-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Didache- a classic example of Early Fathers writing.
The Didache - The Complete Text
But notice Jesus is only referred to as "your servant", never your Savior nor is any mention of His atoning work or the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It reads like the book of Proverbs ignoring most of Paul's soteriology.
The Didache - The Complete Text
But notice Jesus is only referred to as "your servant", never your Savior nor is any mention of His atoning work or the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It reads like the book of Proverbs ignoring most of Paul's soteriology.
K
Well let me amend what I said this way. I cant say all Luther said was bunk,that he had no truth in what he said.But unfortunately his antisemitism paved a way for the Jews to be persecuted on down through history to the holocaust.It really upset me when I was younger and was reading such great contributions Luther made to the church to find out that he was antisemitic. He may have had it right in other areas but here he failed miserably.
B
Thanks for the comments. The preacher on the video was testing what these Early Church leaders said to the scriptures. So he is indeed "Testing the Spirits" which of course we are called to do. Please watch the video rather than making rash comments without watching it.
The most important thing with the New Testament is not to take verses out of context. Yes I believe in the Bible and want a complete picture of the New Testament. I know there are some who believe only one version the KJV. I personally like to compare the different translations of the NIV and KJV.
God Bless all thanks once again for your comments.
PS I am not Roman Catholic! And if you watch the video the preacher on the video at the end disagrees with a lot of Catholic doctrine so it is quite obvious he isn't either.
The Early church people he was quoting were disciples of the apostles ie they would have had direct contact with Paul, John and Peter people like Justin Martyr, Clement (who is even mentioned in Philippians), Polycarp etc and whereas having direct scripture would have been able to discuss with the apostles first hand.
After all Peter says speaking of Paul in 2 Peter 3 verse 16. "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Just a thought God Bless all.
PPS I believe and know I am saved by Grace and not by my works. My works are dirty rags believe you me I know that so please don't assume that you know me. I believe we need to turn to God (repentance towards God) and trust him. I realise I cannot ever reach God's standard but I do believe that I need to trust him and persevere to the end and I pray to him for help in that too. After all, I need him more than anything.
The most important thing with the New Testament is not to take verses out of context. Yes I believe in the Bible and want a complete picture of the New Testament. I know there are some who believe only one version the KJV. I personally like to compare the different translations of the NIV and KJV.
God Bless all thanks once again for your comments.
PS I am not Roman Catholic! And if you watch the video the preacher on the video at the end disagrees with a lot of Catholic doctrine so it is quite obvious he isn't either.
The Early church people he was quoting were disciples of the apostles ie they would have had direct contact with Paul, John and Peter people like Justin Martyr, Clement (who is even mentioned in Philippians), Polycarp etc and whereas having direct scripture would have been able to discuss with the apostles first hand.
After all Peter says speaking of Paul in 2 Peter 3 verse 16. "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
Just a thought God Bless all.
PPS I believe and know I am saved by Grace and not by my works. My works are dirty rags believe you me I know that so please don't assume that you know me. I believe we need to turn to God (repentance towards God) and trust him. I realise I cannot ever reach God's standard but I do believe that I need to trust him and persevere to the end and I pray to him for help in that too. After all, I need him more than anything.
B
Been thinking about this further. You guys have got me thinking. I am nothing in reality I am dust. I don't deserve salvation. But the amazing truth is we are saved by Grace the closer we get to God we realise how far we are from hitting the mark.
At the end of the day I believe why we Christians perservere to the end is because we are amazed and astounded at his incredible grace for us.
God Bless and trully thank you for your thoughts. I need to stick close to scriptures and believe the truth!
At the end of the day I believe why we Christians perservere to the end is because we are amazed and astounded at his incredible grace for us.
God Bless and trully thank you for your thoughts. I need to stick close to scriptures and believe the truth!
P
This vid has a few nuggets. Got to spit outt the bones as with all teaching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TLSsk9otEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TLSsk9otEs
K
The writings of the early church fathers indicate that they did not all agree with the statement “once saved always saved.” Some of the early Christian writers appear to have believed that a person could lose his or her salvation by sinning and others believed that a person could lose his or her salvation if he or she no longer believed in Jesus. Here are a variety of quotes from some very significant early church fathers.
Justin Martyr - The first quote comes from Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165).
But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded . . . to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death, shall by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . – Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47
At the end of the quote it is clear that Justin believes that anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ will not be saved; that is, he or she will go to hell. At the start of the passage, he is not sure that someone will be saved if he or she believes in Jesus but is disobedient. Justin believes that faith and obedience go together. He agrees with James 2:26 and 1 John 2:4 which say,
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (NASB) James 2:26
The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him . . . (NASB) 1 John 2:4
The Bible teaches that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not live like one is a liar. They are not real Christians. Likewise, someone who might live like a Christian but does not believe in Jesus is not saved.
