparently, your existence on this site was an error that has since been rectified since you've been dispatched to banville.
absolutely right
let X be a statement, and ¬X be its negation, 'not X'
you can prove ¬X by exhaustively listing every instance of X and showing ¬X in each one
you can prove ¬X by induction, showing ¬X is true in one instance and also that, given ¬X is true in any arbitrary instance it must be also true in the next.
you can prove ¬X by assuming X is true and showing that the assumptions of X imply ¬X
you can prove ¬X by showing it follows from axioms
you can prove ¬X by finding a concrete example of X being false.
for example
Makes sense.........absolutely right
let X be a statement, and ¬X be its negation, 'not X'
you can prove ¬X by exhaustively listing every instance of X and showing ¬X in each one
you can prove ¬X by induction, showing ¬X is true in one instance and also that, given ¬X is true in any arbitrary instance it must be also true in the next.
you can prove ¬X by assuming X is true and showing that the assumptions of X imply ¬X
you can prove ¬X by showing it follows from axioms
you can prove ¬X by finding a concrete example of X being false.
for example