Sola Scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

There is no doubt that you represent the Roman Catholic view correctly on this issue.

However, I believe that Scriptures are sufficient to demonstrate that the Roman Catholic Church is not the church of the scriptures and therefore not the true interpreter of scriptures.

Instead, I believe there is massive Biblical evidence that Rome is the predicted apostate Christianity the apostles warned the churches against (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Tim. 4:1-5).

In contrast, I believe among those whom Rome castigated as "heretics" are the true apostolic churches.

However, since most of christendom accepts the testimony of the killer of other professed Christians over those killed then the only other way to conclusively prove that Rome is the predicted apostate is by comparing the ESSENTIAL doctrines and characteristics of the New Testament churches as opposed to the ESSENTIAL characteristics of predicted Apostasy.

Rome fits all the essential characteristics of predicted apostasy but NONE of the essential characteristics of New Testament Christianity.

Furthermore, this cannot be explained by some kind of thesis that supposes the churches were in constant transformation. I am talking about character and doctrine that is ESSENTIAL to New Testament Christians and churches that project New Testament Christianity in ANY ERA.
.

The best answer I can supply (for now) is found in an explanation by Vatican 11:

"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her" (Dei Verbum 8).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Apostate Religion is a Persecutor

Jn. 16:1 ¶ These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Judiasm represented the people of God until they rejected Jesus Christ. With that rejection they became an APOSTATE religion.

In John 16:1-4 Jesus is giving a predictive warning concerning the character of apostate religion in ANY ERA as this is one chief characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

Rome is well verified historically as the CHEIF murderer among all PROFESSED CHRISTENDOM as no other professing "Christian" institution has murdered more people of other professing Christian faiths than Rome.

The False Prophet in Revelation is in partnership with the beast and he is MURDERER. In Daniel the term "beast" is used of secular government and the "false prophet" is in partnership with secular government in murdering the people of God.

At the very minimum the union of the beast and the false prophet is a union with false religion and one cheif characteristic of all false relgion is they are PERSECUTORS and MURDERS of other people, especially professed people of God.

Rome characterizes one cheif characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Departure from New Testament Christianity

Another chief characteristic of Apostate Christianity is departure from apostolic teaching. The Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers is absolute evidence that the type of Christianity recorded is an evolving type moving away from Apostolic teachings in the New Testament Scriptures.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from the simply congregational government of churches consisting of two offices (elders and deacons) to a unbiblical offices as "cardinal" and "pope" and "priests" that cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from immersion of believers in the New Testament unto immersing of infants, then from immersing to pouring and to sprinkling of adults as well as infants.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from baptism is merely a symbol to water regeneration thus changing the whole doctrine of the gospel and salvation.

In contrast, the Apostles instructed the New Testament churches NOT TO CHANGE but to STAND FAST and CONTEND for the faith "once delievered" and to separate from any BROTHER who DEPARTED from apostolic doctrine:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. - 2 Thes. 3:6


Acts 20:27-31For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I Tim. 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6 ¶ If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Therefore the very thesis that is based upon Roman Catholic provided history that teaches CONTINUAL CHANGE is proof that the history of Apostates (Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post Nicene Fathers).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jn. 16:1 ¶ These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Judiasm represented the people of God until they rejected Jesus Christ. With that rejection they became an APOSTATE religion.

In John 16:1-4 Jesus is giving a predictive warning concerning the character of apostate religion in ANY ERA as this is one chief characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

Rome is well verified historically as the CHEIF murderer among all PROFESSED CHRISTENDOM as no other professing "Christian" institution has murdered more people of other professing Christian faiths than Rome.

The False Prophet in Revelation is in partnership with the beast and he is MURDERER. In Daniel the term "beast" is used of secular government and the "false prophet" is in partnership with secular government in murdering the people of God.

At the very minimum the union of the beast and the false prophet is a union with false religion and one cheif characteristic of all false relgion is they are PERSECUTORS and MURDERS of other people, especially professed people of God.

Rome characterizes one cheif characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

Your only point here that seems viable is the murder aspect. However, Most christian denominations are guility of murdering others for their faith. Though admittadly the Catholic Chuch is the greater offender. as for the verses they do not say every age. You added to them. It specifically says a time will come and it did. Paul was a part of kill seeking to find christians toss them out of synagogues and have them killed. So you over bound your one viable point here.