Shepherd of Hermas - Some have claimed that the writer of the Pastor of Hermas or Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 155-180) believed that a Christian could lose his or her salvation and quoted the following passage,
They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them. Shepherd of Hermas, 2.7 (A.D. 155).
Another passage seems to say the same thing,
And he said, “If you do not guard yourself against [anger], you and your house lose all hope of salvation . . . Hermas. Pastor of Hermas. Book 1.4.1.
But just a few sentences away we read this,
“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But [anger] does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. Hermas. Shepherd of Hermas. Book 1-2, Commandment Fourth, Chap. 1.
This passage reveals that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas did not believe that a true Christian could lose his salvation.
Irenaeus – The Christian writer, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-200), appears to believe that Christians are not “once saved always saved” with the following quote,
Those who do not obey Him . . . have ceased to be His sons. – Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4.41.3.
But several sentences earlier he said this,
But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 41, 2.
What is our conclusion? Irenaeus believed as Justin Martyr did. Faith and obedience go together. One must be connected to the other. Therefore, Irenaeus believed that a person who lives a life of disobedience is not a true Christian, even if he once claimed to be a Christian. He agrees with James 2:14-26.
Tertullian – Tertullian (A.D. 150-220) makes the following statement which echoes the same message of 1 John 2:19.
But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith? No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity, but the Christian; and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chap 3.
1 John 2:19 says this,
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (NASB) 1 John 2:19
Throughout the New Testament the Holy Spirit has stated that a true Christian, one who believes in Jesus, will persevere or continue in the faith until the end. The following quote from Tertullian seems to imply that he believed a Christian could lose his or her salvation by disobedience. If so, we must remember that scripture contains the truth and not Tertullian.
But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins: so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our admonition. Tertullian, On Repentance, 2.9
Origen – The writer Origen (A.D. 185-254) said this,
If there is any other nature which is holy, it possesses this property of being made holy by the reception or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature, but as an accidental quality, for which reason it may be lost, in consequence of being accidental. So also a man may possess an accidental righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away. Origen, Origen De Principilis, Book , Chap 8.
Origen contrasts true righteousness, given by the Holy Spirit, to an “accidental” righteousness. Those who do have the righteousness of God, which is given by faith through Jesus Christ, are truly righteous.
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (NASB) Rom. 8:10
. . . the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe . . . (NASB) Rom. 3:22
Origen seems to agree with this statement. Another quote from Origen echoes Christ's teaching,
He who has not denied himself, but denied Christ, will experience the saying, “I also will deny him.” – Origen. Gospel of Matthew. Book 12. 24.
Jesus simply said that another who rejects Him will be rejected.
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (NASB) Matt. 10:33
Cyprian – The last quote comes from Cyprian,
Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. Cyprian, Treatises of Cyprian. Treaties 1.6.
He also echoes 1 John 2:19.
Conclusion:These men wrote from about A.D. 100 – 250. We do not find any statements to the effect that once a Christian is saved, he or she is always saved. But we do find a consistent belief, except for a few instances, that faith and works go together. This is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.
The earliest statement regarding “once saved always saved” comes from Augustine (A.D. 354-430).
It was left to Augustine to speak a clear word for perseverance in pre-Reformation times. Starting with predestination, he saw that election to eternal life inevitably involves final perseverance. Since salvation is always God’s gift, he entitled his work on perseverance On the Gift of Perseverance. He denied, however, that the believer can have any assurance of his final salvation. Carl F. Henry. Basic Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House, 1962.
Justin Martyr - The first quote comes from Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165).
But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded . . . to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death, shall by no means be saved. Further, I hold that those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the law, and do not believe in this Christ before death, shall likewise not be saved . . . – Justin Martyr, Dialogue Of Justin 47
At the end of the quote it is clear that Justin believes that anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ will not be saved; that is, he or she will go to hell. At the start of the passage, he is not sure that someone will be saved if he or she believes in Jesus but is disobedient. Justin believes that faith and obedience go together. He agrees with James 2:26 and 1 John 2:4 which say,
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (NASB) James 2:26
The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him . . . (NASB) 1 John 2:4
The Bible teaches that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not live like one is a liar. They are not real Christians. Likewise, someone who might live like a Christian but does not believe in Jesus is not saved.
Shepherd of Hermas - Some have claimed that the writer of the Pastor of Hermas or Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 155-180) believed that a Christian could lose his or her salvation and quoted the following passage,
They only who fear the Lord and keep His commandments have life with God; but as to those who keep not His commandments, there is no life in them. Shepherd of Hermas, 2.7 (A.D. 155).
