Sola Scriptura

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

You miss and entire important aspect some synagogues were converted entirely. but where they were cast out they would meet with the wealthiest benefactor house or some other permitable location. and again with tirade. NO support just tirade about "gospel of demons" explain yourself with scripture.

 

[DHK]

That which is sanctified by the Word of God - is valid. This is not a case of Paul waving his hands over the Bible and replacing scripture with Apostolic tradition - saying "pay no attention to the Word of God - now all is approved of no matter what the Word of God says to the contrary" - in your all for rat-cat-sandwhich solution.

You reject the Word of God.
It is sanctified. It doesn't say you have to sanctify it. It is sanctified by the Word of God. It already has been sanctified. Why do you reject what the Word of God has already said.

Hint: there are two places you don't want to go when arguing the case for sola scriptura with those who object to it.

1. Using man-made traditions to delete the 4th commandment.
2. Using the argument above that is of the form 'pay no attention to what the Bible says about food in Lev 11 - because apostolic tradition says that the Bible is to be ignored on that point".

"They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by Paul) WERE SO" Acts 17:11

The Levitical Law was nailed to the cross.
You are the one not using Acts 17:11--sola scriptura. Or do you confine yourself to just the NT in everything that you study these days. Is that your argument--never to use the NT at all?

You bend the Bible to make the claim in 1Tim 4 that Paul is telling his readers to ignore the Bible and just listen to him on the subject of Lev 11 clean vs unclean foods. That is the most extreme form of "non-sola-scriptura" even for a Catholic argument.

This has nothing to do with Catholicism. If it did we would only be eating fish on Fridays, not beef.
Paul gave a vision to Peter and told him explicitly not to call unclean that which he has called clean. You reject God's Word. He wasn't just referring to people. This wasn't just an object lesson. He was referring to unclean animals in a sheet. It was a statement directly made to the animals in that sheet. You can close your eyes and say it had nothing to do with those animals. But you are wrong. It did. All animals are clean. That is what God told Peter, and that is what the Holy Spirit told Paul to write in the Scriptures that we have today. You are clearly in the wrong.

The Bible is its own interpreter - instead of the Acts 10 lesson being about the joy of eating rat and cat sandwiches - Peter says the Acts 10 lesson is to call "no man unclean".

You are adding to the Word of God.
That statement is not there.

Your argument fails the test of scripture (sola scriptura) - "again". This is why I am amazed that you would bring up the flaw in your own argument on sola scriptura -- IN a sola scriptura subject thread!

You are the one that has failed, pulling Scripture out of context--using OT Scripture where it doesn't belong.

 

[DHK]

You miss and entire important aspect some synagogues were converted entirely. but where they were cast out they would meet with the wealthiest benefactor house or some other permitable location. and again with tirade. NO support just tirade about "gospel of demons" explain yourself with scripture.

Historically it went like this:
At first they met in the Temple. See Acts 2, and the Day of Pentecost.
But it didn't take long before they were not allowed to meet in the Temple.
Then they met in the synagogues. They synagogues were Jewish places erected for the purpose of Jewish education and Jewish worship. They came into being during the time of captivity when there was no Temple for them to go to. They were substitutes for the Temple, but now mostly educational institutions--but for the Jews. Once the Jews converted they were kicked out. Even in the ruler or the keeper of the Synagogue was converted the Synagogue had to be returned to the Jews. It could not remain in the hands of the Christians. The Christians were persecuted by both Jews and Romans alike.
Thus the Christians met in homes of prominent Christians, as you say.
In Acts 12, they met in the house of the mother of John Mark.
In Romans 16 a church met in the house of Aquilla and Priscilla.
There was a church that met in the house of Philemon.
It is probable that Lydia opened her doors, as the Jailer did his.

Concerning doctrine of demons, I explained myself quite well.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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.

There is the Scripture.
Did you require more? I am not sure what your question is.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't have much of a problem with most of what you have said. However, it is indisputable that there is "another gospel" which is "accursed" and there is no other gospel but that which Paul preached:

Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul's gospe was the gospel "of Christ" not merely because it was about Christ but it was given to him by Christ (Gal. 1:10-12). It was the same gospel Christ gave the other twelve apostles (Gal. 2:9). It was the gospel "according to the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:4-5) or Old Testament Scriptures. It was the gospel preached by all the prophets (Acts 26:22-23; 10:43; Heb. 4:2). Therefore it was the gospel Jesus preached himself (Jn. 3:16) as well as the gospel John the Baptist preached (Jn. 3:36) as any other gospel is "accursed."

