I read about this concept and I had not ever heard of this concept but it kind of (I think) fills hole in my misunderstanding of Protestant thought.

I have always struggled with the concept of Protestant dismissal (seemingky) of the 60+ previous generations, prior to the reformation, of Christians, theologians, The Catholic and Orthodox Church etc.. even when their belief system is solidly built on the contributions of the Orthodox and Catholic faith.

If this supposed blackout occurred was the council of Nicaea that defined the Holy Trinity, the divine (as opposed to prophetic) nature of Christ, his dual nature and to many Protestants, most importantly, The Bible.

Things were all (most) agree on:

Council of Nicaea 325 - Easter, the Nature of Christ.

Council of Constantinople 381 - Arianism rejected (Christ as Prophet). Christ was both human and God. Nature of the Holy Spirit.

The first official list of Scriptures was compiled in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church accepted this canon and used it without controversy for over 1000 years.

How can these men and their contributions be dismissed or claim God was absent when these beliefs and the Bible is so important to universal Christian faith?

If you do believe in the blackout theory how does this square?

If you don't subscribe to the blackout theory how do you square the teachings of the Universal Church at the time how do you reject the teachings of the Church and the men that established your understanding of the faith.

This is not intended as a gotcha question or a dismissal of your beliefs but more of a non-combative and genuine desire to understand others thoughts.

Couple edits because I composed really quickly on a whim.

You can ask a Protestant about historical churches like Antioch. At the end of the day they are adopting some form of blackout theory if they are rejecting Antioch because you can't avoid the historical and biblical fact of that line of bishops starting with Peter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_patriarchs_of_Antioch

Pro Sandy said:

---

And to many people, the Catholic Church being the whole of Babylon makes sense along with the Pope as the antichrist.

Point being, don't take a theory and try to fit it to a church to match your views. Especially using such a broad brush as you are painting with.

I've been in numerous denominations and churches, all Protestant, and none have claimed this blackout theory. In fact, they use that as a difference between us and groups like the mormans who do claim that. All Protestant churches I have been in believe that the Church has existed continually since Pentecost

---

Can you explain how the Church has existed continually since Pentecost from a Protestant perspective?

Church wasn't defined that way for 1500 years. That's a pretty radical take in the long view.

Even today 2/3 of Christians would not defined it that way.

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Church being the body of all believers is radical? Ok.

---

A body is one and visible. An invisible group of believers is more like a political affiliation.

dermdoc said:

---

I have been in Protestant churches my entire life of 68 years and had never heard of the "blackout theory" until it was mentioned in the Paul Washer thread.

---

During your 68 years have you been able to give a continual historical account of the Church? I know of no Protestant that has but I'm always open to a new story. This is why you have to adopt a blackout theory of sorts. Obviously it will be different than the Mormons but you have to prove a historical account and not ahistorical theories of invisible believers from random groups.

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Church being the body of all believers is radical? Ok.

---

I was always taught that and have always believed it.

---

What does this mean? Body of all believers? Obviously it's not the Catholics from the antichrist pope comment so there's one group removed. Church of England, Methodists, Baptist's, Anglican's, Lutherans, Non denominational, Reformed, etc. are all separate bodies. They are clearly divided and don't believe the same things. How can they be one?

Sounds like there is a misunderstanding on what a body is.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is a confession, not a historical account.

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

Pro Sandy said:

---

And to many people, the Catholic Church being the whole of Babylon makes sense along with the Pope as the antichrist.

---

I actually think that NYC might be mystery Babylon. I don't believe it's the Catholic Church although it is my firm belief that the CC is a part of the beast system.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

dermdoc said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

---

A jump in despite this not being directed to me directly.

I was raised Protestant Southern Baptist.

I felt like this form of unintentional "blackout" existed because I felt I was deceived by my church elders or that they were ignorant of the past. I didn't see a third possibility.

No one talked me into becoming Orthodox. It was a literal discovery by happenstance that led me here. I showed up at their door. I could not deny certain facts.

dermdoc said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

---

My experience in the Protestant world is more "black out theory by default". When you hear about how Catholics are wrong because of purgatory, praying to saints, transubstantiation, etc, and then realize that those teachings were all there within the first couple hundred years, you're more or less required to believe in some level of blackout.

The only other reasoning I've heard is that some "true Christians" still existed but the majority of the church was lost. Personally I don't know how you can be a Protestant and not believe one of these ideas, which is why we're seeing a rise is Protestant scholars trying to prove the early church didn't actually teach some of these doctrines, which is a fools errand

Pro Sandy said:

---

I think most important is defining Church. We don't define it based on organizational terms. That is a common gotcha on the forum, of protestants can't claim to be historic because they didn't exist before 1517. Simply a lazy argument.

