Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

[Dr. Walter]

See you've miss read the passage "wise" unto salvation doesn't mean everything known about salvation. Also it notes an aspect of salvation "through faith". It is clear you aren't taking the passage at face value but reading a bias into it. Paul in this passage does not say "everything known about salvation" Furnished unto all means given unto all. Does mean everything about salvation. You again are reading into it your desires rather than rely soley on what the text says. So in short you arn't relying on Paul but your presupositions of what you already believe.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You're talking about two different books two different authors and two different purposes. I'm just noting that the passage I mention says "wise toward salvation" Which doesn't say all but says "wise" which means it leads us in the direction of salvation. I didn't say Scriptures don't contain the knowledge we need to be saved it does in Acts Chapter 2, and followed up with 2 Timothy where Paul says to run the race and finish it. What I did say was the passage quoted "wise toward salvation doesn't imply everything." That idea is read into the passage thus you are reading your view or tradition into it. So you've miss understood what I was getting at.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

That is not what is implied. What has been shown to you is that you have a hatred of Catholicism which you actually know very little about. Bottner is no authority and neither is Jack Chick and as I've shown the Whore is Jerusalem. Which was destroyed in 70 AD. But Jesus establishes a Kingdom here on earth which is connected to the kingdom in heaven by which we all have entrance if we but believe. The Old world system where pride and arogance and corruption rule the day will be rejoiced over when it is totally done away with. Hate by the way is part of that order.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I suppose my fellow-Anglicans Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley and Latimer went to their deaths for their 'Romanism'?

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.

 

[Matt Black]

Wow. Just wow.

Your opinion of these martyrs is vile and disgusting.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Though on the whole I'm in agreement, I'm not sure I would say the passage goes as far as to say [that] It may, it may not. This passage isn't clear on that matter. Its clear that the scriptures will lead us in the direction of salvation. Or make us wise concerning it. But all? I think the jury is still out on that one.

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

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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 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.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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

 

[Matt Black]

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.

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!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

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!!

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

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.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[kyredneck]

Those of you who have been bantering with Dr. Walter need to lighten up. He is a fundamentalist......

He is a Landmarkist.

 

[Matt Black]

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.

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

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.

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.

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!

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."

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

 

[Matt Black]

More ignorance....