Another passage seems to say the same thing,
And he said, “If you do not guard yourself against [anger], you and your house lose all hope of salvation . . . Hermas. Pastor of Hermas. Book 1.4.1.
But just a few sentences away we read this,
“Hear now,” said he, “how wicked is the action of anger, and in what way it overthrows the servants of God by its action, and turns them from righteousness. But [anger] does not turn away those who are full of faith, nor does it act on them, for the power of the Lord is with them. Hermas. Shepherd of Hermas. Book 1-2, Commandment Fourth, Chap. 1.
This passage reveals that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas did not believe that a true Christian could lose his salvation.
Irenaeus – The Christian writer, Irenaeus (A.D. 120-200), appears to believe that Christians are not “once saved always saved” with the following quote,
Those who do not obey Him . . . have ceased to be His sons. – Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4.41.3.
But several sentences earlier he said this,
But with respect to obedience and doctrine we are not all the sons of God: those only are so who believe in Him and do His will. And those who do not believe, and do not obey His will, are sons and angels of the devil, because they do the works of the devil. Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 41, 2.
What is our conclusion? Irenaeus believed as Justin Martyr did. Faith and obedience go together. One must be connected to the other. Therefore, Irenaeus believed that a person who lives a life of disobedience is not a true Christian, even if he once claimed to be a Christian. He agrees with James 2:14-26.
Tertullian – Tertullian (A.D. 150-220) makes the following statement which echoes the same message of 1 John 2:19.
But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the persons by the faith? No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity, but the Christian; and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chap 3.
1 John 2:19 says this,
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. (NASB) 1 John 2:19
Throughout the New Testament the Holy Spirit has stated that a true Christian, one who believes in Jesus, will persevere or continue in the faith until the end. The following quote from Tertullian seems to imply that he believed a Christian could lose his or her salvation by disobedience. If so, we must remember that scripture contains the truth and not Tertullian.
But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins: so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our admonition. Tertullian, On Repentance, 2.9
Origen – The writer Origen (A.D. 185-254) said this,
If there is any other nature which is holy, it possesses this property of being made holy by the reception or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature, but as an accidental quality, for which reason it may be lost, in consequence of being accidental. So also a man may possess an accidental righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away. Origen, Origen De Principilis, Book , Chap 8.
Origen contrasts true righteousness, given by the Holy Spirit, to an “accidental” righteousness. Those who do have the righteousness of God, which is given by faith through Jesus Christ, are truly righteous.
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. (NASB) Rom. 8:10
. . . the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe . . . (NASB) Rom. 3:22
Origen seems to agree with this statement. Another quote from Origen echoes Christ's teaching,
He who has not denied himself, but denied Christ, will experience the saying, “I also will deny him.” – Origen. Gospel of Matthew. Book 12. 24.
Jesus simply said that another who rejects Him will be rejected.
But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. (NASB) Matt. 10:33
Cyprian – The last quote comes from Cyprian,
Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. Cyprian, Treatises of Cyprian. Treaties 1.6.
He also echoes 1 John 2:19.
Conclusion:These men wrote from about A.D. 100 – 250. We do not find any statements to the effect that once a Christian is saved, he or she is always saved. But we do find a consistent belief, except for a few instances, that faith and works go together. This is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.
The earliest statement regarding “once saved always saved” comes from Augustine (A.D. 354-430).
It was left to Augustine to speak a clear word for perseverance in pre-Reformation times. Starting with predestination, he saw that election to eternal life inevitably involves final perseverance. Since salvation is always God’s gift, he entitled his work on perseverance On the Gift of Perseverance. He denied, however, that the believer can have any assurance of his final salvation. Carl F. Henry. Basic Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House, 1962.
Well, it's true you aren't going to get a perfectly visible link between independent, bible believing churches. For many reasons- among them being that they weren't trying to record their own histories, another being that a whole lot of people in these churches were killed- so many churches like these came out of existence.
What you do find, is one independent, bible believing church and then another with very similar beliefs- not far away in geographical location, not long after the existence of the first one. Therein lies the most probable link.
And yah.. there were some variations in beliefs among the ana-baptists. One thing that happens is churches that aren't really biblically sound getting labelled 'ana-baptist' anyway.
The point is though.. that it isn't the church fathers that define what eternal salvation is.. but the bible in context.
What you do find, is one independent, bible believing church and then another with very similar beliefs- not far away in geographical location, not long after the existence of the first one. Therein lies the most probable link.
