Single Mention Doctrine

[JayP]

I actually found it quite scary that you all have equated something being mentioned once, as a basis of it is doctrine.

The rapture is not doctrinal when vast parts of Christianity throughout the ages do not see the rapture as doctrine.

[barnhart]

I actually found it quite scary that you all have equated something being mentioned once, as a basis of it is doctrine.

The rapture is not doctrinal when vast parts of Christianity throughout the ages do not see the rapture as doctrine.

I think we are using doctrine in a colloquial sense of "teaching". I have real questions about the rapture...

[Valerie]

Neto, I assume you have in mind orthodox Protestant doctrine. The Catholics and Orthodox have doctrine that is mentioned less than once.

Yes, Protestant & Evangelical. (Our anabaptist doctrines of this type OK as well.)
The book I'm reading is called "Messy Grace". It's by a Evangelical or Protestant pastor who grew up from divorced parents, mostly under the care of his lesbian mother and her lover. He contrasts the many times same-s3x intimate relations are condemned in Scripture as sin, with the teaching on the veiling, which he considers of no importance, because it is only spoken of in a single passage. That got me wondering what other 'single mention doctrines' there might be, especially those that the average Evangelical pastor would support. Obviously I do not dispute his characterization of homosexual and lesbian activity as serious sin, but don't find his comparison to be helpful, even for in his own Evangelical environment.

Thanks to all for all of your contributions.

I actually knew for awhile, over a decade ago, a former Mennonite woman who felt the exact same way. She actually was Amish then Mennonite then she became as she said “Full Gospel” and believed in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (which has a lot of scriptures about the gifts of the Spirit)
So she said that what little is said about (head covering) Jesus didn’t care about.
My husband and I talked to our foursquare pastor. We had years ago about the bailing and he honestly thought because of verse 15 that it was the hair because of how that chapter ends I know protestants are taught different things about it.
Most I know seem to think that passage is ambiguous and only for the era at the time and for the area of Corinthians because of Temple prostitute that’s what I was always told for decades.

[Valerie]

Rapture?

Actually Churches that teach about the rapture connect several more Scriptures- that’s what I was used to prophetically speaking-
For example
https://www.thebibleseminary.edu/post/v ... -the-bible

[Valerie]

Baptizing for the dead.

Who besides Mormons practice this?
Although Mormons as we know are not Sola Scriptura anyways I just don’t know of any other denomination that does this.

[JohnH]

I actually found it quite scary that you all have equated something being mentioned once, as a basis of it is doctrine.

The rapture is not doctrinal when vast parts of Christianity throughout the ages do not see the rapture as doctrine.

Quite scary? This was a thread where someone simply asked the question, including asking for more examples of it. So far, nobody has even shared much of an opinion that doctrines should be built on something only mentioned once.

[JoyE]

Baptizing for the dead.

Who besides Mormons practice this?
Although Mormons as we know are not Sola Scriptura anyways I just don’t know of any other denomination that does this.

I think someone already explained this some time ago? Baptizing believers to take the place of those who've gone on before.

[Valerie]

Baptizing for the dead.

Who besides Mormons practice this?
Although Mormons as we know are not Sola Scriptura anyways I just don’t know of any other denomination that does this.

I think someone already explained this some time ago? Baptizing believers to take the place of those who've gone on before.

Actually that may have been me. I’m just not aware of anyone besides Mormons (and Corinthians) that practiced this- anyone else know?
Two letters of Corinthians were lost so we are missing two epistles that leaves some questions I guess.

[Neto]

I actually found it quite scary that you all have equated something being mentioned once, as a basis of it is doctrine.

The rapture is not doctrinal when vast parts of Christianity throughout the ages do not see the rapture as doctrine.

I think we are using doctrine in a colloquial sense of "teaching". I have real questions about the rapture...

My understanding is that the English word 'rapture' is derived from Latin (i.e., from the Latin Vulgate), and that this Latin word is used to translate what some English translations render as 'catching up'. So, do you all believe that there will be a bodily 'catching up' of the saints (both those who have already died, and those still living at that time)?

[barnhart]

I actually found it quite scary that you all have equated something being mentioned once, as a basis of it is doctrine.

The rapture is not doctrinal when vast parts of Christianity throughout the ages do not see the rapture as doctrine.

I think we are using doctrine in a colloquial sense of "teaching". I have real questions about the rapture...

My understanding is that the English word 'rapture' is derived from Latin (i.e., from the Latin Vulgate), and that this Latin word is used to translate what some English translations render as 'catching up'. So, do you all believe that there will be a bodily 'catching up' of the saints (both those who have already died, and those still living at that time)?

I believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead and going to be with Jesus.