Jerry,

I did not say I had the Catholic faith, I said I had the catholic faith as detailed in the Athanasian Creed. All mainline Christianity does, whether Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. You say "my faith is of Christ not of men" and that's all well and good, but if your definition of Christ is wrong in the first place (and it is), than that "faith in Christ" is not a CHRISTian faith, for the CHRISTian faith, at a universal level, is explained as per the Creeds. You may have a "Biblical" faith, i.e. based on the Bible, but more accurately it would be a "Jerry's deviant interpretation of the Bible" faith, for it deviates from the definitive interpretation.


I really don't understand where you are coming from here Brian,


Yes, and that is the problem.


here in this earth when matters of doctrine are disputed between brethren because of our limitations of the flesh we are not one universal catholic church


Wrong. There are some key, definitive doctrines that must be held, and if one holds them, they are part of the universal church, the church referred to in Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 10:32, Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23-32, Col 1:18, etc. The universal church, the "body of Christ", exists NOW. There are other non-definitive doctrines in which disagreement does not remove one from the universal church. For example, the divinity of Christ, his death and resurrection are definitive doctrines: one cannot oppose these doctrines and still be part of the church. Conversely, the timing of the rapture is not a definitive doctrine: two members of the universal church can have differences of interpretation on this yet both remain part of Christ's church. Things like the Nicean and Athanasian Creeds lay out the definitive interpretations of scripture, and have been accepted as such by all orthodox Christians across history. By definition (not by my opinion), disagreement with the Creeds (or the accepted understanding of them) puts one outside of the universal church and into a cult or similar heretical standing, because one's pride causes them to refuse to let go of a faulty interpretation of a key doctrine of scripture.

Even the Anabaptists, who opposed the concept of "Creeds", did not disagree with the content of the Creeds. They were strictly Trinitarian, and would not consider someone who opposed Trinitarianism to be saved. The Anabaptists are considered part of orthodox Christianity, not because they opposed "Creeds", but because their interpretation of scripture on the definitive doctrines lined up with the Creeds anyway.


This is what I was pointing out to you earlier, not MY teaching, but the teaching of this creed, and you call me a modalist for it.


No, Jerry. Just like scripture itself, you have deviated from the proper interpretation of the Creeds as well.


Personally, I don't care to try to understand


And ultimately, that is the root of the problem here.

Brian