 

[DHK]

The verse says, all inspired scripture 'has it's uses' or profitable. You are saying that ONLY inspired scripture is to be followed. Plus, you are taking this verse out of context.

I believe you are referring to another translation, one that makes the verse much weaker than what it really says. The Catholic translation tends to do that in this area. Look again at the KJV here:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

--All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; not some; not just what you want; not what the areas that you think, but ALL!
--It is verbally inspired: reaching to every word of the Bible.
--It is plenary inspired: meaning every part of the Bible; the Bible in all its parts is inspired, each and every word of it, written down accurately, recorded just as God wanted it to be recorded, nothing omitted, nothing added in the original MSS. He has also promised to preserve His Word for us.
--The preservation of His Word has never been through the RCC. We have over 5,000 existing MSS. The RCC is not the keeper of the Bible; it never was. Many times it was the destroyer of the Word of God, as in the Dark Ages, as in the days of Tyndale, and even in my early childhood days when all families were discouraged from reading the Bible. (Much like Islam does today)!

St. Paul says that scripture is but ONE guide, the other is Tradition.

Not once does Paul say that. What is your chapter and verse for that?
ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable...
2 Tim.2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God...rightly dividing the WORD...
--We are commanded to study the Word of God, not Tradition.

What do the two verses before this one say? "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"2 Tim. 3:14–15. Sounds like Apostolic teaching (Tradition) to me. He learned it from St. Paul himself.

Read what you just quoted! Do you have a problem with reading?
Continue in what you have learned and firmly believed...from...the sacred scriptures which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith (alone) in Christ Jesus.
--It was the Scriptures that taught them. It was the Scriptures that was the vehicle. Who taught the Scriptures to them? Lois and Eunice!

2 Timothy 1:5 When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
--Thank God for Godly mothers (parents) who are determined to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, as these two were. There was no Tradition here, only the Word of God.

Timothy is to take as his guide both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. A large part of the New Testament had not even been written from 'his childhood'.

First, define "Apostolic Tradition".
Even from the Catholic Encyclopedia the definition of tradition that you try to squeeze into this verse doesn't fit. Pentecost was ca. 29 A.D. and this epistle was ca. 65 A.D. at the latest. In just 30-35 you claim to have (by Catholic definition) oral or written tradition passed on over the centuries from generation to generation. What kind of hokey-pokey is this that you try to tamper with Scripture with such word games. You define Tradition one way and then you have to re-define it another way to make it fit into Scripture! Ludicrous! You do the same thing with the word "worship". When the word doesn't fit solve the problem by re-defining the word--thus worship really isn't idolatry it is just another form of worship when praying to a dead person like Mary. If you have a problem with theology solve it by re-defining the words. Quite an escape route don't you think? Catholics have been doing it for centuries. It is nothing new.

Paul wasn't teaching "tradition" as defined by Catholics. He was teaching Biblical truth. That is what this word "tradition" means. It means the truth (from the Scripture) that I have taught you.

Here is what John Henry Newman said in an essay in 1884:

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

And he is wrong.
Paul was well aware of Isa.8:20

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

This man only shows ignorance.
The books to Thessalonica were not the first books to be written.
James had already been written; so had Matthew.
Nevertheless, that argument is moot. Timothy could take the OT Scriptures and preach a NT message just as Philip did with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

And the Bereans:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--A great demonstration of sola scriptura.
There was no need of anything other than the Scriptures to see whether or not Paul's words were true.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another chief characteristic of Apostate Christianity is departure from apostolic teaching. The Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers is absolute evidence that the type of Christianity recorded is an evolving type moving away from Apostolic teachings in the New Testament Scriptures.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from the simply congregational government of churches consisting of two offices (elders and deacons) to a unbiblical offices as "cardinal" and "pope" and "priests" that cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from immersion of believers in the New Testament unto immersing of infants, then from immersing to pouring and to sprinkling of adults as well as infants.

We can see this CHANGING and DEPARTING from baptism is merely a symbol to water regeneration thus changing the whole doctrine of the gospel and salvation.

In contrast, the Apostles instructed the New Testament churches NOT TO CHANGE but to STAND FAST and CONTEND for the faith "once delievered" and to separate from any BROTHER who DEPARTED from apostolic doctrine:

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. - 2 Thes. 3:6


Acts 20:27-31For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I Tim. 4:1 ¶ Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
6 ¶ If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Therefore the very thesis that is based upon Roman Catholic provided history that teaches CONTINUAL CHANGE is proof that the history of Apostates (Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post Nicene Fathers).

