Sola Scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

First, you cannot quote INDIVIDUALS to exonerate a whole denomination as a "true" denomination or church.

Second, I have already said that the apostolic fathers are closer to the apostolic faith than volumes 2-9 of the Ante-Nicene, much less the Nicene and Post Nicene.

Third, there is a progressive departure from truth that have their origin even in the Apostolic Fathers and soon grows worse and worse as you proceed through the ECF.

So, your argument is baseless and does not contradict the BIBLICAL characteristics of Apostasy in the least or their application to the ECF as they progressively depart from the faith.

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, you cannot quote INDIVIDUALS to exonerate a whole denomination as a "true" denomination or church.

Second, I have already said that the apostolic fathers are closer to the apostolic faith than volumes 2-9 of the Ante-Nicene, much less the Nicene and Post Nicene.

Third, there is a progressive departure from truth that have their origin even in the Apostolic Fathers and soon grows worse and worse as you proceed through the ECF.

So, your argument is baseless and does not contradict the BIBLICAL characteristics of Apostasy in the least or their application to the ECF as they progressively depart from the faith.

Nope your wrong. Again. You've already claimed that the churches were baptistic and to hold that view you already have indicated that the Ante-Nicean fathers were already a part of the Apostate church. Since then by logic they weren't even Christians They were immedaitely departed from the deposit left by the Apostles. There can be no progressive heretical view unless you hold to my Church evolution theory. Which you already called filth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

What kind of exegesis demands GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS must be restricted to the specific and contextual named person's or movements? The eisgetical kind!

You have got to be kidding me???? The very wording of I tim. 4:1 and John 8:44; 16:1-5 demands they are GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS of apostates ANY TIME, ANY WHERE by ANY NAME.

1. Satanic characteristics cannot be limited to the Jewish false religion - Jn. 8:44; 16:1-4

2. "IN THE LATTER TIMES...SOME" cannot be restricted to Timothy or the church at Ephesus he pastored.

3. "if ANY MAN...preach ANOTHER GOSPEL....let him be accursed" cannot be limited to the Galatian churches.

All these are GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS of apostate religions ANY TIME under ANY NAME including the specific contextual application.

Unfortuantely, for you my logic is clear. Look at John 8 Very basics of exegesis. To whom is Jesus speaking? Clue its bolded. Further evedence for this 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 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 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.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What kind of exegesis demands GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS must be restricted to the specific and contextual named person's or movements? The eisgetical kind!

You have got to be kidding me???? The very wording of I tim. 4:1 and John 8:44; 16:1-5 demands they are GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS of apostates ANY TIME, ANY WHERE by ANY NAME.

1. Satanic characteristics cannot be limited to the Jewish false religion - Jn. 8:44; 16:1-4

2. "IN THE LATTER TIMES...SOME" cannot be restricted to Timothy or the church at Ephesus he pastored.

3. "if ANY MAN...preach ANOTHER GOSPEL....let him be accursed" cannot be limited to the Galatian churches.

All these are GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS of apostate religions ANY TIME under ANY NAME including the specific contextual application.

Sorry Doc

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

is exactly what I did for both John 8 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Anyone reading the text as it is writen and understands the audience to whom it was applied can clearly see there is no connections between the verses. Nowhere does it specify a "General rule of apostacy for a church" that is called eisegesis

is the process of interpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text

Its very clear you adapted your own "General rule" idea into the passages. The way I explained it did nothing of the Sort It just took the text at face value with its intended context.
You get an F where did you get your Phd from?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nope your wrong. Again. You've already claimed that the churches were baptistic and to hold that view you already have indicated that the Ante-Nicean fathers were already a part of the Apostate church. Since then by logic they weren't even Christians They were immedaitely departed from the deposit left by the Apostles. There can be no progressive heretical view unless you hold to my Church evolution theory. Which you already called filth.

You have an amazing perverted concept of logic. The only churches that I have claimed to be Apostolic in doctrine are the ones found in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures - Period.

I have never at any time stated or otherwise implied that any individual within ECF represents those churches - that is your position and inference.

I have said the very opposite. I have said they represent the original source of progressive apostasy and the further you read the more obvious the truth of my assertion is demonstrated.

