Waldes of Lyons' Profession of Faith

[D28guy]

"Oh, come on, Mike! You really expect me to believe that garbage?

1st of all, it isnt "garbage". Its the truth. But to answer your question, no. I dont expect you to believe it.

God has always had his church on this earth. The "church" is nothing more than his born again people. And they have always been here. Even during the time when the counterfiet false organisation was inflicting its oppression on its victims. Even when the counterfiet organisation was seeking to murder Gods people by the thousands.

Many of these brothers and sisters were in the Catholic church, but not of it. They were disbelievers in the idolatries, paganism, and blaphemies. They stayed in...physically...for any number of reasons. Survival, fear, to witness from within, convenience, etc etc. But they knew the truth, and shared it with others.

Many others were outside of the Catholic church. Many of these born again christians were slain by the Catholic Church. They have been documented extensively, and it can be found on the internet. Much evidence has been posted on many other threads on this Baptist Board. The evidence has been given here, and is available elswhere...for anyone who is interested.

Praise God! \O/

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Produce the evidence, then.

 

[Eliyahu]

6. Reject the Encyclical that there is No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church.

They are correct to do this in so far as Lumen Gentium (for I believe that is the document to which you refer) means by "the Holy Catholic Church" only those who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but incorrect if LG means by that term "the whole of Christendom".

Do you notice that RCC say that even Muslims can go to Heaven and they are saved as long as they believe their religion faithfully because they believe in the Creator?

Then RCC say that the HIndus can go to Heaven too as long as they believe their religion faithfully. This was confirmed by Mother Theresa as well. She didn't deny the salvation of the Hindusists.

In such case, RCC ignored the teachings of Acts 4:12. RCC claims there is Salvation even in the pagan religion !

However, when they come to Protestant Christians, they say there is NO Salvation outside RCC.

Why do they say that? Can you accept such stance of RCC?

To me, it sounds like RCC works only to persecute the True Believers who believe in Acts 4:12.

What do you think about it?

Do you still believe there was No Salvation outside RCC, before 1517, though we notice many footprints of the Believers outside RCC before 1517?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Lip service is all you're gonna get Matt...

But of course there’s plenty of evidence Matt. Only the evidence points to the fact that these little independent sects were nothing more than heretical.

I always wondered why there’s no ‘Baptist’ Church founded (a part from church planters) in the East that can trace its origins to the Apostles. Growing up a Baptist I can assume that these little Baptist Churches in the East of today are “planted” mainly from the US, none are original, since I was never told otherwise.

Furthermore, it’s a historical fact that the ecclesiastical centers of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome can all trace their founders to an Apostle of our Lord. Each Bishop within the Eastern Orthodox Church can trace the hands that were laid on them to an Apostle’s hands of our Lord.
-

 

[Eliyahu]

1. Reject Mass as they believe that the Sacrifice was completed at the Cross.


Catholics believe the sacrifice was completed at the Cross too. Anglicans are ambivalent concerning the concept of the 'sacrifice of the Mass'. To answer your question, therefore, since the Undivided Church believed the sacrifice was completed, Christians who believe likewise are not heretics.

Catholics believe the Sacrifice was completed at the Cross, by their Mouth, not by their hearts as their works prove it.
In reality, they repeatedly ask God to forgive their sins just by their own sacrifices at the Mass, they never mention that all the sins were already forgiven by the Sacrifice of Jesus at the Cross, Once for ALL.

None of the sins was forgiven by any other sacrifice than the Sacrifice at the Cross !

None of the sins of this world has been forgiven by the act of RCC priests' sacrifices !!!!

The Sacrifice of RCC Sacrifice could avail nothing !!

Can you believe this?

If the Sacrifice was complete at the Cross, why do RCC perform the Sacrifcies again and again?

 

[Eliyahu]

2. Reject Infant Baptism but perform only Believers Baptism Not heretics so much as mistaken as rejecting both Scripture and Tradition on this point.