You act as if the church government was well established when in fact the early church took after the synagogue and then because of persecution had to move into secret places. Women held, initially, a significant role, presbyters were appointed, (rather than voted on), deacons were selected,(again no voting). Bishops were also selected to carry on the instructions of the apostles by the appointment of the appostles.(also no voting). Over time these things developed and looked different so your point on church government also becomes flat. Note that the churches were aware of each other and sent support to each other. A lot more unity than you indicate in your passage. Now when looking at the aspects of Apostacy the one that I can point to is the forbidding to marry. However, this is only required of the Roman clergy of the latin rite. Other rites can marry and Ministers already married converting to the Catholic Church becoming Priest also are allowed to remain married. And the Church doesn't forbid the laity to Marry. So does it really apply? Maybe. The Meats section does not. The Catholic church allows all sorts of meat to be eaten. The only time for refrain is during fasting periods. Like lent. This seems to be more targeted to SDA. So again the only real good point you have made here is the denial of marriage to priest.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church teaches that the bible is not only a "standard of truth but a preeminent one'. It just does not 'rule out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition.'

From Catholic Answers: 'Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.'

Acts 17:11 comes to mind.

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them (by the APOSTLE Paul) were so". This is THE highest form of sola scriptura testing for it subjects even the teaching of the Apostles themselves to scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Zenas
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he obviously had Old Testament scripture in mind because there was not yet a New Testament canon. Why do you think this verse has application to the New Testament?

More than this - in Act 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Clearly as you point out - this could only be the OT.

The term "sola scriptura" does not imply that NT writers could not continue writing scripture even as the "sola scriptura" test method was being used as we see in Act 17:11.

And if the OT was "sufficient" to establish the Gospel as Bible proven fact - how much more so the OT and the NT.

Now beyond that - it is interesting that the Catholic church itself does not claim to have authored more "Scripture" after the writing of John.

So I am not convinced that the idea that scripture ends with the writing of John - is something that the Catholic church would need to object to -

The verse says, all inspired scripture 'has it's uses' or profitable. You are saying that ONLY inspired scripture is to be followed. Plus, you are taking this verse out of context. St. Paul says that scripture is but ONE guide, the other is Tradition. What do the two verses before this one say? "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus"2 Tim. 3:14–15. Sounds like Apostolic teaching (Tradition) to me.

1. Timothy was raised as a Jew not a Christian Jew.

2. Paul is affirming the text of scripture -- the OT in this case. So the tradition you are appealing to is Jewish tradition.

He learned it from St. Paul himself. Timothy is to take as his guide both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. A large part of the New Testament had not even been written from 'his childhood'.

Here is what John Henry Newman said in an essay in 1884:

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

This has some error - but is correct in many ways.

2Tim 3 does show that the OT text was considered by the NT writers to be "sufficient" to lead to salvation.

But it does not say that all scripture was at an end.

Since even the RCC itself does not add new scripture beyond the writing of John - you cannot claim to use 2Tim 3 for "more scripture" in your "yes but more scripture was still to be written" argument for the context of 2Tim 3. (Which is pretty much the only place you can go with this text)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

You simply ignore the overall context of my statements.

Judiasm became an apostate religion by rejecting Christ and KILLING Christ. Jesus is predicting the same response toward the churches in John 16:1-5.

This is a characteristic of Satan and his false religions in ALL ERA's as Jesus identifies this very aspect with Satan in John 8:40,44.

You rightly pointed out this is a characteristic of many Christian denominations and you are correct and it exposes them as FALSE RELIGONS that originate with Satan where ALL FALSE DOCTRINE and apostate Christianity originates (see 1 Tim. 4:1).

Rome is a MURDERER by Historical character and definiton as are those REFORMED CATHOLIC denominations that came out of her.

You have simply proven my point. This is a Biblical Characteristic of false religion ANY TIME.

Your only point here that seems viable is the murder aspect. However, Most christian denominations are guility of murdering others for their faith. Though admittadly the Catholic Chuch is the greater offender. as for the verses they do not say every age. You added to them. It specifically says a time will come and it did. Paul was a part of kill seeking to find christians toss them out of synagogues and have them killed. So you over bound your one viable point here.