Even for the sake of argument if I admit the apostolic Fathers were orthodox that does not mean their later followers and churches that followed them remained so? Apostasy BEGINS at some point and it is obvious from the ECF that in regard to the gospel it began at a very early point where baptismal regeneration is expressed among these ECF prior to 200 A.D.

 

[DHK]

Even the most recent news articles demonstrates what should be objective reporting is usually seen through the rose-colored eyes of the RCC.

Tell me what comes to mind when you read a paragraph like this:

The art that decorated Rome's catacombs was often simplistic and symbolic in nature. The Santa Tecla catacombs, however, represent some of the earliest evidence of devotion to the apostles in [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]early [COLOR=#366388 ! important]Christianity[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], Vatican officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_archaeology

Of course the article is reported by the Vatican. It is only assumed that this is evidence of "devotion" to the Apostles because this is seen through the eyes of the RCC. They are pictures, images, nothing else. Who says that they were put there to be venerated as the Vatican suggests or implies? The revisionist history of the RCC is atrocious. It still goes on. Recent discoveries must be seen only through the eyes of the RCC.

And you ask me why I am biased when I read an encyclopedia's account of church history? This is your answer why.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have an amazing perverted concept of logic. The only churches that I have claimed to be Apostolic in doctrine are the ones found in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures - Period.

I have never at any time stated or otherwise implied that any individual within ECF represents those churches - that is your position and inference.

I have said the very opposite. I have said they represent the original source of progressive apostasy and the further you read the more obvious the truth of my assertion is demonstrated.

Even for the sake of argument if I admit the apostolic Fathers were orthodox that does not mean their later followers and churches that followed them remained so? Apostasy BEGINS at some point and it is obvious from the ECF that in regard to the gospel it began at a very early point where baptismal regeneration is expressed among these ECF prior to 200 A.D.

These are your words are they not?

Second, I have already said that the apostolic fathers are closer to the apostolic faith than volumes 2-9 of the Ante-Nicene, much less the Nicene and Post Nicene.

Third, there is a progressive departure from truth that have their origin even in the Apostolic Fathers and soon grows worse and worse as you proceed through the ECF.

There can be no progressive departure as there was a total departure according to your theory. There for if there was an immediate total departure you cannot have a progressive departure. Doesn't make sense does it to say they are totally departed and then they are progressively departed. The mormons for instance didn't progressively depart Christianity now did they? You can't say the progressively got worse. Makes no sense. Logic is Step one then step two follows. Not big nonsense connections.

The only churches that I have claimed to be Apostolic in doctrine are the ones found in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures - Period.

Then is it your contention they disapeard for the next 1400 years?

I have never at any time stated or otherwise implied that any individual within ECF represents those churches - that is your position and inference

Yes I do as it was the Christian Church lets see in Antioch? or Rome or Philippi or Corinth? Are you suggesting that the apostles didn't establish those churches as indicated in scripture? These are the very same churches. in 90 AD as they were in 70 AD as they were in 60 AD. No Difference.

I have said the very opposite. I have said they represent the original source of progressive apostasy

Again you can't have progressive departure if it was already a total departure.

Even for the sake of argument if I admit the apostolic Fathers were orthodox that does not mean their later followers and churches that followed them remained so?

This sounds like your viewing my evolutionary church argument.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is very very difficult for me to believe we are actually having to discuss much less debate such an infantile understanding of basic hermeneutics.

First, I never stated that the contextual audiance for each of these texts are the same.

Second, I did demand that there are general principles in each context that exceed complete restriction to the specific audiance.

If I followed your understanding of hermeneutics then NOTHING in the Scriptures are applicable to anyone outside the Apostolic era unless the immediate context specifically states that is the case. Hence, that does away with the discipline of Sytematic Theology. Systematic theology takes general precepts and principles applied to specific contextual audiances and conditions and applies them to similar audiances and conditions that fit those general precepts and principles.

For example, 1 Timothy 4:1 is by specific context addressed to Timothy as the pastor of the church at Ephesus. However, Paul uses GENERIC or GENERAL terms "some" "in latter times" for a specific kind of action "depart from the faith" due to a specific stated source "doctrines of demons". To demand this is restricted to Timothy or the first century audiances is absurdly rediculous as the GENERIC terms and GENERAL truths apply in all ages to all peoples in regard to the specific issues and sources stated.