3. Reject Purgatory
Ditto.

Then, as a whole, why did RCC condemn such belief as Heresies ?

What did lead RCC to conclude the Believers as Heretics?

Do you deny that there were Believers outside RCC before 1517?

Now return to the previous post of mine about Albigenes.

First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church( Roman Church), and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.
That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.( land of church)
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches( but for the poor)-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did-also ( 2 Thess 3:8-12)
, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.( they denied Clergy system, Papacy)
-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also( This is the style of God's working since the Creation), that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices ( No clergy system according to 1 Pet 2:5-9, Re 1:6)-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies( No human organization)-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. ( They condemned the human tradition)

Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing - also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing....( They must have condemned the Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism)

 

[David Lamb]

Because that is what the Undivided Church of the first millenium, established by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, has always taught. Now, if you want to deny that that was a True Church(TM) then you must also deny its decisions: out therefore goes the Trinity, orthodox Christology etc and you might as well trundle off to your local JW Kingdom Hall, as they - based on sola Scriptura, don't forget! - have clearly got it right.

Again, a non seqitur, Matt. Whether or not the church was divided before the eleventh century makes no difference at all to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology. Yes, it is possible to twist those doctrines out of all recognition and at the same time still claim to be following the bible alone, as the JWs do with there ideas on Christology, but to do so they have to make a translation of John 1.1. that even secular Greek scholars say is wrong. By the way, what is the significance of the initial capital letters and the bracketed "TM" in "True Church(TM)"? ("Trade Mark" and "Trancendental Meditation" don't really seem to fit the context ! )

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt,

Which of the following statements do you believe can be construed as Heresies? from my post No 7.


First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church( Roman Church), and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.
That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.( land of church)
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches( but for the poor)-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did-also ( 2 Thess 3:8-12)
, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.( they denied Clergy system, Papacy)
-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also( This is the style of God's working since the Creation), that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices ( No clergy system according to 1 Pet 2:5-9, Re 1:6)-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies( No human organization)-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. ( They condemned the human tradition)

Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing - also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing....( They must have condemned the Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism)

Also, they condemn the sacrament of Marriage, saying that married persons sin mortally if they come together without the hope of offspring-also, they disregard compaternity-also, they despise the degrees of affinity, carnal and spiritual, and the impediments of Orders, and of public decency, and of ecclesiastical prohibitions-also, they say that a woman after child-bearing does not require benediction, or introduction-

( They denied any rituals regarding marriage and child bearing. I am not sure the inquisitor understood fully their teachings in this)

also, they say that the church has erred in prohibiting the marriage of the Clergy, while even those of the East mary - also, they say that the continent do not sin in kisses and embraces. ( they denied the Obligatory Celibacy)

The sacrament of Unction, they reprobate, because it is only given to the rich; ( they must have denied the Extreme Unction which is absolute heresy)

and because several priests are required for it-also, they say that the sacrament of Orders is nothing-also, they say that every good layman is a priest (They denied various rituals and believed all Truly Born again believers are the Priests), as the Apostles were laymen-also, that the prayer of an evil priest does not profit-also, ( They knew that many fake Christians became the Holy Catholic Priests as well)

they deride the clerical tonsure-also, that Latin prayer does not profit the vulgar-also, ( Pagan clergy system use the un-understandable language for the liturgy and for sacrifice such as Mass, but the True Christianity use the common language understandable to any lay people)

they make it a matter of ridicule that illegitimate persons and wicked sinners are raised to eminence in the church-also, they say that every layman, and even woman ought to preach, ( according to 2 Tim 4:1-) 1. Cor. xiv. "I would that ye spake in tongues, that the church might receive edification"-also, whatever is preached which cannot be proved by the text of Scripture they consider as fabulous.... ( SOLA SCRIPTURA !!!)

