Sola Scriptura

[Thinkingstuff]

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).

The second paragraph doesn't follow the first unless you were there and can prove it. The ECF writings begin around 90 AD btw. You've overstep your knowledge by mentioning specific churches. Because 1) you don't accurately know what it is they teach 2) you assume the apostles established baptist churches. They did not. The early church looked nothing like our modern churches. Evolution.

 

[DHK]

The second paragraph doesn't follow the first unless you were there and can prove it. The ECF writings begin around 90 AD btw. You've overstep your knowledge by mentioning specific churches. Because 1) you don't accurately know what it is they teach 2) you assume the apostles established baptist churches. They did not. The early church looked nothing like our modern churches. Evolution.

I don't have to sit in the class of a Biology teacher at a secular university teacher to know that he teaches evolution. If I have his text book and a copy of his notes I know what he believes. Why do I have to "be there"? That condition is ludicrous. It is never demanded today in any field of scholarship.

One doesn't have to resort to the same tactic here: "you weren't there." What kind of excuse is that!! We have the writings of the ECF. We know what they believe. Why don't you think we can know accurately what they believe?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I don't have to sit in the class of a Biology teacher at a secular university teacher to know that he teaches evolution. If I have his text book and a copy of his notes I know what he believes. Why do I have to "be there"? That condition is ludicrous. It is never demanded today in any field of scholarship.

One doesn't have to resort to the same tactic here: "you weren't there." What kind of excuse is that!! We have the writings of the ECF. We know what they believe. Why don't you think we can know accurately what they believe?

You weren't there is very applicable. How did the disciples of the Apostle view their teaching and what did they take with them. Well, we see with the ECF. Apart from their writings there is no knowldege of any other way it was taken save by gross heresies of the gnostics. There is no evidence that baptist churches existed then at all. What we have are the ECF writings. Nothing else. And it happened 2,000 years ago. So the argument is very applicable.
And DHK Evolution has some merit.
In fact my wife was mentioning that young earthers have this issue. the world is only purported to have existed for 7,000 years. We have writings in history going back to 9,000 BCE which is 11,000 years.

 

[DHK]

You weren't there is very applicable. How did the disciples of the Apostle view their teaching and what did they take with them.

We can find much of those things out from the Bible itself. Why do I need the ECF, many of whom held to many and varied heresies? Why should I trust them?

Well, we see with the ECF. Apart from their writings there is no knowldege of any other way it was taken save by gross heresies of the gnostics.

I disagree. We do not see with the ECF. We see with the Bible. If you want to see how gnosticism was fought against the read John's first epistle. That was one of its primary purposes--to thwart the heresy of gnosticism.

There is no evidence that baptist churches existed then at all. What we have are the ECF writings. Nothing else. And it happened 2,000 years ago. So the argument is very applicable.

A Baptist Church is a Bible-believing church. We have many of those described for us in the Scriptures. That is why the Bible is important. That is the essence of sola scriptura. History tends to lead one in the opposite direction.

And DHK Evolution has some merit.
In fact my wife was mentioning that young earthers have this issue. the world is only purported to have existed for 7,000 years. We have writings in history going back to 9,000 BCE which is 11,000 years.

I have always said that the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. What I am against is these evolutionists who say that it is millions and billions of years old. To say that it is 10 or 11 thousand years old is not giving consent to evolution. There are other reasons to account for that.

 

[lori4dogs]

Thinkingstuff said: 'There is no evidence that baptist churches existed then at all. What we have are the ECF writings. Nothing else.'

So why no Baptistic writings? None, nada! Plenty of Gnostic and other writings though. No one has given an explanation except the lame 'scorched earth' excuse which doesn't hold an ounce of water since many other writings considered heretical by the Holy Catholic Church did survive. There were no Baptist churches in existence in the Early Church or there would be some kind of evidence.

 

[DHK]

Thinkingstuff said: 'There is no evidence that baptist churches existed then at all. What we have are the ECF writings. Nothing else.'

So why no Baptistic writings? None, nada! Plenty of Gnostic and other writings though. No one has given an explanation except the lame 'scorched earth' excuse which doesn't hold an ounce of water since many other writings considered heretical by the Holy Catholic Church did survive. There were no Baptist churches in existence in the Early Church or there would be some kind of evidence.

To you it would sound lame. To us it sounds quite Scriptural. All of the Apostles, save John were martyred. Read Hebrews 11 for an account of true believers. Here is what the Bible says of those who believed:

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

They preached the word: they didn't have time to write books in those early days of persecution both by the Roman government, and then by the RCC.

 

[lori4dogs]

To you it would sound lame. To us it sounds quite Scriptural. All of the Apostles, save John were martyred. Read Hebrews 11 for an account of true believers. Here is what the Bible says of those who believed:

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

They preached the word: they didn't have time to write books in those early days of persecution both by the Roman government, and then by the RCC.

So only Catholic heretics like Ignatius of Antioch had the time to jot things down. I see. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[DHK]

So only Catholic heretics like Ignatius of Antioch had the time to jot things down. I see. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Were they orthodox in their doctrine?
I am not sure. But I doubt it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Where in the world are you getting the idea that I am associating the context of I Tim. 4:1 with the context of John 8?????