Likewise, John 8:29-44. If we followed your view then John 8:30-32, 44 could NOT be applied to anyone but the specific contextual audiance hearing Jesus at that point in history because the prounoun "ye" is found in each of these verses. However, those things in John 8:29-44 are concerned with GENERAL TRUTH as well as GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS taught throughout the New Testament that are applicable to ANY PEOPLE at ANY TIME which fit the same general descriptions. If not, then you better not use the following teachings to apply to yourself or anyone else today:

31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Neither ought you use the characteristics in John 8:44 or John 16:1-4 to describe or apply t anyone but the Jews.

Sorry Doc is exactly what I did for both John 8 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Anyone reading the text as it is writen and understands the audience to whom it was applied can clearly see there is no connections between the verses. Nowhere does it specify a "General rule of apostacy for a church" that is called eisegesis Its very clear you adapted your own "General rule" idea into the passages. The way I explained it did nothing of the Sort It just took the text at face value with its intended context.
You get an F where did you get your Phd from?

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is obvious to me that you have no intent on being objective in this argument but simply want to argue for the fun of it. That is your right to do so but I don't have to stoop that low.

For you to argue that the word "CLOSER" means that I am admitting they ARE apostolic in doctrine is pure evidence that you are not in this debate for truth. At the very point a false gospel is embrace they are apostates even though they progressively keep on moving worse and worse in that false gospel. At the very point they depart from essential truths of the faith they are apostates regardless if they are continuing worse and worse in that departure.

If we followed your line of thinking apostasy could never happen as long as they are in progression in their departure from the faith. As soon as they enact MURDER upon others they are apostates.

These are your words are they not? There can be no progressive departure as there was a total departure according to your theory. There for if there was an immediate total departure you cannot have a progressive departure. Doesn't make sense does it to say they are totally departed and then they are progressively departed. The mormons for instance didn't progressively depart Christianity now did they? You can't say the progressively got worse. Makes no sense. Logic is Step one then step two follows. Not big nonsense connections.
Then is it your contention they disapeard for the next 1400 years?

Yes I do as it was the Christian Church lets see in Antioch? or Rome or Philippi or Corinth? Are you suggesting that the apostles didn't establish those churches as indicated in scripture? These are the very same churches. in 90 AD as they were in 70 AD as they were in 60 AD. No Difference.
Again you can't have progressive departure if it was already a total departure.
This sounds like your viewing my evolutionary church argument.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The only churches that I have claimed to be Apostolic in doctrine are the ones found in the pages of the New Testament Scriptures - Period. - DW

Then is it your contention they disapeard for the next 1400 years?- Thinkingstuff

You know fully well that it is my position that the ECF is not the history of New Testament Christianity at the very point where they DEPARTED from any essential of the faith and refused to repent and return. There were those right at the end of the Apostolic period that departed into a Christian gnosticism. There are those among the rest that began to do this as early as 150A.D where those churches true to the Apostolic faith took a stand against them and continued to do as others progressively departed from the faith (Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Paulicians, Waldenses, Anabaptists, Baptists).

The preservation of the ECF while systematically destroying the writings of the Montanists, Donatists, Novationists, Paulicians, etc., was to preserve their own history of APOSTASY.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you have followed this debate then it is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can murder Christians and not be regarded as an apostate religion, however, it is clear the Jewish religion could not escape that application could it?

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can preach "another gospel" and be regarded as a "true" church instead of an "accursed" church because the Galatians could not get away with it could they?

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view believe you can depart from essentials of the faith and still be considered a "true" Church or house inhabited by the Spirit of God but those in 1 Tim. 4:1 could not get away with being considered as such could they as they departure is expressly given to demons and doctrines of demons.

At the POINT any church/denomination embraces these characteristics it is proof they are to be regarded as APOSTATE rather than "true" churches. Their PROGRESSION in such error only confirms they have already become apostates under the leadership of demons and doctrines of demons.

1. Those teach heaven is determined by works are such.

2. Those who have a history of killing Christians are such.

3. Those who have a history of progessing in departure from essentials of the faith are such.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is very very difficult for me to believe we are actually having to discuss much less debate such an infantile understanding of basic hermeneutics.

