Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

People devoted to re-writing history. And not making much sense of it either.

 

This is a distraction from the question I asked. You haven't answered. If you don't want to site it in your own words and like any good teacher does I asked you this to see if you had an adiquate understanding of the subject matter. But since you are having a personal issue with this why don't you explain RCC soteriology in their words.

 

It does not stand alone! It is connected to verses 16-17. The "scriptures" Paul refers to in verse 15 are scriptures that make one wise unto
"salvation THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN JESUS CHRIST"! Paul had already finished writing the previous 12 epistles and he already stated they were scriptures given through him from God. Paul knew he was not the only apostle writing such scriptures as he used the plural "us"and "we" just as Peter acknowledge the writngs of Paul (2 Pet. 3:1, Paul acknowledged the writings of other apostles as equally inspired scriptures. Hence when Paul went on to say "All scriptures" he was not merely referring to Old Testament prophets but New Testament prophets that included more than himself.

In addition, as my thesis on Isaiah 8 proves he, and all the apostles knew they were the "foundation" (Eph. 2:20) of the new church institution in that they were completing the canon of scriptures and thus as a prophet he spake of the finished Biblcial canon in 2 Timothy 3:16 and in that context he could say that the man of God is "thoroughly" furnished unto "ALL" good works not merely SOME as your interpretation demands.

False! This was written at the end of his life (2 Tim. 4:6-9) and he already acknowledge his other writings as scripture. To say that he did not recognize other apostolic writings as scripture when Peter did does not make any sense.

 

I already explained how the rest of the passage still doesn't state everything about salvation in known in that passage

You quote a part of what I said and said FALSE which of course is disingenuous. The fact is I said the NT wasn't finished or completed at this time. And it is not clear whether Paul at this point considered his writings on Par with OT Scriptures. Peter of course make an indication for Paul but its again unclear if Paul knew this at this time. So what is clear is that without a doubt Paul is referrencing OT scripture. When he refers to his direct teaching is call it Tradition. as in the Tradition I have passed on to you.

 

Let me be real frank with you here on this issue. When I paraphrased Roman teachings before I was accused of not citing original sources and told it is better to cite the original sources as that is what any "scholar" will do when criticizing their opponents theology so that they don't misrepresent them and deal with them fairly.

However, you have another agenda. I gave a perfectly ligitimate example that everyone knows to be a true soteriological distinction between Roman soteriology and evangelical theology at the very obvious and practical level.

However, what your agenda is all about is haggling over technical distinctions. You want me to cite it in my own words and then proceed to correct me by citing Rome's precise quotes and definitions and then claim that to be proof that I have no understanding of basic Roman Catholic soteriology. In other words you want me to build a straw man so you can burn it.

Since, you cannot get me to build your little straw man, now you ask me to cite exact quotations so you can claim I don't really understand what I cited BECAUSE I do not understand and interpret the Sriptures according to Rome's intent and design.

I will do neither as both end up with the same STRAW MAN! I gave you a practical bottom line distinction which you cannot play your STRAW MAN games with. Deal with it!

 

1 Thes. 2:13 ¶ For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

In the first passage to the SAME audiance he claims what he delivered to them was "in truth, the word of God" and in the second passage he includes in addition to oral traditions "our epistle". He did recognize his writings were "in truth, the word of God."

He had already completed the previous 12 epistles before he wrote 2 Tim. 3:16. So in reality the only person it is "not clear" about this is YOU not Paul nor the scriptures.

 

Which is? or Which was? There is no straw man here except in your own imagining. Repeat what you think the true soteriological distinction is between Roman and Evangelical.

 

Which was clearly given orally by the apostles.

Truth!!!! It affirms what I have said. Apostles considered their direct teachings as Tradition. And OT text Scripture. Both tell the whole story.

 

what a perverted politician you are! Change boats in the middle of the stream. That text proved your intepretation of 2 Tim. 3:16 wrong! You claimed that 2 Tim. 3;16 referred only to OLD TESTAMENT scriptures because there is no clear evidence that Paul recognized his own writings or the writings of other apostles as "scripture." YOU ARE WRONG! These two texts prove he recognized his own previous writings as scripture!

Neither do these texts prove that oral tradition is designed to continue beyond the written expression of that tradition! Indeed, Peter's statement proves that is wrong as well. He says the written is "MORE SURE" than his own apostolic oral tradition even while HE IS ALIVE! How much more when he is dead!

Your position is wrong, it is has been thoroughly repudiated by both Paul and Peter. Any unbiased reader can easily see you are wrong.

 

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.

The doctrine of infant sprinkling/pouring versus the doctrine of believers baptism. This doctrinal difference has been the watershed distinction between the free evangelical apostolic churches and Rome. Even Rome defines this distinction by the reproachful application of the term "anabaptists" to those who opposed her in this critical distinction.

 

First of all it is clear you haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. The doctrinal stance of the Catholic Church is not salvation requires that infants must be baptized. Its in order to be saved one must be baptized and there is exception to this. It is interesting that you use the Terms Clear and Explicit for you know there are verses in scripture that can lead one to see how infant baptism may occur in the NT. But in order to avoid those verses you use the term clear and explicit. Show me where the word trinity is used is the same kind of argument. It just so happens that to ensure an infant has grace towards salvation family members and the Catholic Church baptize their children. BTW Every Catholic Baptism I've been to and participated the child wasn't sprinkled but had water poured over them. You can find referrence to this practice back to the Didache. Sprinkling Church members is for certain feast and its not baptism. However, the stance that Baptism is required for salvation does not seperate Catholics from Evangelicals only certain Evangelicals. Episcopalians, Church of Christ also believe this. Thus there is no watershed distinction here between Evangelicals or Catholics. Even if you suppose infants being baptized as a practice (not a doctrinal stance BTW) is only Catholic you must have forgoten about Anglicans, Lutherans, etc... and even Baptist Practice of baby dedication heralds back to infant baptism. So you're persepective here is shown to be inadiquate.