From the UMC Confession of Faith

Article V The Church
We believe the Christian Church is the community of all true believers under the Lordship of Christ. We believe it is one, holy, apostolic and catholic. It is the redemptive fellowship in which the Word of God is preached by men divinely called, and the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's own appointment. Under the discipline of the Holy Spirit the Church exists for the maintenance of worship, the edification of believers and the redemption of the world.


From the UMC Articles of Religion

Article XIII Of the Church
The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.


From the Westminster Confession of Faith

XXV. Of the Church
1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. (Eph. 1:10, 2223, Eph. 5:23,27,32, Col. 1:18)

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; (1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 12:1213, Ps. 2:8, Rev. 7:9, Rom. 15:912) and of their children: (1 Cor. 7:14, Acts 2:39, Ezek. 16:2021, Rom. 11:16, Gen. 3:15, Gen. 17:7) and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, (Matt. 13:47, Isa. 9:7) the house and family of God, (Eph. 2:19, Eph. 3:15) out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (Acts 2:47)

3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. (1 Cor. 12:28, Eph. 4:1113, Matt. 28:1920, Isa. 59:21)

4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. (Rom. 11:34, Rev. 12:6, 14) And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (Rev. 23, 1 Cor. 5:67)

5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; (1 Cor. 13:12, Rev. 23, Matt. 13:2430, 47) and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. (Rev. 18:2, Rom. 11:1822). Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will. (Matt. 16:18, Ps. 72:17, Ps. 102:28, Matt. 28:1920)

6. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. (Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:22) Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof. (Matt. 23:810, 2 Thess. 2:34, 89, Rev. 13:6)

---

You realize many Protestants don't follow the UMC confessions. The Catholic Church states that Christ is the head of the Church as well. You are reading your own theology into some of those scriptures as well.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

---

A jump in despite this not being directed to me directly.

I was raised Protestant Southern Baptist.

I felt like this form of unintentional "blackout" existed because I felt I was deceived by my church elders or that they were ignorant of the past. I didn't see a third possibility.

No one talked me into becoming Orthodox. It was a literal discovery by happenstance that led me here. I showed up at their door. I could not deny certain facts.

---

This was my experience…from SBC to Catholic. It was my love for Christ that led to my change. But I thank God for the friends I've had since Jr high who are all still Protestant. We grew up thru Younglife and FCA and still can have a very charitable discussion about scripture. The will always be my brothers in Christ…

BluHorseShu said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

---

A jump in despite this not being directed to me directly.

I was raised Protestant Southern Baptist.

I felt like this form of unintentional "blackout" existed because I felt I was deceived by my church elders or that they were ignorant of the past. I didn't see a third possibility.

No one talked me into becoming Orthodox. It was a literal discovery by happenstance that led me here. I showed up at their door. I could not deny certain facts.

---

This was my experience…from SBC to Catholic. It was my love for Christ that led to my change. But I thank God for the friends I've had since Jr high who are all still Protestant. We grew up thru Younglife and FCA and still can have a very charitable discussion about scripture. The will always be my brothers in Christ…

---

Of course. And that is the point in my opinion.

dermdoc said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It wasn't something most Protestants I knew ever questioned.

The Reformation was about reform, not re creation.

---

Blackout theory is just apostasy over periods of time. It's not like Mormons don't believe certain institutions existed. They deny their validity as do Protestants. Protestants have to reject not only Rome but every other Apostolic See. They usually go down a timeline and pick and choose what to accept. This is a form of blackout, indicating apostasy until of course well Jim down in Dallas makes a church.

---

Not my experience at all.

Were you raised Protestant and convert to Catholicism?

---

Southern Baptist, none in college, few years later picked up CS Lewis books and finally felt like there was something more out there in Christianity, helped start a non denominational church that turned up to be insanely woke (this pastor is currently gaining popularity in Texas and he's about as left and antichrist as it comes), took the reformed route, and oddly enough checked out a random church that happened to be "evangelical free" and when looking into the history of that group I just thought how stupid and arbitrary all these groups were. Around that time Jordan Peterson was gaining a lot of popularity and I found some Orthodox figures through that including Jay Dyer and it was game over.

I'm sure this has been posted somewhere on this forum before, but a good visual look at the early church.

The Case for the Church being believers: Greek Ekklesia - called out ones, can be a group of called out ones or individuals

I think the simplest definition: a group of believers in Jesus.

Acts 8:1
Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.

The church here is believers

Acts: 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.

Church is people

Acts 20:22 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

God purchased people with His blood, not a denomination.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Eph. 5:13 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

1 Corinthians: 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

Foundation: Christ
Then apostles: eye witnesses of the resurrection, directly appointed by Jesus, (co-authors of Scripture) God is the ultimate author

From the apostles the gospel spread through evangelism and discipleship. They taught others who taught others who taught others, etc. See the pastoral epistles for qualifications of leadership.

