How do I deal with the 1500 year gap?

[Matt1626]

What I mean is it would seem if a Roman Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox had a sound biblical answer it would seem that they would have leg up on any group that can only clearly trace itself to the reformation. And yes I said clearly not piecing tougher different small groups through the centuries.


so for instance if a catholic says John 6 is literal and a Protestant says John 6 is symbolic it seems the catholic would have time on their side


any thoughts?

 

[damombomb]

I would listen the the Holy Spirit and pray for wisdom than tradition of men. I could get ten different opinions and they not be right. I would search the scriptures for everything.

 

[crossnote]

What I mean is it would seem if a Roman Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox had a sound biblical answer it would seem that they would have leg up on any group that can only clearly trace itself to the reformation. And yes I said clearly not piecing tougher different small groups through the centuries.


so for instance if a catholic says John 6 is literal and a Protestant says John 6 is symbolic it seems the catholic would have time on their side


any thoughts?

Which is greater, having time and tradition or Scripture on one's side?

I take it you are referring to Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:54)?

Maybe Scripture is it's own interpreter...

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (Joh 6:63)



Let me ask, How does 'ancientness' helps the rift between the RCC and the EOC such as ...
In Athens, Pope Seeks to Mend An Ancient Rift - NYTimes.com

There are other doctrinal differences as well. How does one resolve them? By Scripture or each one's Tradition?

 

[ThomistColin]

Which is greater, having time and tradition or Scripture on one's side?

I take it you are referring to Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:54)?

Maybe Scripture is it's own interpreter...

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (Joh 6:63)



Let me ask, How does 'ancientness' helps the rift between the RCC and the EOC such as ...
In Athens, Pope Seeks to Mend An Ancient Rift - NYTimes.com

There are other doctrinal differences as well. How does one resolve them? By Scripture or each one's Tradition?

"Amen, amen I tell you that my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed." Those are the words of Christ. In order for the Passover to be complete you must consume the lamb. Why would you think this would change with the New Covenant?

 

[TheClimaxWarrior]

What I mean is it would seem if a Roman Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox had a sound biblical answer it would seem that they would have leg up on any group that can only clearly trace itself to the reformation. And yes I said clearly not piecing tougher different small groups through the centuries.


so for instance if a catholic says John 6 is literal and a Protestant says John 6 is symbolic it seems the catholic would have time on their side


any thoughts?

It is not Biblical at all and there is not actual time length.

The gap theory was an attempt by Christian theologians to ascertain the time scale of the Earths age. Geologists provide “undeniable” evidence that the world is exceedingly old. Which is profound ignorance because there are no instruments today that can measure the Earths age. None! There are hundreds of dating methods the majority of those methods put the Earth under a billion years old. And because of this they are fallible and contradictory. I mean you can't have instruments that can't come to one solid conclusion.

The gap theory was established by Thomas Charles (1780-1847) and though many believe was responsible. The foundations of the gap theory spawned from Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) of whom Thomas Charles made reference too. The gap theory was popularized by Rev. William Buckland (1784 - 1856) an amateur geologist at best. But, because he a prominent position and the fact he could read and write. Who made the gap theory seem a whole lot more believable but undeniably it is not Biblical.

The Bible you have to know already does not go into intricate detail of events. Otherwise no one would ever want to read the Bible because it would be too big and it will end up being witnessed as a novel. Not as the Book of Life.

There is one dating method that is infallible. GOD. He is the first cause caused. He is the witness of bearing. He is the witness that was there who created everything and who told Moses to write it.

There is a pattern here. Look at Darwinism. It is the same notion with evolution. Adopted an idea. Who then skillfully blended his own system with the truths of Scripture, which bewildered the minds of the multitude that but few retained the power of distinguishing the revelation of God from the craftily interwoven teachings of this man. Brought it to the world only to be enhanced by Richard Dawkins. Now people believe we are apes. We are certainly are not.

Evolution Debunked...