... also, they say that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statutes of the church ( Amen !!! Amen !!!)-that ( Correct!) and that there is more made of the transgression of a human tradition than of a divine law. Matt. xv. "Why do ye transgress the commands of God by reason of your traditions?" Also, they reject the mystical sense in the holy Scriptures, principally as it regards the sayings and doings delivered in the Church by tradition; as that the cock upon the steeple signifies a doctor. (3) ( They rejected the HUman Tradition !)


The comments in Brackets are my own.

How much would they have read the Bible in order that they may be able to fight the heresies of Rome like that?

How much would they have tried to stick to the teachings of Bible to comment like that depite all the persecutions?

Do you have such courage in faith as to answer like theirs?

 

[Matt Black]

However, when they come to Protestant Christians, they say there is NO Salvation outside RCC..

Er...no, that's not what LG says.

Why do they say that? Can you accept such stance of RCC?

No, not if they mean what you take them to mean. But they don't.

What do you think about it?

See above.

Do you still believe there was No Salvation outside RCC, before 1517, though we notice many footprints of the Believers outside RCC before 1517?

No, I don't believe that - there were the various Orthodox Churches for starters.

 

[Matt Black]

Catholics believe the Sacrifice was completed at the Cross, by their Mouth, not by their hearts as their works prove it.
In reality, they repeatedly ask God to forgive their sins just by their own sacrifices at the Mass, they never mention that all the sins were already forgiven by the Sacrifice of Jesus at the Cross, Once for ALL.

None of the sins was forgiven by any other sacrifice than the Sacrifice at the Cross !

None of the sins of this world has been forgiven by the act of RCC priests' sacrifices !!!!

The Sacrifice of RCC Sacrifice could avail nothing !!

Can you believe this?

If the Sacrifice was complete at the Cross, why do RCC perform the Sacrifcies again and again?

They don't. They re-present the One and Only Sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. Go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church as you clearly don't understand their doctrine and practices.

 

[Matt Black]

Then, as a whole, why did RCC condemn such belief as Heresies ?

What did lead RCC to conclude the Believers as Heretics?

Because they were not in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as I've said.

Do you deny that there were Believers outside RCC before 1517?

No, there were believers in the Orthodox Churches too.

Now return to the previous post of mine about Albigenes.

First They say that the Romish Church, is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but a church of malignants and that it apostatized under Sylvester, when the poison of temporalities was infused into the h. And they say, that they are the church of Christ, because they observe both in word, and deed, the doctrine of Christ, of the Gospel, and of the Apostles.
Their second error is that all vices and sins are in the church( Roman Church), and that they alone live righteously.
That scarcely anyone in the church, but themselves, preserves the evangelical doctrine.
That they are the true poor in spirit, and suffer persecution for righteousness and faith.
That they are the Church of Jesus Christ.
That the Church of Rome is the Harlot in the Apocalypse, on account of its superfluous decoration which the Eastern Church does not regard.
That they despise all the statutes of the Church, because they are heavy and numerous.
That the Pope is the head of all errors.
That the Prelates are Scribes; and the Monks, Pharisees.
That the Pope and all Bishops, are homicides on account of wars.
That we are not to obey Prelates; but only God.
That no one is greater than another in the church. Matt. 23. "All of you are brethren."
That no one ought to bow the knee before a priest. Rev. ii. where the Angel says tojohn "See thou do it not."
That tithes are not to be given, because first fruits were not given to the church.
That the clergy ought not to have possessions; Dent. xviii. "The Priests and all the tribe of Levi, shall not have part and inheritance with the people of Israel, because they eat the sacrifices, and they shall receive nothing else."
That the clergy, and monks, ought not to have Prebends.( land of church)
That the Bishops and Abbots ought not to have royal rights.
That the land, and the people, are not to be divided into parts.
That it is a bad thing to found and endow churches and monasteries.
That wills are not to be made in favor of Churches( but for the poor)-also, that no one ought to be a tenant of the church-also, they condemn all the clergy for idleness, saying that they ought to work with their hands as the Apostles did-also ( 2 Thess 3:8-12)
, they reprobate titles of dignity such as Pope, Bishops, etc.( they denied Clergy system, Papacy)
-also, that no one is to be forced into belief-also( This is the style of God's working since the Creation), that they make no account of all ecclesiastical offices ( No clergy system according to 1 Pet 2:5-9, Re 1:6)-also, that they care nothing for ecclesiastical privileges-also, they despise the immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons and things-also, they condemn Councils, Synods, and Assemblies( No human organization)-also, they say that all parochial rights are invention-also, they say that monastic rules are the traditions of the Pharisees. ( They condemned the human tradition)