 

Unfortunately for you it is clear I've maintained the same interpretation of the passage and kept to that passage without changing the subject of that passage. The one jumping around is you. The Apostles are clear they passed on Traditions and understood the OT to be scripture. And that is why they wrote the way they did. You're the one refering to books not related to Timothy and jumping around the bible looking for verses to attempt to support an your idea not actually being represented in Timothy. Not I.

 

We have already dealt with this straw man argument many times before. The exceptions are based primarily upon ignorance. Apostolic free evangelical churches were called "anabaptists" signifying no such ignorance was suggested or implied. That salvation is the essence of this argument is without question as well as to the nature of the church. That is why it is a watershed issue.

Newsflash: I said "sprinkling/pouring" (post #340)

I do not regard any sacramentarians as "evangelical" and those you list are merely reformed Roman Catholics. Their ordinances and ordination come directly from Rome.

You are doing exactly as I predicted.

 

You sir are a thoroughly dishonest man! You have been caught red handed in your false interpretation of "scripture" in 2 Tim. 3:16 by explicit evidence from Paul's own pen that he regarded his own "epistles" as the very Word of God. You are too proud to admit you are wrong but I gurantee you that any unbiased reader can clearly see you are being totally dishonest. However, deception is another true characteristic of Rome and her defenders.

 

Readers,


Here is the bottom line. The apologists for Catholocism on this forum has claimed that 2 Tim. 3:15-16 and Paul's use of "scriptures" refers only to Old Testament Scriptures when in fact, there is clear and explicit evidence that Paul acknowledge that his own epistles were considered scriptures by him long before he wrote this letter to Timothy as "the word of God" (1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:15). The fact that he was writing this at the very end of his life (2 Tim. 4:6-11) demands that he is including "all scriptures" and not merely Old Testament Scriptures.

Secondly, the fact that Peter regarded his own apostolic oral tradition while he was yet living, INFERIOR to written scriptures ("MORE SURE") proves that the written scriptures supersede oral tradition even while he was yet ALIVE! Peter did not regard oral tradition EQUAL with written scriptures or else he would not equate one "MORE SURE" than the other but would have said "EVEN AS". Indeed, we do not find Christ or the Apostles quoting "the traditions of the elders" as sources of authority for doctrine and practice which the Jews believed (just like Rome) were the basis for interpreting the scriptures.

Third, The apostles understood Isaiah 8:16-18. Jesus understood it (Jn. 17:17-21). That is precisely why they claimed that their "epistles" were the same as Scripture (2 Thes. 2;15; 2 Pet. 3:16-17). That is precisely why John lifted the very terms "the testimony" right out of scriptures and characterized the final apostolic epistle as "the testimony" (Rev. 1:3) and then sealed it in keeping with the command in Isaiah 8:16 (Rev. 22:17-18). That is precisely why the next revelation after the binding and sealing of written revelation is the second coming (Isa. 8:17; Rev. 22:19-20).

 

Nonsense. I have not been hysterical in any way shape or form. You slandered me, and I asked you to not do that.

Matt, you accused me of questioning the salvation of people, when in fact I only judged the doctrines and practices of those churches as being not true christianity.

And now you slander me again.

I dont care if you do that. But you went beyond that and said that I was judging the hearts of people. I DID NOT DO THAT, yet you said I did.

I would apreciate it if you please stop doing that.

Thank you.

 

I've nothing to hide. Where in 2 Timothy does it say "everything" to know about salvation is in the scriptures? Where? It doesn't. Paul is telling Young Timothy that the scriptures he learned, all of them BTW, will make him wise to salvation through his faith in Jesus Christ. And further more that those same scriptures are inspired by God, and useful to teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness for the end result. And I know you don't like the end result here but its Paul and not I but for the end result of what? Equiping him (Timothy) for every good work. Ahhh the word work. That is the context of the passage. That is what the passage means and all you've done is add to it by pulling verses from other books of the scriptures to Make it as if Paul were saying something he did not. He does not in this passage include his writings as scripture. Look at the structure of the passage

First Paul appeals to himself as authoritative. Ie You know those from whom you learned it. then the passage goes on to say

And you know scripture. thus What he was orally taught by Paul or Tradition, and what he was trained in scriptures. The passage is clear. You are the one

 

I love how Dr. Walter concludes his argument with the Bottom line as if it has been settled. Ha! Its clear he thinks people are way layed by his poor summery tactict to close his debate.

So let me summize. It is Dr. Walter who jumps around trying hard to connect books and passages that have nothing to do with the context of any particular one verse in scripture. It is clear it is he who uses this format to insert his already developed opinion of what the text, he thinks, should say like Luther saying Paul meant to say faith alone, but its not in the text. It is clear. I haven't departed from the text and clearly state what it is the text has said.

 

Another intentional slight of hand deception! We are talking about the nature of the term "scriptures" and what they include. You said they referred only to Old Testament scriptures and I can cite your quotation for that! I said they included apostolic scriptures and you denied that.

That is the point sir! not what you are attempting now to side track us with. Yes, that too was part of your original position but that is not what I have been explicitly and clearly challenging in our last several exchanges and YOU KNOW IT!

 

I'm not fooled by your mischaracterization of my intention. That point was initially made by me and I've kept that point despite your attempt to say the point is other is ridiculous because it was that very point you attempted to refute. I have not changed topics or how I characterized that passage. It is rather you in your verbosity who've lost the original point. Shall I go back and quote it for you should I bring your initial refutation? It is you trying to change the story. Not I.