Genesis 2:7 KJV

[SUP]7 [/SUP]And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I must warn you that no matter how great a theologian we may be, or how respected and knowledgeable a Christian leader, as finite sinful human beings we cannot easily empty ourselves of preconceived ideas. Especially when you line it up with Scripture and it bastardizes the very gifted Word of GOD. Then one is walking on embers of fire.

The Gap Theory.

1. It is not Biblical. The Bible does not teach the gap theory.

2. It is GOD who is all knowing.

3. On the 6th Day. Adam only named the animals of the of the field (Garden of Eden) not of the Earth. So he did not spend days upon days years upon years naming every single thing GOD created.

Believe it or not, there are about 950,000 of insects. No one knows for sure how many species of animals exist on Earth. In fact, some 10,000 species of animals are discovered each year, with over one and a half million species already described.

- Cited Fact Monster: Online Almanac, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and Homework Help | FactMonster.com

This debunks the theory that seeing Adam counted the animals of the 6th Day then the gap theory must be true.

4. Before the 18th century. The gap theory was non existent. Until some idiots light bulb was switched on.

5. The gap theory has no scientific merit. No geographic merit. Requires a very forced Biblical interpretation of text, and leads to doubting GOD and His omnipotence and His omniscience.

I know you will be wanting more information. I can write a book about it. But, it will be good for you to research and study the Bible to attain your answer.

 

[ThomistColin]

It is not Biblical at all and there is not actual time length.

The gap theory was an attempt by Christian theologians to ascertain the time scale of the Earths age. Geologists provide “undeniable” evidence that the world is exceedingly old. Which is profound ignorance because there are no instruments today that can measure the Earths age. None! There are hundreds of dating methods the majority of those methods put the Earth under a billion years old. And because of this they are fallible and contradictory. I mean you can't have instruments that can't come to one solid conclusion.

The gap theory was established by Thomas Charles (1780-1847) and though many believe was responsible. The foundations of the gap theory spawned from Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) of whom Thomas Charles made reference too. The gap theory was popularized by Rev. William Buckland (1784 - 1856) an amateur geologist at best. But, because he a prominent position and the fact he could read and write. Who made the gap theory seem a whole lot more believable but undeniably it is not Biblical.

The Bible you have to know already does not go into intricate detail of events. Otherwise no one would ever want to read the Bible because it would be too big and it will end up being witnessed as a novel. Not as the Book of Life.

There is one dating method that is infallible. GOD. He is the first cause caused. He is the witness of bearing. He is the witness that was there who created everything and who told Moses to write it.

There is a pattern here. Look at Darwinism. It is the same notion with evolution. Adopted an idea. Who then skillfully blended his own system with the truths of Scripture, which bewildered the minds of the multitude that but few retained the power of distinguishing the revelation of God from the craftily interwoven teachings of this man. Brought it to the world only to be enhanced by Richard Dawkins. Now people believe we are apes. We are certainly are not.

Evolution Debunked...

Genesis 2:7 KJV

[SUP]7 [/SUP]And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I must warn you that no matter how great a theologian we may be, or how respected and knowledgeable a Christian leader, as finite sinful human beings we cannot easily empty ourselves of preconceived ideas. Especially when you line it up with Scripture and it bastardizes the very gifted Word of GOD. Then one is walking on embers of fire.

The Gap Theory.

1. It is not Biblical. The Bible does not teach the gap theory.

2. It is GOD who is all knowing.

3. On the 6th Day. Adam only named the animals of the of the field (Garden of Eden) not of the Earth. So he did not spend days upon days years upon years naming every single thing GOD created.

Believe it or not, there are about 950,000 of insects. No one knows for sure how many species of animals exist on Earth. In fact, some 10,000 species of animals are discovered each year, with over one and a half million species already described.

- Cited Fact Monster: Online Almanac, Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and Homework Help | FactMonster.com

This debunks the theory that seeing Adam counted the animals of the 6th Day then the gap theory must be true.

4. Before the 18th century. The gap theory was non existent. Until some idiots light bulb was switched on.

5. The gap theory has no scientific merit. No geographic merit. Requires a very forced Biblical interpretation of text, and leads to doubting GOD and His omnipotence and His omniscience.