The "gospel" of Rome is "another gospel" and Paul says that those who preach are to be regarded as "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). Hence, you cannot be a "true" church of Christ and preach an "accursed" Gospel.

Rome's sacraments preach "another gospel" Romes doctrines of salvation preach "another gospel."

No one who has studied the ECF can fail to see they preached "another gospel" or baptismal regeneration.

The doctrine of justification before God by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone is the heart of the gospel of Christ. Just look at John 3:16 or 3:36 or I Cor. 15:3-4 or Romans 4:23-25 and it is plain to see the gospel is about Christ and his provision for us obtained through faith WITHOUT works (Rom. 4:5-6), WITHOUT ordinances (Rom. 4:9-12) WITHOUT lawkeeping (Rom. 4:14-15) WITHOUT your personal assistance whatsoever but by justifying faith that has nothing more or less than the object of God's promise and His power to perform that promise as your hope of justification (Rom. 4:16-22).

Those who preach "any other gospel" are "accursed" and any institution that goes astray on this point cannot possbly be regarded in any BIBLICAL sense a "true" church. This is true of th ECF, Ante, Nicene, Post-Nicene Fathers. This is true of the Eastern Orthodox.

In an earlier post I have listed 11 or 12 Biblical evidences that New Testament Christianity had a settled and determined state of faith and practice and Apostolic ordinances put in place to protect it and defend it against any CHANGE by others. So to say that New Testament Christianity was in state of change when it left the hands of the apostles is simply not true. The only state of PROGRESSIVE CHANGE is apostasy as that is its primary characteristic. You cannot apostatize or depart from something in a state of change!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is specifically called "a doctrine of demons.


You miss and entire important aspect some synagogues were converted entirely. but where they were cast out they would meet with the wealthiest benefactor house or some other permitable location. and again with tirade. NO support just tirade about "gospel of demons" explain yourself with scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First trait of a False Church - Killers

I have used John 16:1-5 and John 8:40-44 to demonstrate that apostate religions are characterized by Satan's characteristic -murder.

Some have objected because the immediate context applies it to apostate Judaism as though Judaism EXHAUSTS all apostate religions and all characteristics of apostate religions. No, Judaism simply was the first in a long line of apostate religions that would be characterized by the same trait - murderer of the saints.

Rome as well as Reformed Rome, Arianism, Islam all are apostate religions and all share this trait of an apostate religion.

The second trait that I pointed out was CHANGE from the apostolic model. Apostasy is a DEPARTURE from the truth. There can be no departure if there is nothing to depart from.

If Christianity as left by the Apostles was in a CHANGING condition there could be nothing to DEPART from as it is itself in the state of DEPARTURE or CHANGE.

Anyone can look at the history of Apostasy preserved for us by Rome in the ECF, ante, nicene, post-nicene and see from the beginning it is a progressive change not toward truth but toward worse error. This is the hall mark of Apostasy.

No other doctrine in the word of God is defended more by Paul than the gospel. Those who preach "another gospel" are to be regarded as "accursed" not as a "true" church. ECF preach "another gospel" - water regeneration. The ante-, nicene, post-nicene preach "another gospel." If there is one that that characterizes ALL true churches of Christ it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Without that there is no possible way to even BEGIN to practice the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20). Without that there is no possible way to provide qualified membership to build churches (1 Pet. 2:5). Without this there is no one to baptize or observe the Lord's Supper. Without the true gospel THERE IS NO TRUE CHRISTIAN or CHRISTIANITY.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: How could one book or epistle be sufficent to provide thoroughness "unto ALL good works"?

HP: I would tell you that Scripture is sufficient alone in one sense and is NOT in another. No one could even begin to discern truth from Scripture apart from first truths of reason, matters of fact, and truths of immutable justice, understood by the mind as revealed to us intuitively and by reason by the Spirit of God, the Source of ALL truth. It is a failure to carefully examine all such avenues of God given truth that have been and remain the basis for so many false notions and doctrines.