First, I never stated that the contextual audiance for each of these texts are the same..

Thats it they are not. One is to the Jews and the other is to Timothy warning about people falling away from the faith. Two diverent subject groups, two different applications. etc...

Second, I did demand that there are general principles in each context that exceed complete restriction to the specific audiance.

You're implying a "general principle" that the text isn't indicating is a general principle.

If I followed your understanding of hermeneutics then NOTHING in the Scriptures are applicable to anyone outside the Apostolic era unless the immediate context specifically states that is the case.

No. If you take my understanding of the verse you would apply a contextual understanding of the passage in its original meaning. Then if the application is relevant to our modern context then you would apply it. However these passages were specified to a specific group. Not a general principle. General principles would be cases like 1) Love God 2) love your Neighbor as yourself.

Hence, that does away with the discipline of Sytematic Theology

.
Not at all. It does away with eisegisis for a text. The text itself indicates what is to be taken for general principles as I've mentioned. Kind of like the Lord's prayer.

Systematic theology takes general precepts and principles applied to specific contextual audiances and conditions and applies them to similar audiances and conditions that fit those general precepts and principles

.
Actually, Systematic theology

is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith

For example, 1 Timothy 4:1 is by specific context addressed to Timothy as the pastor of the church at Ephesus. However, Paul uses GENERIC or GENERAL terms "some" "in latter times" for a specific kind of action "depart from the faith" due to a specific stated source "doctrines of demons". To demand this is restricted to Timothy or the first century audiances is absurdly rediculous as the GENERIC terms and GENERAL truths apply in all ages to all peoples in regard to the specific issues and sources stated.

This is an example of how you eisegesis something.

Neither ought you use the characteristics in John 8:44 or John 16:1-4 to describe or apply t anyone but the Jews

No. You got me wrong again well partly. John 8:44 is to the Jews 1 Timothy is a warning to Timothy about Chrisitans falling away.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If you have followed this debate then it is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can murder Christians and not be regarded as an apostate religion, however, it is clear the Jewish religion could not escape that application could it?.

Jewish religion failed two things 1) They rejected Jesus. which resulted in 2) persecution of Christians. That is the proper context.

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can preach "another gospel" and be regarded as a "true" church instead of an "accursed" church because the Galatians could not get away with it could they?

Actually opposing your view is the only reasonable response to your eisegesis. Opposing you view has nothing to do with the gospel or another gospel. It simply states you missaplied the scripture to maintain your view.

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view believe you can depart from essentials of the faith and still be considered a "true" Church or house inhabited by the Spirit of God but those in 1 Tim. 4:1 could not get away with being considered as such could they as they departure is expressly given to demons and doctrines of demons.

You misapply 1 Timothy 4:1 Paul is showing a future event. Not a present one. And you also miss whether those that fell away was an absolute falling away like Judaism. It wasn't as would be said a sect of Christianity but a new religion entire. And Morality is the base litmus test for determination of this false religion. Such is the case with the gnostics.

At the POINT any church/denomination embraces these characteristics it is proof they are to be regarded as APOSTATE rather than "true" churches. Their PROGRESSION in such error only confirms they have already become apostates under the leadership of demons and doctrines of demons.

1. Those teach heaven is determined by works are such.

2. Those who have a history of killing Christians are such.

3. Those who have a history of progessing in departure from essentials of the faith are such

your list can only be assertain by misapplication of scripture as you do. Look at revelation. Sin and the acceptance of sinfulness in lifestyle is an indicator or litmus test of the apostate church. A rejection of Jesus is another litmus test. and You've progressed from the truth in that you eisegese verse and passages of scriptures rather than be a textual critic. which means you aren't 100% in your teaching. but do I consider you lost? Not at all. Just confused. you still accept Orthodox view of God, scriptures, and morality. You need some correction as Paul and Barnabus had done with those only familiar with johns baptism.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As you can see those who reject these conclusions have to stoop to the rediculous to defend their positions.

I Timothy 4:1 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that apostasy originates with demons and is composed of "doctrines" contrary to "the faith."

John 8:44 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that murder is a trait of Satan and not of God and is also a trait of those who oppose Biblical Christianity regardless who they might be or what time they exist as Satan is the "father" OF ALL SUCH.