Secondly, they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church; in the first place, as to baptism, they say that the Catechism is nothing - also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing....( They must have condemned the Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism)

And from which document does this come? The Jehovahs Witnesses say much the same thing - does that make them Christians too?

 

[Matt Black]

Again, a non seqitur, Matt. Whether or not the church was divided before the eleventh century makes no difference at all to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology.

Then tell me why it was necessary to have the Councils to decide the issue, if it was so obvious based on sola scriptura? Tell me why Arius, using the same Scriptures, came toa wholly different conclusion from the Orthodox.

Yes, it is possible to twist those doctrines out of all recognition and at the same time still claim to be following the bible alone, as the JWs do with there ideas on Christology, but to do so they have to make a translation of John 1.1. that even secular Greek scholars say is wrong.

Or they can use the same Scriptures like Arius.

By the way, what is the significance of the initial capital letters and the bracketed "TM" in "True Church(TM)"? ("Trade Mark" and "Trancendental Meditation" don't really seem to fit the context ! )

"TM" is "Trademark" and is used slightly tongue-in-cheek by me here.

 

[Eliyahu]

No, I don't believe that - there were the various Orthodox Churches for starters.

What about Peter de Bruys? Was he not a Christian?

WAs Jan Huss not a Christian? Why did RCC burn him?


What about the Nestorian Believers in China during 7-10 centuries?

http://keikyo.com/xian/index.htm

 

[David Lamb]

Then tell me why it was necessary to have the Councils to decide the issue, if it was so obvious based on sola scriptura? Tell me why Arius, using the same Scriptures, came toa wholly different conclusion from the Orthodox. Or they can use the same Scriptures like Arius. "TM" is "Trademark" and is used slightly tongue-in-cheek by me here.

You and I could continue "arguing in circles" forever, because we obviously do not agree on the matter of authority. With you, it is "The True Church(TM)". With me, it is God's Word. With your beliefs (at least as I understand them) it was "necessary" to hold these Councils - comings together of representatives of "The True Church(TM)" to decide on differences. Not so for those who believe in the sufficiency and inerrancy of God's Word.

 

[Matt Black]

Jan Huss was, but the Nestorians and Peter de Bruys were not (the latter was killed by a mob of locals at Nimes who were angered by his desecration of crosses, not the Catholic Church).

 

[Eliyahu]

Because they were not in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as I've said.

How could they be not in accordance with the Scripture?

Is the Sacred Scripture different from the Scripture?

Yes, they rejected Human Traditions which contradict Scripture. What would you follow if the Tranditions contradict Scriptures?

No, there were believers in the Orthodox Churches too.

Then do you mean, out side RCC and Greek Orthodox, there was no Salvation?

And from which document does this come? The Jehovahs Witnesses say much the same thing - does that make them Christians too?

I already told you, that is from my post No 7 of this thread.

That is the report by the Inquisitor of RCC, Reinerius.

Do you disbelieve the report by RCC because it contradicts RCC doctrines?

 

[Eliyahu]

Jan Huss was, but the Nestorians and Peter de Bruys were not (the latter was killed by a mob of locals at Nimes who were angered by his desecration of crosses, not the Catholic Church).

