To which I guess my question is: How do you make the distinction between “historic Christian beliefs” and “Biblical standard”?
I look at the historic Christian beliefs and then I look at the Bible. If the historic belief cannot be verified in the Bible, then it fails. Some things are easier to verify than others. The Bible is a big book and you have to be very familiar with it. You have to take it as a whole and you have to understand the purpose and theme of the Bible.
Priestly celibacy is easy. Immortal soul is harder. Mixing pagan religious practices with Christian religious practices is easy. The trinity is harder. Those are all historic Christian beliefs that I feel are false according to the Biblical standard. But even the easy ones are hotly disputed no matter how reasonable my arguments. Which brings us back to the fact that just because you can't convince someone of your argument doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's right either, of course.
no subject
Your question to me:
To which I guess my question is: How do you make the distinction between “historic Christian beliefs” and “Biblical standard”?
I look at the historic Christian beliefs and then I look at the Bible. If the historic belief cannot be verified in the Bible, then it fails. Some things are easier to verify than others. The Bible is a big book and you have to be very familiar with it. You have to take it as a whole and you have to understand the purpose and theme of the Bible.
Priestly celibacy is easy. Immortal soul is harder. Mixing pagan religious practices with Christian religious practices is easy. The trinity is harder. Those are all historic Christian beliefs that I feel are false according to the Biblical standard. But even the easy ones are hotly disputed no matter how reasonable my arguments. Which brings us back to the fact that just because you can't convince someone of your argument doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Doesn't mean it's right either, of course.