DirtDiver said:

---

The Case for the Church being believers: Greek Ekklesia - called out ones, can be a group of called out ones or individuals

I think the simplest definition: a group of believers in Jesus.

Acts 8:1
Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 Some devout men buried Stephen, and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house, and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison.

The church here is believers

Acts: 11:22 The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.

Church is people

Acts 20:22 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

God purchased people with His blood, not a denomination.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:

Eph. 5:13 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

1 Corinthians: 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 If they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, 24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

Foundation: Christ
Then apostles: eye witnesses of the resurrection, directly appointed by Jesus, (co-authors of Scripture) God is the ultimate author

From the apostles the gospel spread through evangelism and discipleship. They taught others who taught others who taught others, etc. See the pastoral epistles for qualifications of leadership.

---

The Church was established by Christ with Peter leading it. Jesus knew we would need leadership to teach and interpret scripture....Which is what the apostles initiated as the first leaders of His Church. They didn't initiate a game of telephone where the message gets changed as it gets passed on. The Body of Christ are all of the people. If it was just everyone by themselves to interpret the bible then why have any organizations at all? What makes more sense for Christ creating his Church? To say you all just figure it out and good luck, or that he left an actual Church to carry on his teachings? No, the Church is not just the people. Besides....soylent green is people.

dermdoc said:

---

I have been in Protestant churches my entire life of 68 years and had never heard of the "blackout theory" until it was mentioned in the Paul Washer thread.

---

This

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Church being the body of all believers is radical? Ok.

---

I was always taught that and have always believed it.

---

This

Almost forgot. That includes OP on the "Not of This World" thread and his uncalled for Catholic Church barb.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Church being the body of all believers is radical? Ok.

---

I was always taught that and have always believed it.

---

What does this mean? Body of all believers? Obviously it's not the Catholics from the antichrist pope comment so there's one group removed. Church of England, Methodists, Baptist's, Anglican's, Lutherans, Non denominational, Reformed, etc. are all separate bodies. They are clearly divided and don't believe the same things. How can they be one?

Sounds like there is a misunderstanding on what a body is.

---

This board depresses me. And makes me less excited about religion everytime I wander over here.

It's not good enough that we are all Christians, it has to be about who's the right kind of Christian.

---

Can not blue star this enough.

Quote:

---

The Church was established by Christ with Peter leading it. Jesus knew we would need leadership to teach and interpret scripture....Which is what the apostles initiated as the first leaders of His Church. They didn't initiate a game of telephone where the message gets changed as it gets passed on. The Body of Christ are all of the people. If it was just everyone by themselves to interpret the bible then why have any organizations at all? What makes more sense for Christ creating his Church? To say you all just figure it out and good luck, or that he left an actual Church to carry on his teachings? No, the Church is not just the people. Besides....soylent green is people

---

Interpretive options:

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

"Upon this rock I will build my church"

Is the rock the person of Peter?
OR
Is the rock the statement Peter said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God?"

I'm convinced that the rock is Peters statement as the church is built upon Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God and not the person of Peter. The disciples passed down the gospel and Jesus teachings through teaching, the scriptures God wrote through them, and discipleship. You and I can both interpret the scriptures without needing a church to interpret them for us. Teaching is a spiritual gift and we should learn from others and wrestle with the text but it's our responsibility to discern if a teacher/church is a false teacher or not. If we rely on a church to interpret the scriptures look at the history of the dangers that have occurred.

I think Paul would agree that you could add Peter's name in here with his and Apollos'.

4 For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

I could be wrong in my interpretation of "upon this rock" but to me it doesn't make sense for it to be the person of Peter.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

The Church being the body of all believers is radical? Ok.

---

I was always taught that and have always believed it.

---

What does this mean? Body of all believers? Obviously it's not the Catholics from the antichrist pope comment so there's one group removed. Church of England, Methodists, Baptist's, Anglican's, Lutherans, Non denominational, Reformed, etc. are all separate bodies. They are clearly divided and don't believe the same things. How can they be one?

Sounds like there is a misunderstanding on what a body is.

---

This board depresses me. And makes me less excited about religion everytime I wander over here.

It's not good enough that we are all Christians, it has to be about who's the right kind of Christian.

---

What's wrong with knowing your history and searching for truth. I for one would like to know if I've been wrong in understanding of the Lord and the faith. If I've been committing a terrible sin that I had been taught was A OK by a pastor, I'd like to correct that.

Jesus said there will be those that call upon his name and won't be let into Heaven because He doesn't know them. While these discussions may seem like unnecessary infighting to some, I think it can be vitally important for the way we live our lives.