 

[Zenas]

Rome as well as Reformed Rome, Arianism, Islam all are apostate religions and all share this trait of an apostate religion.

What is Reformed Rome?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What is Reformed Rome?

Most all protestant churches. This according to the fictional historical account excludes baptist since the hypothesis is that they've been hangin out since the begining. Though since there is no evidence for this it doesn't matter because Rome destroyed all their works however Rome couldn't destroy the NT nor Could Rome destroy the gnostics nor could Rome destroy the nestorians ad infinitum. The only one Rome was successful at erradicating all indications are the baptist.

 

[Zenas]

Most all protestant churches. This according to the fictional historical account excludes baptist since the hypothesis is that they've been hangin out since the begining. Though since there is no evidence for this it doesn't matter because Rome destroyed all their works however Rome couldn't destroy the NT nor Could Rome destroy the gnostics nor could Rome destroy the nestorians ad infinitum. The only one Rome was successful at erradicating all indications are the baptist.

So Reformed Rome consists of the churches of the Reformation. Dr. Walter is saying that not only are Catholics and Orthodox apostate, but Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians as well? Surely you have misunderstood what Dr. Walter means. That's not what you mean, is it, Dr. Walter?

 

[lori4dogs]

So Reformed Rome consists of the churches of the Reformation. Dr. Walter is saying that not only are Catholics and Orthodox apostate, but Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians as well? Surely you have misunderstood what Dr. Walter means. That's not what you mean, is it, Dr. Walter?

Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians are all baby-baptizing sacramentalists which means they are all degenerates and are kissing-cousins of the 'Great Whore'. Didn't you know that?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

.....
The Levitical Law was nailed to the cross. ..........

GE:
Yes, and That Law was the Living Jesus, Christ of God. Castigated and castaway, broken and trampled underfoot to dust, done away with and obliviated from the face of the universe. Dusting his hands gleefully man turned about and walked from the scene of his utter pleasure and delight: he destroyed the Law of God and extinguished its fire and nullified its vengeance for ever ..... or so thought he.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by DHK
Do you only read SDA approved translations? That is not what my Bible says. Not even close.

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Apparently your Bible translation debunks your idea as much as my NASB debunks your idea.

That which is sanctified by the Word of God - is valid. This is not a case of Paul waving his hands over the Bible and replacing scripture with Apostolic tradition - saying "pay no attention to the Word of God - now all is approved of no matter what the Word of God says to the contrary" - in your all for rat-cat-sandwhich solution.


Hint: there are two places you don't want to go when arguing the case for sola scriptura with those who object to it.

1. Using man-made traditions to delete the 4th commandment.
2. Using the argument above that is of the form 'pay no attention to what the Bible says about food in Lev 11 - because apostolic tradition says that the Bible is to be ignored on that point".

"They studied the SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by Paul) WERE SO" Acts 17:11

You bend the Bible to make the claim in 1Tim 4 that Paul is telling his readers to ignore the Bible and just listen to him on the subject of Lev 11 clean vs unclean foods. That is the most extreme form of "non-sola-scriptura" even for a Catholic argument.

The Bible is its own interpreter - instead of the Acts 10 lesson being about the joy of eating rat and cat sandwiches - Peter says the Acts 10 lesson is to call "no man unclean".

Your argument fails the test of scripture (sola scriptura) - "again". This is why I am amazed that you would bring up the flaw in your own argument on sola scriptura -- IN a sola scriptura subject thread!

You reject the Word of God.
It is sanctified. It doesn't say you have to sanctify it. It is sanctified by the Word of God. It already has been sanctified.

Turns out Lev 11 "is" The Word of God.

Turns out that honoring and accepting the Word of God is the path of sanctification. Acting in rebellion against it is never "the sanctified" path of the Bible.

The Levitical Law was nailed to the cross.

Wrong - our debt of sin was nailed to the cross - our "certificate of debt" NASB. Instead of God dying on the cross so that you can eat rats - Christ died so that the debt for your sins can be paid. This is only surprising to those who want to make the eat-more-rats kind of argument.

Lev 19:18 - "Love your Neighbor" quoted by Christ in Matt 22, quoted by Paul in Rev 13, quoted by James in James 2.

Lev 19:3 command to honor parents - also affirmed by Paul in Eph 6.

1Cor 9 8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "" YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.''