I know you will be wanting more information. I can write a book about it. But, it will be good for you to research and study the Bible to attain your answer.

Ummm...he's talking about the 1500 year period between Acts and the Reformation.

 

[Skinski7]

What I mean is it would seem if a Roman Catholic, or an Eastern Orthodox had a sound biblical answer it would seem that they would have leg up on any group that can only clearly trace itself to the reformation. And yes I said clearly not piecing tougher different small groups through the centuries.


so for instance if a catholic says John 6 is literal and a Protestant says John 6 is symbolic it seems the catholic would have time on their side


any thoughts?

Both Catholicism and the Reformation theologies are deceptions.

We need to stick to the scriptures.

Read what the disciples of the disciples wrote in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1. You'll find that what they taught is not even close to what is taught today as Christianity.

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

It is easy to get caught up in what is popular and thus be influenced by our peers. Yet throughout history the truth has never been popular. There has always been a remnant throughout all of history who stood apart from the religious perversions of men and walked in righteousness being faithful to God.

 

[Skinski7]

Off the top of my head here is a summary of what happened with church doctrine over a long period of time. I find it a fascinating study and reading all the material really opened up my mind and taught me to dig deep for the truth and not blindly trust anyone.

1st century. Early church preached repentance proven by deeds, separation from wickedness. They taught the Ransom Model of the atonement. Jesus came down to sinners to rescue them from the corrupting influence of sin and bring them to God through Him whereby their sins would be forgiven. The early Gnostic heresies where it was taught that sin literally dwelt in the flesh and thus Jesus could not have been in the flesh was refuted by John the Apostle. Heavy Persecution.

2nd Century. Greek Fathers contend earnestly for Christianity through their writings. Both Irenaeus and Justin Martyr refuted the Gnostic notion of inability and upheld the free and independent will of man. Moral influence, Christis Victor and Recapitulation also emphasised as aspects of the atonement. Tatian is the first of the early church father to propose the notion of Original Sin but was refuted and expelled from the church for his adherence to gnostic philosophy.

3rd Century - Latin Fathers contend earnestly for Christianity through their writings. Constantine declares Christianity the state religion after claiming to have seen a vision. Christianity begins to be institutionalised and power plays begin as the Catholic Church structure starts to solidify. Free will still promoted. Growth of neo-platonism along side further developments of gnostic philosophy outside of the church is very evident.

4th century - Bishop Augustine of Hippo enters the scene and converts for Manichaeism under Ambrose. Augustine writes prolifically and develops a systematic theology. A british monk names Pelagius visits Rome and is shocked by the immorality and blames the immorality on the doctrine of inability being promoted by Augustine. Pelagius and Augustine write back and forth and over time Augustine becomes frustrated at the persistence of Pelagius. Pelagius contends that man can obey God without any need for an offsetting grace because man is not born a sinner, whilst Augustine promotes inability and teaches that grace is an offset for inability offered only to the elect. Augustine is eventually able to convince the Pope that Pelagius and his supporters be declared heretics. Pelagius vanishes from history. Original Sin declared orthodox by the Catholic Church. Praying to saints also popularised by Jerome.

5th Century - Catholic Church begins to honour Mary as the mother of God.

6th to 10th Cntury - Catholic Church increases in power and influence and continues to refine their theology.

11th Century - Anselm of Cantebury develops the Satisfaction View of the Atonement. The development becomes very popular and is very removed from previous understanding which held to Ransom, Christus Victor, Moral Influence, and Recapitulation.

The Satisfaction View taught that the legal injustice of sin must be balanced in order that sins be forgiven. Thus the death of Christ is viewed as a substitition for the sinner and therefore redeems the honour of God when sins are forgiven because of the infinite merit of Jesus Christ.