You don't have to associate contexts in order to draw general principles from both and make application to anything that fits the principle.

The Jews don't have an monopoly upon Satan, murder, lying, etc. Timothy does not have a monopoly upon future apostasy!

You responses are absurd. Your dealings with Berkhof are absurd.

You think that simply because a specific person/preacher/church/institution is not specifically found in the context that the prinicples that are applied in a specific context can't be applied anywhere or to anyone else outside the context. That is absurd.

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

 

[Dr. Walter]

So only Catholic heretics like Ignatius of Antioch had the time to jot things down. I see. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

What you are completely ignoring is the concerted effort by Rome to practice the scorched earth policy in regard to their opponents they first classifed as "heretics" and then systematically destroyed all traces except their own comments. You have the writings of Ignatius because Rome arbritrarily chose to preserve them.

 

[DHK]

No one has given an explanation except the lame 'scorched earth' excuse which doesn't hold an ounce of water since many other writings considered heretical by the Holy Catholic Church did survive. There were no Baptist churches in existence in the Early Church or there would be some kind of evidence.

It was a scorched earth policy wasn't it?

Nero was an accomplished musician and sang verses composed by himself.
He eagerly sought the plaudits of the multitude by reciting his compositions
in public. Historians are divided in opinion as to whether Nero was the
cause of the burning of Rome. During the conflagration, to court popularity
he ordered temporary shelters to be provided for the houseless; yet the
people did not acclaim this deed, as it was reported that Nero, at "the very
time Rome was in flames," sang the destruction of Troy in his private
theatre, likening the present disaster to that ancient catastrophe. In order
to divert the masses from what they believed the true origin of the fire,
Nero charged it upon the Christians, many hundreds of whom were sacrificed to
his fury. He was the last of the Caesars, and died by his own hand amid
universal execrations, in June, A.D. 68, four years after the destruction of
Rome.

http://history-world.org/burning_of_rome_under_nero.htm

 

[Dr. Walter]

You simply don't get it or don't want to get it. Who said that the ECF had its BEGINNING in 150 A.D.???? I didn't! All I said was that from 150 A.D. forward do we have clear evidence of apostasy in regard to water regeneration.

I can look at the New Testament and determine what kind of churches are found in the New Testament. They are not the churches found in the ECF 150 A.D. and forward. New Testament churches did not preach sacramentalistic salvation. They did not administer baptism for water regeneration. They did not murder Christians. However, that is exactly the kind of churches we find 150 A.D. forward in the ECF.

The second paragraph follows perfectly because the ECF provides the proof that from 150 A.D. forward you have these churches embracing water regeneration and sacramental salvation.

The second paragraph doesn't follow the first unless you were there and can prove it. The ECF writings begin around 90 AD btw. You've overstep your knowledge by mentioning specific churches. Because 1) you don't accurately know what it is they teach 2) you assume the apostles established baptist churches. They did not. The early church looked nothing like our modern churches. Evolution.

 

[lori4dogs]

What you are completely ignoring is the concerted effort by Rome to practice the scorched earth policy in regard to their opponents they first classifed as "heretics" and then systematically destroyed all traces except their own comments. You have the writings of Ignatius because Rome arbritrarily chose to preserve them.

Then why do we have all those writings of the Gnostics? They were certainly considered heretics but their writings were not destroyed.

 

[DHK]

Then why do we have all those writings of the Gnostics? They were certainly considered heretics but their writings were not destroyed.

Satan has no interest in destroying his own works. He wants to promote them and disperse them. Why would he destroy them?

Luke 11:17-18 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Then why do we have all those writings of the Gnostics? They were certainly considered heretics but their writings were not destroyed.

Well, since we are using simple reasoning here..because why would Rome care about false teaching? Or, why would satan in the Roman Empire care to undo his own work in the gnostics?

 

[Dr. Walter]

The "accursed" preacher/church/denomination

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.
10 ¶ For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

If you look at this text objectively it condemns ANYONE who preaches "ANOTHER GOSPEL" as "accursed."

The context fully demonstrates it is the gospel given unto Paul by Christ himself. Thus it is the gospel Christ commissioned to the end of the world (Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15). Hence, there is but one gospel of Christ that has been commissioned to the end of the world and it is the gospel Paul preached.

ANYONE preaching "another gospel" is by apostolic command to be determined "accursed."

It should be obvious that the gospel preached by Baptists is not the gospel preached by the church at Rome or by the Orthodox Church or by those later than 150 A.D. in the ECF.

Now, it is very simple, so lets not complicate the matter through intellectual ignorance!

If you believe that gospel in Galatians 1:6-9 is water regeneration/sacamental/church/justification by works salvation than the Baptists are to be regarded as "accursed" by all who hold to water regeneration/justification by works/sacramental church gospel salvation.

If you believe that the gospel in Galatians 1:6-9 is what the Baptists preach than all who preach a water regeneration/sacramental/church/justification by works gospel salvation are to be regarded as "accursed."