 

[BobRyan]

Jn. 16:1 ¶ These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Judiasm represented the people of God until they rejected Jesus Christ. With that rejection they became an APOSTATE religion.

And yet - hopefully all agree here that the OT is never called an "apostate religion" by any NT writer. In Mark 7 Christ upholds the Word of God while condemning the man-made traditions of the Jewish leaders. In that sense they had created an apostate religion long before the time of Christ. But that condemnation was applied both pre-cross and post-cross.

Jews that rejected Christ were considered to be lost and in need of salvation.

In John 16:1-4 Jesus is giving a predictive warning concerning the character of apostate religion in ANY ERA as this is one chief characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

Rome is well verified historically as the CHEIF murderer among all PROFESSED CHRISTENDOM as no other professing "Christian" institution has murdered more people of other professing Christian faiths than Rome.

The False Prophet in Revelation is in partnership with the beast and he is MURDERER. In Daniel the term "beast" is used of secular government and the "false prophet" is in partnership with secular government in murdering the people of God.

At the very minimum the union of the beast and the false prophet is a union with false religion and one cheif characteristic of all false relgion is they are PERSECUTORS and MURDERS of other people, especially professed people of God.

Rome characterizes one cheif characteristic of THE APOSTATE - Satan.

While I have seen similar application made about the beast and the woman in Rev 17 to the Catholic church, it is still true that the Bible itself -- though in some cases used incorrectly by the Catholic church, is still considered the Word of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is not a matter of acting if, it is declaration that church government was established BEFORE the end of the New Testament era.

1. Women did not hold positions of authority in the church. If you use Pheobe that is ASSUMPTION contrary to Biblical evidence to the contrary.

2. Deacons were selected by the church (Acts 6:3,5-6) but laid hands on by the elders.

3. Elders were selected by the Holy Spirit through the church (Acts 13:1-2; 14:23) as the elders submitted to the church (Acts 11:22; 15:1-3).

4. The Church was congregationally ruled (Mt. 18:17 under elder leadership (Acts 1:15-17).

5. The Apostles supervised the churches as it was their office to establish the churches in the faith but they were considered foundational not on going offices (Eph. 2:20; I Cor. 12:28; I Cor. 15:8).


However, you cannot possibly defend "cardinals" and "Priests" and the "papal" office on the basis of the New Testament Scriptures.

If you want to debate me on these issue please select one and let us narrow it down so it is managable discussion.

You act as if the church government was well established when in fact the early church took after the synagogue and then because of persecution had to move into secret places. Women held, initially, a significant role, presbyters were appointed, (rather than voted on), deacons were selected,(again no voting). Bishops were also selected to carry on the instructions of the apostles by the appointment of the appostles.(also no voting). Over time these things developed and looked different so your point on church government also becomes flat. Note that the churches were aware of each other and sent support to each other. A lot more unity than you indicate in your passage. Now when looking at the aspects of Apostacy the one that I can point to is the forbidding to marry. However, this is only required of the Roman clergy of the latin rite. Other rites can marry and Ministers already married converting to the Catholic Church becoming Priest also are allowed to remain married. And the Church doesn't forbid the laity to Marry. So does it really apply? Maybe. The Meats section does not. The Catholic church allows all sorts of meat to be eaten. The only time for refrain is during fasting periods. Like lent. This seems to be more targeted to SDA. So again the only real good point you have made here is the denial of marriage to priest.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You simply ignore the overall context of my statements..

Actually, I don't believe I do Doc. I understand your train of thought but I wanted to point out the flaws in them for instantce.

Judiasm became an apostate religion by rejecting Christ and KILLING Christ. Jesus is predicting the same response toward the churches in John 16:1-5.

Yes he did. By the Jews.

This is a characteristic of Satan and his false religions in ALL ERA's as Jesus identifies this very aspect with Satan in John 8:40,44.

Possibly but John 8:40, 44 does not reflect it to all era's what this chapter does do is explain how judaism had become apostate. Specifically Judaism.

You rightly pointed out this is a characteristic of many Christian denominations and you are correct and it exposes them as FALSE RELIGONS that originate with Satan where ALL FALSE DOCTRINE and apostate Christianity originates (see 1 Tim. 4:1).