16th Century - Reformation. Augustinian Monk Martin Luther criticises the indulgences of the Catholic Church and writes is Ninety-Five-Theses. Martin Luther also writes "Bondage of the Will" a text in which he heavily relies on the philosophical system of Augustine as an approach to the Bible. Martin Luther develops the notion of "faith alone" due to viewing the death of Christ through the lense of Anselm's substitution teaching, in effect the fundamental premise of "being saved" is purely positional based on the work of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther teaches that the obedience of Jesus Christ is credited to the sinner by an act of faith, he also teaches that God has to offset birth inability via grace in order that man can obey God.

John Calvin writes Institutes of the Christian Religion, a tome also written according to many of the major premises of Augustines systematic theology.

Jacobus Arminius opposes the premise of Calvinism that men do not have a choice and also that the atonement is for all men. Penal Substitition teaches a limited atonement because the debt cannot be discharged twice, if Jesus paid the fine then it cannot be due again and thus for someone to be lost they could not possibly have had Jesus pay their fine. Thus Arminus held to Satisfaction not Penal Substition. Arminius also denied unconditonal eternal security because he did not view Jesus as paying the sin debt which could not be made due again.

Neither John Calvin or Martin Luther went back to early church writings when developing their theology, they both went to Augustine and read the Bible through an Augustinian perspective.

While Martin Luther held the Anselm's view of Satisfaction in regards to the death of Christ, it was Calvin, Zwingli and Melancthon who developed the Penal Substitution model where the concept of criminal law was appliedto Anselm's model. Thus, under this view, Jesus was actually punished by God in the place of the sinner thereby making the sin debt not due anymore. This, combined with the righteousness of Christ being seen as being credited to the believers account, disconnected any form of doing as a requirement for salvation. In particular penance, indulgences and other institutions of the Catholic Church were able to be utterly rejected as the focus was on the finished work of Christ.

19th Century - Charles Finney develops his systematic theology in which he reject Augustinian Original Sin but further develops Anselm's Satisfaction model into his Moral Government model. In this model the death of Christ satisfies God's moral government by bringing a counterbalance to justice. Under the Satisfaction view the death of Christ satisfied God due to the infinite merit of Christ whilst the Moral Government view focuses on more the death of Christ being an actual substitute for the sinner, kind of like how a judge might pluck out his own eye in order to forgive a transgressor without making light of the crime. If the judge simply forgave the transgressor without plucking out his eye then justice would be treated lightly. Many in the Arminian side of the church hold to the Moral Government view although many also hold to Penal Substitution.

 

[Tintin]

Both Catholicism and the Reformation theologies are deceptions.

We need to stick to the scriptures.

Read what the disciples of the disciples wrote in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1. You'll find that what they taught is not even close to what is taught today as Christianity.

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

It is easy to get caught up in what is popular and thus be influenced by our peers. Yet throughout history the truth has never been popular. There has always been a remnant throughout all of history who stood apart from the religious perversions of men and walked in righteousness being faithful to God.

You say this but you believe some pretty whacked stuff. Sinless perfection as a Christian in this life? Not in my Bible.

 

[notuptome]

The answer as always is in the scripture. Rome's claim is without merit. It is made from an earthly perspective and not a Godly perspective.

God has always been adding to the church daily such as should be saved. Everyday God is saving souls and adding them to His church. Now God always has a church that is His. Romans 11:4 Paul references an event in Jewish history illustrating this fact.

There is no gap and Rome is not Gods church.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kepha]

Both Catholicism and the Reformation theologies are deceptions.

It's nice to know you are appointed directly by God to make such infallible declarations.

We need to stick to the scriptures.

When you find the verse where "word of God" refers to the written Word alone, I'll take you seriously.

Read what the disciples of the disciples wrote in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1. You'll find that what they taught is not even close to what is taught today as Christianity.

Good idea. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were all Catholic, teaching distinctively Catholic doctrine, long before Constantine was born. Ignatius of Antioch is one of my favorites. He trained under John the Apostle, and was ordained by Peter, and was the third bishop of Jerusalem. Do you think he was a Christian?

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

And all this time I thought the ante-Nicene Fathers was censured from Bible-Christian's reading list. I stand corrected!

It is easy to get caught up in what is popular and thus be influenced by our peers. Yet throughout history the truth has never been popular. There has always been a remnant throughout all of history who stood apart from the religious perversions of men and walked in righteousness being faithful to God.

