Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

Paul is not shy about what he believes about salvation. We have the whole eleven chapters of Romans written before 2 Timothy was ever penned. We have the first four chapters of Galatians written before 2 Timothy was ever penned. What is wrong with reading into 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul's own soteriology plainly spelled out for all to read and know? Do you think he changed his soteriology and meant something different?

Your understanding of 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is absurdly rediculous and Rome's understanding is heresy.

 

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You cannot dissect verse 15 from verses 16-17! Paul does not say "SOME" scriptures, he says "ALL" scriptures. Paul does not simply say "wise" to salvation in general but "wise unto Salvation" in specific "through faith in Jesus Christ." Paul knows what the gospel is and isn't - remember he is the one that penned that anyone preaching "another gospel" is to be regarded as accursed. Your position is rediculous.

 

Of course, anyone who disagrees with Roman soteriology knows very little about Catholicism and is not qualified to disagree! Hogwash! It does not take a genius to understand the soteriology of Rome!

Your theory about Jerusalem does not stand up to the scriptures. Jerusalem did not rule over the kings of the earth [symbolized by riding on the back of the beast] when John wrote - Rev. 17:18. You simply cannot jump from chapter 11 to chapter 17 and make such a claim while ignoring the contextual differences.

Only a spiritual blinded person embraces Rome as any kind of "christian" organization. God hates her and so should every true Christian hate her as she blasphemes God and His word and is drenched with the blood of His saints.

 

Look, anyone so spiritually blind that they would continue in a church which owes its very denominatinal distinction from Rome to the likes of Henry VIII deserves whatever comes their way. Daughter like the Mother of harlots.

 

Wow. Just wow.

Your opinion of these martyrs is vile and disgusting.

 

Truth hurts sometimes! You know very well this is the true origin of the denominational distinction between the church of England and Rome. Harlotry is a fitting term for both mother and daughter and Henry your founder characterizes it.

 

I think a careful view of the verses should convince you. The Scriptures are able to make Timothy wise unto salvation. What does that mean? It can only mean that they give him the information that he needs. If he needs something else as well, it would be the height of cruelty for Paul to have witheld it from him.

Paul goes on to say that all Scripture is God-breathed (or 'God- spirited') and the man of God is made 'complete' by it and 'thoroughly equipped for every good work.' If he is complete and thoroughly equipped, what else does he need?

It is a given that the Holy Spirit has to open our hearts to receive the Scriptures (Acts 16:14; 1Cor 2:14), and that often comes through hearing the word preached; but nothing is needed in the way of additional information.

Steve

 

You keep refering to other books not related to the discussion of 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It is clear that you are not reading that passage at face value. Where in that passage does it say all? Where? It doesn't. To support your interpretation of that passage you jump all over the bible citing non related passages to this verse where the discussion is entirely different. Not a good practice.

 

You are the one speaking out of both sides of your mouth. It says All scriptures not all things about salvation. It doesn't even identify what all scriptures it means. Obviously at this point Paul is only considering the OT. Not even the NT as the NT hasn't been completed as yet. So all means all OT scriptures not all things towards salvation. You are combining things that in that passage it isn't considering.

 

Dr. Walter,
You do yourself no favours with this sort of post. I hope that if you were better acquanted with the facts, you would repent of it.

Steve

 

There's no mother-daughter relationship here at all; mother's don't burn their daughters in my universe; maybe in your twisted and dysfunctional one they do. The Church of England owes its origins not so much to Henry VII as to his sone Edward VI and Cranmer and the other above martyrs, guided by Reformers like Calvin, Knox and Bucer.

So don't spit on the blood of the martyrs and call my church a harlot again!!

 

If you could site in your own word what Catholic Soteriolgy actually holds you may have a point. You can't.

Even if it meant Rome Which it could it meant the old order Rome before Christianity took away that order. However, Note Jerusalem required reaction by all the kings of the earth and even today it seems that way. So it depends on how you mean rule.

And your vemenous hate spews forth towards the RCC. I can just as clearly and easily say "Only a spiritually blinded person embraces the idea the Rome is not Christian."

 

Walter, in your opinion, is Cranmer in Heaven or Hell based on what you know about his life?

 

You talk about revision of history. Henry the VIII is the one who separated the church of England from Rome because the Pope would not approve his adulterous affairs. You can live in your world of imagination but the facts of history cannot be changed to erase the true denominational origin of the church of England as a separate denomination from Rome. Rome is your mother in the sense that your liturgy, ordination of your priests and doctrine originate with her - she is a spiritual harlot and so is the Church of England.

 

The personal individual state of people is not my right to judge. There are truly saved people in most all denominations in spite of what they have been taught and in spite of being deceived. Which are which only God knows.

If their salvation experience matches the gospel of Rome then they are lost as none can be saved by that soteriology. However, if their experience matches the scriptures they are saved and concerning the dead only God is the final judge.

 

actually I look at this passage to mean with "wise towards salvation" as a statement to a person in possession of their salvation and how to continue living in or out their salvation. I don't discard that it also implies it can lead one to obtaining salvation yet standing alone it doesn't state everything known to obtain salvation.

Note this part of the passage indicates works. All Scripture (at this time OT) completes the man of God equiping him for every good work. Which is part of our salvation is it not? And seems to conform with my view stated above regarding someone already in possession and living out their salvation.

Actually what scriptures are clear on is that you need the Holy Spirit in addition to Scriptures. Scriptures alone don't save.

Steve I'd rather speak with you than Dr. Walter. at least you seem reasonable.

 

He is a Landmarkist.

 

I can't work out whether your opinion is just ignorant, whether you're seriously deluded or just a troll.

 

What an absolute joke! Why should I cite it in my words when I can cite it in their own words??? I have the Catholic Catechism, I have read it. I can understand the English of the Catechism as much as I can understand the English of the Bible. It takes no genius to see they are not one and the same.

Where are the clear and explicit examples or doctrine of INFANT BAPTISM in the New Testament Scriptures??? There are many clear and explicit examples and doctrine of believer's baptism but NOT ONE CLEAR AND EXPLICIT example or doctrine for infant baptism? I understand Rome's RATIONALE and its doctrine established on INFERNCES just as I understand the very same kind of RATIONALE and INFERENCES used by ever heretical christian cult to establish their false doctrines which they cannot produce clear and explicit examples or doctrine for also.

Rediculous. The typology of riding on the back of a beast is like a rider on a horse - the rider controls the animal! That is why John used the term "reigneth over"! To interpret these words as "required action" is absurd and you know it!

That is because YOU sir are a Roman Catholic in doctrine and it is not likely that a person will deny what they are!

 

More ignorance....