Galatians 1:6-8 clearely teaches as a GENERAL truth anyone at anytime who preaches another gospel as its characteristic message is to be regarded as "accursed" rather than a "true" preacher, church, denomination.

If you have followed this debate then it is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can murder Christians and not be regarded as an apostate religion, however, it is clear the Jewish religion could not escape that application could it?

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view beleive you can preach "another gospel" and be regarded as a "true" church instead of an "accursed" church because the Galatians could not get away with it could they?

It is quite obvious that those opposing my view believe you can depart from essentials of the faith and still be considered a "true" Church or house inhabited by the Spirit of God but those in 1 Tim. 4:1 could not get away with being considered as such could they as they departure is expressly given to demons and doctrines of demons.

At the POINT any church/denomination embraces these characteristics it is proof they are to be regarded as APOSTATE rather than "true" churches. Their PROGRESSION in such error only confirms they have already become apostates under the leadership of demons and doctrines of demons.

1. Those teach heaven is determined by works are such.

2. Those who have a history of killing Christians are such.

3. Those who have a history of progessing in departure from essentials of the faith are such.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As you can see those who reject these conclusions have to stoop to the rediculous to defend their positions.

I Timothy 4:1 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that apostasy originates with demons and is composed of "doctrines" contrary to "the faith."

John 8:44 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that murder is a trait of Satan and not of God and is also a trait of those who oppose Biblical Christianity regardless who they might be or what time they exist as Satan is the "father" OF ALL SUCH.

Galatians 1:6-8 clearely teaches as a GENERAL truth anyone at anytime who preaches another gospel as its characteristic message is to be regarded as "accursed" rather than a "true" preacher, church, denomination.

You apply a generality to this passage.

1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

This is not a general principle. This is a specific mention of a future problem a prophesy if you may. The principles that are applied are mentioned after

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer

These are the "general principles to be applied not the 1st verse as you've stated. And even these "general principle" are specific enough to indicate exactly what it is they are teaching. So you have stooped to ridiculous levels to 1) connect this passage to John 8. and 2) misuse verse 1 to support your assertions. The text is clear. you Eisegesis. Both 1 Timothy 4:1 and John 8. The discussion is to the Jews. You need to re-read John 8.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Systematic theology takes general precepts and principles applied to specific contextual audiances and conditions and applies them to similar audiances and conditions that fit those general precepts and principles - DW

.
Actually, Systematic theology
Quote: is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith
.

The attempt to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith is by gleaning general precepts and principles applied to specific contextual audiances and conditions throughout the scriptures and presents them as GENERAL truths for all generations. Indeed, pick up any Systematic theology and you will see hundreds of references where a specific truth is applied to a specific subject in a specific context. For example, John 8:44 would be used as an example to teach the general truth that Satan is the father of all murderers.

For Example Berkhof in his systematic theology lists John 8:44 as supportive of several GENERAL TRUTHS in regard to Satan, the origin of sin, the instrumentality of Satan through men. - churches/denominations are composed of men and thus can be used/dominated/led by Satan.

For Example Berkhof uses 1 Tim. 4:1 for the Great Apostasy.

Bushnell uses John 8:44 to teach general truths about the same thing as Berkhof. Bushnell applies 1 Tim. 4:1 in general to the "organized church."

A.H. Strong in his sytematic theology uses these texts to teach the same GENERAL truths and I could go on and on with quotations from fifteen other sytematic theologies in my library that do the same thing.

1. Therefore your demand that these texts do not have GENERAL applications is refuted by Theologions of different denominational persuasions.

2. Your restriction to isolated contexts is eisgetical based when these scriptures clearly contain GENERAL principles.

 

[Dr. Walter]

When the apostles have put in place "the faith" as the gold standard for doctrine and practice then it is a GENERAL TRUTH that Satan will fight it in the future by the GENERAL TRUTH of a departure from the faith. FUTURE expectation from an Apostolic era and perspective is a GENERAL truth.