A remnant? Got any names? Oh, I forgot...the Jesuits altered all the libraries when they invented the time machine!

 

[Skinski7]

You say this but you believe some pretty whacked stuff. Sinless perfection as a Christian in this life? Not in my Bible.

Whoever said anything about sinless perfection? What is sinless perfection anyway?

I certainly don't use that term nor do I teach sinless I perfection. I contend for purity of heart and that we should do the right thing by faith by abiding in the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ. Is that what you mean by sinless perfection? Please define that term as that is the charge you have laid upon me.

I might refer to...

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or I might refer to...

2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
...
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Is that in your Bible? Is that the whacky stuff you are referring to?

How about this, hearty purity...

1Pe 1:22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Is that wacky? Is that in your Bible.

I would love someone like you to actually specifically state what EXACTLY it is that I believe that is "wacky"?

Is it this perhaps...

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Is that wacky? Is it that I contend for the fact that conduct matters and that we cannot go on doing evil purposefully...

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Is it that I speak about the service of sin ceasing through the crucifixion of the flesh with the passions and desires? Is that the wacky thing you are referring to?

Is it about not letting sin reign in our body and therefore being a servant of righteousness through obedience to the truth from the heart?

Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
Rom 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Is that wacky? Is that in your Bible?

Is it perhaps that I claim...

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
1Pe 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

Is that the wacky thing I believe?

Why don't you please define this sinless perfection charge that you lay and be very specific as to what I believe that is "wacky"?

 

[Skinski7]

Originally Posted by Skinski7

Both Catholicism and the Reformation theologies are deceptions.

It's nice to know you are appointed directly by God to make such infallible declarations.

I never claimed God appointed me to make any infallible declaration. What both the Reformation teach and the Catholic teach is very different to that which the early church taught. No-one has to be appointed by anyone to make such an assertion simply because the historical record bears witness of itself.

We need to stick to the scriptures.

When you find the verse where "word of God" refers to the written Word alone, I'll take you seriously.

The context of my statement is that the Scripture ought to be that by which we measure doctrine, truth is not going to contradict the harmonious message of Scripture. For example the Bible is replete with examples calling men to forsake evil and turn to God BEFORE mercy is granted, if someone develops a doctrine that teaches we don't have to forsake evil in turning to God then that doctrine is false.

Read what the disciples of the disciples wrote in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1. You'll find that what they taught is not even close to what is taught today as Christianity.

Good idea. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were all Catholic, teaching distinctively Catholic doctrine, long before Constantine was born. Ignatius of Antioch is one of my favorites. He trained under John the Apostle, and was ordained by Peter, and was the third bishop of Jerusalem. Do you think he was a Christian?

Catholic simply meant "universal church." The term was freely used by several of the early Father's, yet they were not referring to the Institutional behemoth that would develop later. They were simply referring to the body of believers.

Ante-Nicene Fathers – VOL I – IX : HolyBooks.com – download free ebooks

And all this time I thought the ante-Nicene Fathers was censured from Bible-Christian's reading list. I stand corrected!

Did I claim it was censored? Why would you use this kind of hyperbole when I indicated no such thing?

Very few people read what the early church wrote and due to that very few people are actually aware of what they taught and thus how much things have changed.

It is easy to get caught up in what is popular and thus be influenced by our peers. Yet throughout history the truth has never been popular. There has always been a remnant throughout all of history who stood apart from the religious perversions of men and walked in righteousness being faithful to God.

A remnant? Got any names? Oh, I forgot...the Jesuits altered all the libraries when they invented the time machine!

[/quote]
You might belittle me referring to a remnant but remnant simply means few. It has only ever been a few who have remained faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ in a corrupt and evil world.

Jesus Himself taught that only a few will be saved.

Luk 13:23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
Luk 13:26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
Luk 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[notuptome]

It's nice to know you are appointed directly by God to make such infallible declarations.

The word of God is infallible not the messenger.

When you find the verse where "word of God" refers to the written Word alone, I'll take you seriously.