So, all Christians in East Asia like China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan during 7-13 centuries were not saved, do you claim so?


Was Peter De Bruys not a Christian because he was killed by a mob?

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt,

One more Info for other " Christians" outside RCC.


http://www.edessa.com/history/monument.htm

 

[Matt Black]

How could they be not in accordance with the Scripture?

They are not eg: John 3:3-5 says that we are born again by water (baptism) and the Spirit (regeneration). These sects denied that.

Is the Sacred Scripture different from the Scripture?

No, it's the same; I use the adjective to denote that Scripture is very important for me.

Yes, they rejected Human Traditions which contradict Scripture.

As should we all.

What would you follow if the Tranditions contradict Scriptures?

Depends what you mean by 'Tradition'. I agree we should not follow human traditions. But if you mean Sacred Church Tradition, then there is no such conflict.

Then do you mean, out side RCC and Greek Orthodox, there was no Salvation?

No, we cannot say where salvation isn't; that's up to God. I've already said I believe Huss to have been saved.

I already told you, that is from my post No 7 of this thread.

That is the report by the Inquisitor of RCC, Reinerius.

Do you disbelieve the report by RCC because it contradicts RCC doctrines?

Do you mean the Summa de Catharis et Leonistes, sive Pauperibus de Lugduno? If so, then the title itself contains an error in that it conflates the Cathars with the 'Poor of Lyon' ie: the Waldenses; whereas the latter were a sect arising within mid-medieval Catholicism, the latter were gnostic heretics. It also ignores the fact that two groups of Waldensians were re-admitted to the Catholic Church in the early 13th century and preached against the Cathar heresy; the Waldensian schism was mainly to do with authority to preach rather than major doctrinal differences with Catholicism (as Peter Waldo's Confession makes clear) and when they sought that authority from Pope Innocent III they were given it and allowed to preach - in this way they were not that different from the Franciscans who followed about a decade later.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Again, a non seqitur, Matt. Whether or not the church was divided before the eleventh century makes no difference at all to the biblical doctrines of the Trinity and Christology. Yes, it is possible to twist those doctrines out of all recognition and at the same time still claim to be following the bible alone, as the JWs do with there ideas on Christology, but to do so they have to make a translation of John 1.1. that even secular Greek scholars say is wrong.

Of course, David, you and Matt and I (and Mike--'D28Guy') would agree that the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Christology are indeed "biblical". However there are many sincere "Christians" who deny one or both of these, and, as you point out, "claim to be following the bible alone". For instance, "Oneness Pentecostals" deny the Trinity by conflating the Persons (ie like the ancient Sabellians did). I've perused some of their websites, and they are convinced that Scriptures support their position. On the other hand, there are plenty of folks today (and not just the JWs with their NWT of the bible) who basically have an Arian (at best!) view of Christ, and they will argue until they are blue in the face--from Scripture--that theirs is the true "biblical" position. In fact, shortly after the Reformation, there was an upsurge in Unitarianism in various places because many people, encouraged by the cry of "SOLA SCRIPTURA!" to interpret the Scriptures all by themselves, concluded that the Trinity was not "biblical".

That there are folks who have mutually contradictory interpretations--on what the Scriptures seem to teach on such vital issues as the nature of God and the nature of Christ--should not surprising. The Apostle Peter warned in his Second Epistle that there were already those who were "twisting Scripture" to "their own destruction". The question is how do we know: (1) who are the ones "rightly dividing the word of truth", and (2) who are the ones "twisting Scripture to their own destruction"? For each group is convinced that they are practicing the former, while those who disagree are potentially practicing the latter. Who decides between them, and/or how does one know who is right without begging the question?