You are the one not using Acts 17:11--sola scriptura. Or do you confine yourself to just the NT in everything that you study these days. Is that your argument--never to use the NT at all?

I find your logic illusive at that point - in fact down right innnexplicable.

Paul gave a vision to Peter and told him explicitly not to call unclean that which he has called clean.

And 3 times Peter refuses to eat rats or cats. Then Peter gives the interpretation 3 times - telling everyone each time that the "lesson" was not "eat more rats" (as you are so anxious to render it) but rather "call no MAN unclean" (as statement not actually found in the vision itself).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So Reformed Rome consists of the churches of the Reformation. Dr. Walter is saying that not only are Catholics and Orthodox apostate, but Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians as well? Surely you have misunderstood what Dr. Walter means. That's not what you mean, is it, Dr. Walter?

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Dr. Walter would want you to believe.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Most all protestant churches. This according to the fictional historical account excludes baptist since the hypothesis is that they've been hangin out since the begining. Though since there is no evidence for this it doesn't matter because Rome destroyed all their works however Rome couldn't destroy the NT nor Could Rome destroy the gnostics nor could Rome destroy the nestorians ad infinitum. The only one Rome was successful at erradicating all indications are the baptist.

What is "fictional" is your assertion that there is no evidence. There is evidence from the writings of Roman historians, there is evidence from the writings and claims of the Paulicians, there is evidence from the writings of the Waldenses. There is evidence from the writings of the Reformation Anabaptists.

However, the New Testament itself provides the greatest evidence that clearly identifies the traits of predicted apostate Christianity to be a KILLER, preacher of a false gospel, and in constant DEPARTURE from truth toward error.

The Ante-, Nicene, Post-Nicene prove Rome to be an apostate church - in constant departure from truth toward more and more error. Prove it teaches a false gospel. Prove it has one of the cheif characteristics of Satan - murderer.

What you do not want to confront is THE FACTS that Rome by every Biblical characteristic has all the Biblical traits of an APOSTATE church which leaves only those they consistently called "anabaptists" who opposed all these characteristics as the only historical viable candidate of Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20) characteristics in history.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So Reformed Rome consists of the churches of the Reformation. Dr. Walter is saying that not only are Catholics and Orthodox apostate, but Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Presbyterians as well? Surely you have misunderstood what Dr. Walter means. That's not what you mean, is it, Dr. Walter?

Any church/denomination which preaches the false gospel of justification by works is essentially apostate in character. Any denomination that has murdered other Christians is Apostate in character and all of the above are characterized by one or the other trait or both.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Unfortunately, that is exactly what Dr. Walter would want you to believe.

You can moan and groan all day and all night long but you cannot deal with the facts of the traits of apostasy that I have laid out in detail which characterize Rome and Reformed Rome in regard to (1) Another gospel = accursed not a "true" church/denomination; (2) Progression in changing doctrine and practice = apostate = departure from "the faith ONCE delivered" - manifested clearly in ECF. (3) Murderers trait of apostate religions.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can moan and groan all day and all night long but you cannot deal with the facts of the traits of apostasy that I have laid out in detail which characterize Rome and Reformed Rome in regard to (1) Another gospel = accursed not a "true" church/denomination; (2) Progression in changing doctrine and practice = apostate = departure from "the faith ONCE delivered" - manifested clearly in ECF. (3) Murderers trait of apostate religions.

The fact that you've applied what Jesus was specifying to the Jews and Judaism and in a way not originally intended apply it accross the board for any thing that has a similarity in your OPINION to what Jesus was mentioning for the jews is considered an Apostate Church. Note this term is not used by Jesus nor the Apostles. It is a derivative of your misapplication of the text of scripture to suit your needs. Just like you disaproval of the statement that women played a prominant role in the early church. You in a way have aplied midieval consepts to your faith. Do you require woment to cover their heads in church? Not to speak to anyone save their husband or father? I rather doubt it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can moan and groan all day and all night long but you cannot deal with the facts of the traits of apostasy that I have laid out in detail which characterize Rome and Reformed Rome in regard to (1) Another gospel = accursed not a "true" church/denomination; (2) Progression in changing doctrine and practice = apostate = departure from "the faith ONCE delivered" - manifested clearly in ECF. (3) Murderers trait of apostate religions.