You apply a generality to this passage.
This is not a general principle. This is a specific mention of a future problem a prophesy if you may. The principles that are applied are mentioned after These are the "general principles to be applied not the 1st verse as you've stated. And even these "general principle" are specific enough to indicate exactly what it is they are teaching. So you have stooped to ridiculous levels to 1) connect this passage to John 8. and 2) misuse verse 1 to support your assertions. The text is clear. you Eisegesis. Both 1 Timothy 4:1 and John 8. The discussion is to the Jews. You need to re-read John 8.

 

[Dr. Walter]

therefore Galatians 1:6-9 is a timeless general truth that is to be applied to ANY preacher, church/denomination at ANY period in history ANY place. Such are not a "true" preacher, church or demonation but by apostolic command to be regarded and treated as "ACCURSED."

This necessarily includes ECF from 150 A.D onward This necessarily includes Rome, Greek Orthodox. This necessarily includes all who teach regeneration occurs in connection with baptism (Methodist, Lutheran, Church of England). This necessarily includes all who believe entrance into heaven is justified by works (Churches of Christ, SDA, JW's, LDS, Methodists, and the list goes on and on).

As you can see those who reject these conclusions have to stoop to the rediculous to defend their positions.

I Timothy 4:1 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that apostasy originates with demons and is composed of "doctrines" contrary to "the faith."

John 8:44 clearly teaches as a GENERAL truth that murder is a trait of Satan and not of God and is also a trait of those who oppose Biblical Christianity regardless who they might be or what time they exist as Satan is the "father" OF ALL SUCH.

Galatians 1:6-8 clearely teaches as a GENERAL truth anyone at anytime who preaches another gospel as its characteristic message is to be regarded as "accursed" rather than a "true" preacher, church, denomination.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The attempt to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith is by gleaning general precepts and principles applied to specific contextual audiances and conditions throughout the scriptures and presents them as GENERAL truths for all generations. Indeed, pick up any Systematic theology and you will see hundreds of references where a specific truth is applied to a specific subject in a specific context. For example, John 8:44 would be used as an example to teach the general truth that Satan is the father of all murderers.

For Example Berkhof in his systematic theology lists John 8:44 as supportive of several GENERAL TRUTHS in regard to Satan, the origin of sin, the instrumentality of Satan through men. - churches/denominations are composed of men and thus can be used/dominated/led by Satan.

For Example Berkhof uses 1 Tim. 4:1 for the Great Apostasy.

Bushnell uses John 8:44 to teach general truths about the same thing as Berkhof. Bushnell applies 1 Tim. 4:1 in general to the "organized church."

A.H. Strong in his sytematic theology uses these texts to teach the same GENERAL truths and I could go on and on with quotations from fifteen other sytematic theologies in my library that do the same thing.

1. Therefore your demand that these texts do not have GENERAL applications is refuted by Theologions of different denominational persuasions.

2. Your restriction to isolated contexts is eisgetical based when these scriptures clearly contain GENERAL principles.

You applied generality to them the simple reading of the text specifies satan. not an Apostate church. Berkhof indicates the specific accusation aimed at the devil where indeed John 8:44 says

You 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.

specifies the devil. There is no general application directed at any church but to the Jewish people. Lets break it down

You belong to your father

Who is he addressing? the jews.

He was a murderer from the beginning

Who is he speaking of here? The Devil. Jesus specifies a trait belonging to the Devil. He is a murderer. There is not a general application intended here. It is to tell the Jews that they are of the devil based on their actions. You take that and apply some litmus test. to a non related situation. Notice Burkhof is mentioning apostate in 1 Timothy or a falling away of christians which is what 1 tim 4 is about. and he doesn't connect it with John 8. that is the plain reading of the text. Jesus is speaking to the Jews. in John 8 Paul is speaking to timothy about apostates. Notice he doesn't tell timothy they go around killing people. So you've combined two verses not meant to be combined.
Now can I say the general principle is that people who murder other people are following the devil? Yes. However, you 've made the verse go beyond its meaning. Have you read Barth?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When the apostles have put in place "the faith" as the gold standard for doctrine and practice then it is a GENERAL TRUTH that Satan will fight it in the future by the GENERAL TRUTH of a departure from the faith. FUTURE expectation from an Apostolic era and perspective is a GENERAL truth.

Again Murder is a specific trait of Satan. The "faith" is the standard by which to measure. No one has argued against that aspect. However, you applying your personal opinion to what that faith is with regard to the Apostate church.