I'd give you 2 Tim 3:16 but you cannot receive it.

Good idea. The Ante-Nicene Fathers were all Catholic, teaching distinctively Catholic doctrine, long before Constantine was born. Ignatius of Antioch is one of my favorites. He trained under John the Apostle, and was ordained by Peter, and was the third bishop of Jerusalem. Do you think he was a Christian?

Peter was a Jewish Christian. The church of Rome is a Gentile church.

A remnant? Got any names? Oh, I forgot...the Jesuits altered all the libraries when they invented the time machine!

Why are checking to make sure you did not miss any in the last purge. Got some stakes left to burn those pesky Christians? Not much historical difference between Catholics and Muslims when they are in authority.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kepha]

I never claimed God appointed me to make any infallible declaration. What both the Reformation teach and the Catholic teach is very different to that which the early church taught. No-one has to be appointed by anyone to make such an assertion simply because the historical record bears witness of itself.

I know you didn't make any claim of God appointing you, but you make a doctrinal statement placing your opinion to be above 99% of Christendom. I agree that the historical record bears witness to itself, but re-writing it to force fit it into an agenda is dishonest. The Baptist "Trail of Blood" is a good example. Even some Baptists dismiss it as nonsense.

"Both Catholicism and the Reformation theologies are deceptions." To make such a statement stick, you would have to show some credentials of expertise on Christianity and support your statement with a reasonable explanation. The ante-Nicene Fathers were Catholic, so by appealing to them you shoot yourself in the foot.

The context of my statement is that the Scripture ought to be that by which we measure doctrine,

I would agree in part. Scripture is the primary source for doctrine and if anybody bothers to read what the Early Church Fathers wrote, in consensus, there never was any doctrinal "falling away".

truth is not going to contradict the harmonious message of Scripture. For example the Bible is replete with examples calling men to forsake evil and turn to God BEFORE mercy is granted, if someone develops a doctrine that teaches we don't have to forsake evil in turning to God then that doctrine is false.

I couldn't agree more.

Did I claim it was censored? Why would you use this kind of hyperbole when I indicated no such thing?

Calm down. I said, "And all this time I thought the ante-Nicene Fathers was censured from Bible-Christian's reading list. I stand corrected!" "I thought..." not "you said". The point is most ministers have never read them.

Very few people read what the early church wrote and due to that very few people are actually aware of what they taught and thus how much things have changed.

Development is not change, but that's another discussion. The essence of what was taught, believed and practiced in the infant Church is the same as what the Catholic Church teaches now, and the evidence is there for anybody who wants it.

You might belittle me referring to a remnant but remnant simply means few. It has only ever been a few who have remained faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ in a corrupt and evil world.

That is a Baptist theory. I thought you said all reformist churches are deceptions.

 

[kepha]

The word of God is infallible not the messenger.

I'd give you 2 Tim 3:16 but you cannot receive it. Peter was a Jewish Christian. The church of Rome is a Gentile church.
Why are checking to make sure you did not miss any in the last purge. Got some stakes left to burn those pesky Christians? Not much historical difference between Catholics and Muslims when they are in authority.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Your flaming zingers are boring.

 

[notuptome]

Your flaming zingers are boring.

Right it's my fault you deny the word of God. No problem.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[kepha]

Not much historical difference between Catholics and Muslims when they are in authority.

That is not the word of God. It's hate. It's time to use the ignore feature.

 

[Matt1626]

The answer as always is in the scripture. Rome's claim is without merit. It is made from an earthly perspective and not a Godly perspective.

God has always been adding to the church daily such as should be saved. Everyday God is saving souls and adding them to His church. Now God always has a church that is His. Romans 11:4 Paul references an event in Jewish history illustrating this fact.

There is no gap and Rome is not Gods church.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

According to Rome they are adding to the church daily since the resurrection

 

[notuptome]

According to Rome they are adding to the church daily since the resurrection

I'll go with scripture..and God added to the church daily such as should be saved. Acts 2:47

Christ builds His church not Rome.

For the cause of Christ
Roger