I'll take this as a compliment though its not meant as one. I'm not sure I agree with the whole of your argument but I will say certainly their belief that caused murder certainly was not governed by Christ but the world system.

Rome is a MURDERER by Historical character and definiton as are those REFORMED CATHOLIC denominations that came out of her.

Yes, and I think you go too far. Remember Ana-baptist of Zwigli came out of Rome as well.

You have simply proven my point. This is a Biblical Characteristic of false religion ANY TIME

You may think so but aux contraire.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Note that the churches were aware of each other and sent support to each other. A lot more unity than you indicate in your passage. Now when looking at the aspects of Apostacy the one that I can point to is the forbidding to marry. However, this is only required of the Roman clergy of the latin rite. Other rites can marry and Ministers already married converting to the Catholic Church becoming Priest also are allowed to remain married. And the Church doesn't forbid the laity to Marry. So does it really apply? Maybe. The Meats section does not. The Catholic church allows all sorts of meat to be eaten. The only time for refrain is during fasting periods. Like lent. This seems to be more targeted to SDA. So again the only real good point you have made here is the denial of marriage to priest.

Churches were independent but cooperative but they had no centralized form of government like Rome and her harlot daughters.

The church forbids their leadership to marry and therefore fit that text. Rome has no authority to "allow" any foods to be eaten or not eaten and the very admission of "allow" condemns your response.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What I cannot understand for the life of me is that you argue against common sense? You defend Catholicism as a true church when you know fully well they deny Jesus Christ as savingly presented in the gospel and thus are "accursed" in regard to the most basic truth of the New Testament. This is precisely why I question your own condition. Anyone who can defend a denomination as a "true" church that rejects the central truth of Christianity - the gospel - cannot be a lover of the gospel of Jesus Christ - it is impossible as that is one fence you cannot straddle because those who preach/defend "another gospel" are accursed by the apostles (Gal. 1:8-9).

The very character and PIVOTAL point that transformed Judaism into an apostate religion was their rejection and murder of Christ and his people and yet you have the audacity to claim that you can be a "true" church and DO THE VERY SAME THING becuase when you persecute and kill the Lord's people you persecut Jesus Christ:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

You cannot be a defender of Rome and a defender of Jesus Christ as they are enemies of each other and she proves it as a MURDERER.

BTW Zwingli was not an anabaptist. He only studied with them for a shot while and then rejected the Anabaptists. You ought to know that.

Actually, I don't believe I do Doc. I understand your train of thought but I wanted to point out the flaws in them for instantce.



Yes he did. By the Jews.



Possibly but John 8:40, 44 does not reflect it to all era's what this chapter does do is explain how judaism had become apostate. Specifically Judaism.



I'll take this as a compliment though its not meant as one. I'm not sure I agree with the whole of your argument but I will say certainly their belief that caused murder certainly was not governed by Christ but the world system.



Yes, and I think you go too far. Remember Ana-baptist of Zwigli came out of Rome as well.


You may think so but aux contraire.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is not a matter of acting if, it is declaration that church government was established BEFORE the end of the New Testament era.

It wasn't Congregational is lead by the congregation under a leader.

1. Women did not hold positions of authority in the church. If you use Pheobe that is ASSUMPTION contrary to Biblical evidence to the contrary.

I didn't say they were the authority in the church you misrepresent me. I said prominant roles. Such as Pheobe and Junia and Pricilla etc.. were very prominant in the church. Pheobe does prove this point.

2. Deacons were selected by the church (Acts 6:3,5-6) but laid hands on by the elders.

proves that they were appointed not elected by the apostles and leaders no less.

3. Elders were selected by the Holy Spirit through the church (Acts 13:1-2; 14:23) as the elders submitted to the church (Acts 11:22; 15:1-3).

Proves again my point they were selected or appointed. primarily because each of the verse you have have nothing to do with selection of elders the last verse has to do with debating about circumcision from outsiders. the one before that shows the elders selecting barnabas or appointing him remember congregationalism the body leads and votes and apointments are given by popular opinion. Previous to that shows appointments as well (no voting). And the first has to do with an already established church at antioch. Remember Congregationalism emphasis in on the people as a whole and thus the body makes appointments but that is not what we see. The Apostles appoint the leaders who appoint the elders who appoint the deacons. Plus Paul felt free to teach contrary to an accepted teaching of that church and that would not be permitted in a true congregational setting.
4. The Church was congregationally ruled (Mt. 18:17 under elder leadership (Acts 1:15-17).