The New Testament does not teach TWO gospels that stand in contradiction to each other as the GOSPELS of Christ.

To me it is a very simple matter to conclude that those in the ECF who embraced a water regeneration gospel are to be regarded as "accursed" instead of being regarded as a "true" preacher, church/denomination.

To me it is a very simple matter to conclude that all those who embraced a sacramental church/justification by works gospel are to be regarded as "accursed" instead of being regarded as a "true" preacher/church/denomination.

Any intellectual argumentation to the contrary is but intellectual stupidity on display.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Then why do we have all those writings of the Gnostics? They were certainly considered heretics but their writings were not destroyed.

The answer is very simple. The Anabaptists were totally exclusive of Rome and all other deviations and regarded all of them as "heretics" and themselves alone as the true apostolic churches.

Rome was totally inclusive of all except for those who excluded them just as they are today.

Indeed, at first Rome attempted to include the Anabaptists. They attempted to include the Montanists, Novations and Donatists and counsels were called for the purpose of reconciliation. However, when the Anabaptists would have none of that, but condemned Rome as heretics, refused their ordinances, denied their ministry was ordained, rejected their assemblies as churches but regarded them as dens of theives, then the scorched earth policy was put into place. Rome did this with all that would not include them within the limits of Christianity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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; - I Tim. 4:1

The only thing the Holy Spirit speaketh expressly about is that some UNKNOWN time in the future "some" UNKNOWN persons will "depart from the faith."

The specific applicable time is UNKNOWN. It could be one year or one thousand years in the future. It could be continuously in the future. Hence there is no CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTION and so it is a GENERAL predictive truth.

The specific persons are not identified. Only that "some" UNKNOWN persons will "depart from the faith" in the future. It could ten or ten million. It could be individuals or institutions of individuals. Hence there is no CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTION and so it is a GENERAL predictive truth.

The originating cause is specifically identified as giving heed to "seducing spirits" and the opposition to "the faith" is identified as "doctrines of demons." Hence, the Holy Spirit is pitted in this same verse with demonic spirits. John gives the same two sources for "truth" and "error" (I Jn. 4:6).

Two specific false doctrines are identified in verses 4-5. (1) Forbidding to marry - celebacy mandated and (2) forbidding to eat certain foods eat. Inclusive of Jewish dietary law and RCC dietary laws:

"The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent. Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday" (Code of Canon Law 1250, 1251).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The answer is very simple. The Anabaptists were totally exclusive of Rome and all other deviations and regarded all of them as "heretics" and themselves alone as the true apostolic churches.

Rome was totally inclusive of all except for those who excluded them just as they are today.

Indeed, at first Rome attempted to include the Anabaptists. They attempted to include the Montanists, Novations and Donatists and counsels were called for the purpose of reconciliation. However, when the Anabaptists would have none of that, but condemned Rome as heretics, refused their ordinances, denied their ministry was ordained, rejected their assemblies as churches but regarded them as dens of theives, then the scorched earth policy was put into place. Rome did this with all that would not include them within the limits of Christianity.

The problem with your theory is that the Montanist and the Donatist were not inclusive but exclusive. Your baptist exclusivity matches the Montanist and the Donatist and a same result should have occured. However, there is no evidence for the elusive Anabaptist. Primarily because this group is a fiction much like the snipe. Today baptist are the most prolific of writers.
Now logically we see that even during their missionary journies and persecution and evengelizing the Roman Empire The apostles still had time to compile their memoirs known as the NT. Matching the Prolific writing of the baptist today and the prolific writings of the apostles we can assume there is a great body of work from these "anabapitst" in the first century. The problem is there is 1) no evidence of them though we have evidence for the Montanist and the donatist and the gnostics whom the catholic church did have a scorched earth policy against and note that 2) even before nag hammurabi there were referrences of gnostic works in other writings. We don't even have this benefit for the mysterius baptist. There is only one conclusion their existance much like the touted lost tribe of Israel in North America before the Europeans came is a fantasy. There aren't even any 3) Archeolgical finds supporting the existance of this group. Even Atlantist (a fictional city) has mention in Plato. No such thing for this early ana baptist group. Therefore, we can only conclude is the infeasability of their existance.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You simply don't get it or don't want to get it. Who said that the ECF had its BEGINNING in 150 A.D.???? I didn't! All I said was that from 150 A.D. forward do we have clear evidence of apostasy in regard to water regeneration.

I can look at the New Testament and determine what kind of churches are found in the New Testament. They are not the churches found in the ECF 150 A.D. and forward. New Testament churches did not preach sacramentalistic salvation. They did not administer baptism for water regeneration. They did not murder Christians. However, that is exactly the kind of churches we find 150 A.D. forward in the ECF.

The second paragraph follows perfectly because the ECF provides the proof that from 150 A.D. forward you have these churches embracing water regeneration and sacramental salvation.

What christian group in 150 AD or CE killed other christian groups? At this point you didn't have that type of thing what you did have were excommunications. In fact, there are no references to ordinance believing groups in existance. And there is good argument for the NT churches believing in Sacramental baptism as you call it.