Does this sound like departure from the "faith once delivered" to you?

Wherefore let us give up vain and fruitless cares, and approach to the glorious and venerable rule of our holy calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God,3535 Some insert “Father.” which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed, and learn that, from generation to generation, the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all such as would be converted unto Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved.3636 Gen. vii.; 1 Pet. iii. 20; 2 Pet. ii. 5. Jonah proclaimed destruction to the Ninevites;3737 Jon. iii. but they, repenting of their sins, propitiated God by prayer, and obtained salvation, although they were aliens [to the covenant] of God.

Clement to the Corinthians. I think in your misaprehended view of Christian history you apply your belief and incert it on the Christians converted by the apostles themselves and say this is what they believed as the faith once delivered missing two irreconcilable points. The baptist distinctiveness did not exist in the 1st Century. 2 the record of these very same christians argue against your view.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What you are accusing me of is absolutely absurd. I noted in my application that it was the characteristic of apostate Judaism but as a characteristic of Satan (Jn. 8:44) it is a general characteristic of ALL APOSTATE RELIGIONS (I Tim. 4:1).

Your logic is so looney that if followed out it would demand there are NO APOSTATE RELIGIONS after the Jewish one because THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT!!!!!!!!!!! And that is an absurd line of reasoning. It is the characteristics of apostasy found in those which are named in Scriptuers that serve as the MODEL for all future ones whether they are named or not.

You cannot possibly deny that the three characteristics I have given characterize APOSTATE religions or that Rome and Reformed Rome are not characterized by one or more of them:

1. Another Gospel - "accursed" rather than a "true" church.

2. Apostasy is DEPARTING from something that is not transitional and changing but firm and delivered as a standard of truth (2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17; Jude 3; etc.). ECF and Rome are characteristic of DEPARTING from truth to more and more error.

3. MURDERERS - Rome and Reformed have blood on their hands and lots of it.

The fact that you've applied what Jesus was specifying to the Jews and Judaism and in a way not originally intended apply it accross the board for any thing that has a similarity in your OPINION to what Jesus was mentioning for the jews is considered an Apostate Church. Note this term is not used by Jesus nor the Apostles. It is a derivative of your misapplication of the text of scripture to suit your needs. Just like you disaproval of the statement that women played a prominant role in the early church. You in a way have aplied midieval consepts to your faith. Do you require woment to cover their heads in church? Not to speak to anyone save their husband or father? I rather doubt it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you are accusing me of is absolutely absurd. I noted in my application that it was the characteristic of apostate Judaism but as a characteristic of Satan (Jn. 8:44) it is a general characteristic of ALL APOSTATE RELIGIONS (I Tim. 4:1).

Your logic is so looney that if followed out it would demand there are NO APOSTATE RELIGIONS after the Jewish one because THEY ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE PAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT!!!!!!!!!!! And that is an absurd line of reasoning. It is the characteristics of apostasy found in those which are named in Scriptuers that serve as the MODEL for all future ones whether they are named or not.

You cannot possibly deny that the three characteristics I have given characterize APOSTATE religions or that Rome and Reformed Rome are not characterized by one or more of them:

1. Another Gospel - "accursed" rather than a "true" church.

2. Apostasy is DEPARTING from something that is not transitional and changing but firm and delivered as a standard of truth (2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17; Jude 3; etc.). ECF and Rome are characteristic of DEPARTING from truth to more and more error.

3. MURDERERS - Rome and Reformed have blood on their hands and lots of it.

Unfortuantely, for you my logic is clear. Look at John 8

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

Very basics of exegesis. To whom is Jesus speaking? Clue its bolded. Further evedence for this

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"

34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.[c]"

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.

"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would[d] do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

Again in the passage to whom is Jesus speaking? The Jews about whom? Jews. So in the context of the passage the verses you use

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

is directed to the Jews about Judaism. Its very clear from scriptures. Then you apply 1 Timothy 4:1 to the passage in John 8 which has nothing to do with each other. Timothy the young pastor that he was was being warned about what in a future time

some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

some believers or some members of the church body will leave the faith and follow false teaching. The two scriptures have nothing to do with each other. You are attempting to force scripture to your view. Its clear to anyone who reads scripture what you are doing. This is your teaching and you force scripture to meet it connecting two verses that have nothing to do with each other.