5. The Apostles supervised the churches as it was their office to establish the churches in the faith but they were considered foundational not on going offices (Eph. 2:20; I Cor. 12:28; I Cor. 15:8).

I did not mention anything about this one way or another don't know why you brought it up.

However, you cannot possibly defend "cardinals" and "Priests" and the "papal" office on the basis of the New Testament Scriptures.

I didn't suggest this either.

If you want to debate me on these issue please select one and let us narrow it down so it is managable discussion

I have I'm just showing you the errors in the suppositions you've supplied.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Churches were independent but cooperative but they had no centralized form of government like Rome and her harlot daughters.

The church forbids their leadership to marry and therefore fit that text. Rome has no authority to "allow" any foods to be eaten or not eaten and the very admission of "allow" condemns your response.

I never said they did you jumped to that conclusion. I said they were more unified whether all churches were equal (as I think) or not I did not say. But they had a unified belief.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What I cannot understand for the life of me is that you argue against common sense? You defend Catholicism as a true church when you know fully well they deny Jesus Christ as savingly presented in the gospel and thus are "accursed" in regard to the most basic truth of the New Testament. This is precisely why I question your own condition. Anyone who can defend a denomination as a "true" church that rejects the central truth of Christianity - the gospel - cannot be a lover of the gospel of Jesus Christ - it is impossible as that is one fence you cannot straddle because those who preach/defend "another gospel" are accursed by the apostles (Gal. 1:8-9).

The very character and PIVOTAL point that transformed Judaism into an apostate religion was their rejection and murder of Christ and his people and yet you have the audacity to claim that you can be a "true" church and DO THE VERY SAME THING becuase when you persecute and kill the Lord's people you persecut Jesus Christ:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

You cannot be a defender of Rome and a defender of Jesus Christ as they are enemies of each other and she proves it as a MURDERER.

BTW Zwingli was not an anabaptist. He only studied with them for a shot while and then rejected the Anabaptists. You ought to know that.

I am arguing common sense you argue contrary to it. I'm not defending the Catholic Church so much as pointing out your errors. You seem to like tirades.

 

[DHK]

You act as if the church government was well established when in fact the early church took after the synagogue and then because of persecution had to move into secret places.

This is not true. It is recorded that Paul went to the synagogues first. He had that privilege. He, as his custom was, went to the Jew first and then to the Gentile. He would have given his life for the Jew. So great was his love for his own people (the Jews) that he could wish that his name would be blotted out of the book of life and them be saved instead (Romans 9:1-3: 10:1-3).
It is said that Paul was the most educated person on the face of the earth at that time. It is possible. He had a great standing before the Jews and Gentiles alike. It was still easy enough for him to gain entrance into the synagogues (unlike others). He was taught at the feet of Gamiliel, the best teacher of his time. He went to the best schools and had one of the best upbringings that life could ask for. He was one of the best and most learned Rabbis. People were glad to hear what he had to say. When Paul spoke people kept quiet as is evidenced in Acts 22:1,2.
It was not normal to meet in the synagogues. Paul could gain entrance into the synagogues only because his reputation preceded him. Others could not. They synagogue was exclusively for the Jews. Once a Jew became a Christian he was cast out of the synagogue and was allowed in no more. And much of the time it was thus was with Paul. When he got to the place of the resurrection, they threw him out, stoned him, persecuted him, chased him out of the city, etc. They would hear him no longer. Early churches did not meet in the synagogues. The Jews did.

Women held, initially, a significant role, presbyters were appointed, (rather than voted on), deacons were selected,(again no voting).

It would be unheard of for women to hold any office of any kind.
They were not permitted even to speak in public but to keep silence in the church, and be submissive to their husbands at all time. It was not permitted for them to speak. If they even had any question they were to ask their husbands at home. There were no offices for women in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Bishops were also selected to carry on the instructions of the apostles by the appointment of the appostles.(also no voting).

A bishop is just another name for a pastor. It defines another aspect of his office--that of oversight. Paul on his three missionary journeys started approximately 100 journeys. I believe he recommended to the church who the Lord would appoint or choose, and the church would accept that recommendation. It would still be a church decision. Voting would be seen in the action of a disciplined man in 1Cor.5ff, when it took the action of the church as a whole to put out the man who had committed incest.