I submit the answer to the "how" question lies in the Apostolic Tradition. This is mentioned by Paul, particularly to the church of the Thessalonians:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thess 2:15)
Notice that Paul doesn't elevate one mode of receiving the tradition--his oral word or his written epistle--above the other; the authority is the same. Though we can't be sure that the content is exactly the same in every single detail of the oral and written forms, we can surmise that they testify to the same material Truth and therefore don't contradict one another. From another one of Paul's letters, this time to Timothy, it seems that this oral tradition at the very least refers to (and consists of) the specific body of teaching and doctrine that was handed down by the Apostles:
"Hold fast the sound pattern of words which you have heard from me." (2 Tim 1:13)
So, there was a "sound pattern" of oral teaching recognizable to Timothy (and presumably to the others taught by the Apostles) which was to be kept and by which the early Christians could recognize truth from error. By this "sound pattern" the early Christians could therefore "rightly divide" the word of truth. On the other hand those who did not hold fast the "sound pattern of words" received orally from the Apostles could be considered "untaught and unstable" (2 Peter 3:16) and were liable to misinterpret the Apostle's writings (and the other Scriptures) and thus to "twist the Scriptures to their own destruction".

What's more is that Paul expects Timothy to be able to transmit orally that which he received from Paul: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2). Notice here that the "things" Timothy received were not exclusive or private but were heard "among many witnesses", and how the faithful men to whom Timothy committed these "things" were to teach others as well (that's four generations of oral transmission). The public reception of the Tradition in the community could thus serve as a "check" or "balance" on those who would deviate from the "sound pattern" while claiming (ie like the Gnostics did) to be handing down some new teaching allegedly received "secretly" from the Apostles.

As for the answer of "who decides?", it is obviously the CHURCH corporately. As Paul wrote to Timothy, the CHURCH is "the pillar and ground of truth". (1 Timothy 3:15). Christ commissioned His Apostles, the collective foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20), by breathing His Spirit, the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), on them (John 20:22). The Apostles by the Spirit preached the Truth and established local congregations of the Church to whom they delivered the faith once for all (Jude 3) in "sound patterns of words" (2 Tim 1:13). Some of the Apostles by the Spirit also wrote inspired authoritative epistles and narratives to some of these same congregations. The Church in time, led by the Spirit, could finally come to a consensus on the limits of the Scriptural Canon--by determining which works conformed to the Tradition received ("sound pattern"), and those which, though claiming apostolic authorship, did not (ie Gnostic and Ebionite texts)

The Church (collectively), recipient of both the "sound pattern of words" and the Apostolic writings, could thus collectively judge truth from error. In fact, we see the Church doing just that even in those early years shortly after the Apostles left the scene. By the authentic Apostolic writings and the "sound pattern of words" (often later referred to as "the rule of faith"), expressed in hymns, catechesis, and short-summaries, the Church was able to determine what was heretical. So even in the ante-Nicene era (before Constantine allegedely "corrupted" and "counterfeited" the Church), the Church was able, for instance, to fend off docetism/gnosticism, adoptionism (in its various forms) and Sabellianism/modalism and authoritatively declare such teachings "heresy" based on her Tradition received from the Apostles. And in the Nicene era, when the orthodox party and the Arians were constantly throwing Scriptural proof texts back and forth at each other, it was on the basis of received Tradition that the Church was able to convict the Arians of "twisting the Scriptures" by teaching falsely concerning Christ.

So today, while you and I both agree that the orthodox concepts of the Trinity and Christology are indeed "biblical", we must both admit that neither of us came to this conclusion by logical deduction from just reading the Scriptures in isolation from a community of believers. You and I both were taught these doctrines by our respective churches (I grew up Baptist as well), and we, of course, found Scriptural confirmation for the same. But it's only in as far as our respective faith communities (local churches) have faithfully taught what has confomed to the "sound pattern of words" as agreed on by the Undivided Church on the basis of the 'checks and balances' of "universality, antiquity, and consent", that we can be sure that we are "rightfully dividing the word of truth" rather than "twisting Scriptures to our own destruction".

Peace.