Over time these things developed and looked different so your point on church government also becomes flat. Note that the churches were aware of each other and sent support to each other.

Only some churches were aware of the needs of others. That would be those in which Paul could keep in close contact with and visit often. Starting approximately 100 churches he could not go back and visit them all with his restrictions on travel.

A lot more unity than you indicate in your passage. Now when looking at the aspects of Apostacy the one that I can point to is the forbidding to marry.

It is specifically called "a doctrine of demons.

However, this is only required of the Roman clergy of the latin rite. Other rites can marry and Ministers already married converting to the Catholic Church becoming Priest also are allowed to remain married. And the Church doesn't forbid the laity to Marry. So does it really apply? Maybe.

The Meats section does not. The Catholic church allows all sorts of meat to be eaten. The only time for refrain is during fasting periods. Like lent. This seems to be more targeted to SDA. So again the only real good point you have made here is the denial of marriage to priest.

The point is (whether SDA or RCC, or any other religion), if a religious organization makes a decree, a religious decree whether it be to abstain from marriage, abstain from food, or abstain from anything that God has declared good, then it is evil, and a doctrine of Satan. Another example of this is when the RCC commanded all of its followers to abstain from reading the Bible. That also is a doctrine of demons. In the Dark Ages they cast John Bunyan into prison because he refused to be licensed by the Church. God gave him permission to preach not the State. He spent at least 12 years in prison simply because the government commanded him to "Abstain from preaching" (without government license)--a doctrine of demons.
There is one interpretation of the verse, but many applications.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am arguing common sense you argue contrary to it. I'm not defending the Catholic Church so much as pointing out your errors. You seem to like tirades.

Is it an error to say that the Catholic church cannot possibly preach "another gospel" without being "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) by the apostles and thus cannot possibly be regarded as a "true" church by any believer of God's Word?

Will you now defend them as proclaimers of the true gospel of Jesus Christ?

Is it an error to say that CHARACTERISTIC MURDERERS cannot be regarded as a "true" Church of Christ since that is the characteristic of Satan???

Is it an error to say that those who CHARACTERISTICALLY have murdered Christians are enemies of Christ?

Is it an error to say that a church that has a fundementally different gospel, different government, different officers, different final authority, different in almost every way imaginable should be considered a "true" church? According to What?

 

[Zenas]

I won't answer for the moderator but as for myself the term "faith" when accompanied by the definite article "the" in contexts of doctrine denotes that body of doctrine and practice delivered by Christ in the Great Commission that is called "the apostles doctrine" in Acts 2:42.

In I Tim. 4:1 it is something a person can "depart from" due to false doctrine originating from demons.

There are a variety of synonyms with the definite article that are used by New Testament writers for this body of doctrine other than "the faith." There is "the doctrine" in Roman 16:17 which is given as a standard of othodoxy against false teachers. There is "the tradition" in 2 Thes. 3:6 which is the apostolic body of teaching that had been "handed" down to the churches by the apostles from Christ (2 Thes. 2:13) that they were to stand firm.

In Ephesians 4:16 this is "the faith" that maintains the stability of the membership which was given the elders at Ephesus by Paul in Acts 20:27 or "the whole counsel of God." It is the standard to examine those who would be ordained in Titus 1:13-15. It is what New Testament churches were commanded to "contend for" in Jude 3. The New Testament Scriptures contain more than this essential body of faith. The essentials can be identified quite clearly by applying three basic principles:

1. Every teaching the Bible demands is non-negotiable in character.

2. Every teaching essential to distinguish basic Christianity from other world religions and predicted apostate Christianity.

3. Every teaching essential to define and defend the above two principles.

Dr. Walter, I agree with everything you have said in this post and I'm sure you thought your were answering the question I had asked:

But where did you get the idea that "the faith" is a term that is used for a written body of doctrine?

However, my query had to do with how you got the idea that the faith constituted a written body of doctrine. It certainly does most prominently include sacred scripture but it also includes the unwritten tradition of the church that was passed down from the teachings of the apostles. Even some of your cited scripture shows this is true, and many of the early church fathers, including such prominent men as Athanasius, Iranaeus and Augustine, attest to the significance of tradition in church doctrine.