And yah.. there were some variations in beliefs among the ana-baptists. One thing that happens is churches that aren't really biblically sound getting labelled 'ana-baptist' anyway.
The point is though.. that it isn't the church fathers that define what eternal salvation is.. but the bible in context.
The question is still if you can you provide any references to any set of churches/groups with if not identical but at least yet very similar beliefs - over a significant amount of time? When in my late 20s I had what I call my charismatic period, I was under the teaching that "bible believing groups outside the church systems always existed". And it was like, if not expressly stated, at least hinted at that these groups had more or less the same faith, with small differences (since congregationalism was assumed). Groups that were named were for example the bogumils, waldensians and various anabaptist groups. It was often said how much they suffered for their faith, being persecuted unto death in huge numbers (which were strongly exaggerated). Polycarp was one of the few church martyrs who was named.
I found all of this worthy of more investigation. Upon studying the actual groups in question, and the history around them, I begin to find several flaws in the presentation I encountered from some people. As I could not see any harmonious lineage between the groups and seeing how far some of these groups were in teachings and beliefs from modern day baptists, fundamentalists and pentecostals etc (these groups would certainly have viewed these examples as heretics had they been around in the same era) it just didn't make much sense.
In the protestant tradition we have a far more easily understood perspective, i. e. the roman "mother church", however far she ever went astray, was still the "descendant" from and inheritor of the original church, in which there was always a faithful remnant, however small it may have been during some eras. The reformation came to restore the early, confessionally sound and gospel proclaiming church, being not accepted by the papists and subsequently separated from them. Most of the people who attended both the early lutheran and reformed churches were former roman catholics who had rediscovered the gospel message through the reformers.
So, while among these "outside the church system" groups there were those of sound and also unsound confessions, the problem with the issue of succession is something only existing among their ranks. A few scaring examples of the latter would be the JWs or the Mormons who claims that "original christianity" was restored in 1874 or 1830 respectively. They are also using this loose group argument. One needs to be careful.
I found all of this worthy of more investigation. Upon studying the actual groups in question, and the history around them, I begin to find several flaws in the presentation I encountered from some people. As I could not see any harmonious lineage between the groups and seeing how far some of these groups were in teachings and beliefs from modern day baptists, fundamentalists and pentecostals etc (these groups would certainly have viewed these examples as heretics had they been around in the same era) it just didn't make much sense.
In the protestant tradition we have a far more easily understood perspective, i. e. the roman "mother church", however far she ever went astray, was still the "descendant" from and inheritor of the original church, in which there was always a faithful remnant, however small it may have been during some eras. The reformation came to restore the early, confessionally sound and gospel proclaiming church, being not accepted by the papists and subsequently separated from them. Most of the people who attended both the early lutheran and reformed churches were former roman catholics who had rediscovered the gospel message through the reformers.
So, while among these "outside the church system" groups there were those of sound and also unsound confessions, the problem with the issue of succession is something only existing among their ranks. A few scaring examples of the latter would be the JWs or the Mormons who claims that "original christianity" was restored in 1874 or 1830 respectively. They are also using this loose group argument. One needs to be careful.
Last edited:
M
So all of them are wrong and you are right? Why are you judging them?
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not lest ye be judged"
You are sounding just like Luther judging an epistle he did not like as an epistle of "straw"!
There is clearly more to it than you say. "easy believism" or your harder version of believism? whatever!
You have a choice, here , now, today to be the samaritan who crosses the road to help someone in need. A choice to walk by or to help. Will you be offered another chance? Or will you be so focussing on faith, you fail to notice him by the road side? Or if the lord does not move your legs for you, do you assume he does not want you to help whatever the need? Do you claim you do not have free will?
Matthew 25:41
…41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'…
Some did works of mercy and were saved, others did not and were not saved.
Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”
So Why do their deeds follow them, if they are not theirs, and of no consequence?
In conclusion, I think you are very unwise not to take your best shot at doing EVERYTHING the bible commands, and assuming it is ALL Important! rather than sitting believing that if the lord wants you to do a work, he will operate you like a puppet!, till which time you do not need to look for opportunities to do what the scriptures command.
Who are you to second guess what of our lords ordinances are important, which others are just an effect of a cause?
Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the lord, and do NOT rely on your own insight" REPEAT NOT RELY ON YOUR OWN INSIGHT!
So whilst even your best can never be enough, we hope in the lord to be saved by grace.
The parable of the talents clearly shows, that you must make the best of what you are given, and then hope for grace that saves. And that means finding more useful things to do rather than judging others who disagree with your insights!
I am not preaching justification by works, indeed it can never be enough, but that is no argument not to do all you are asked! And not use your own "insights" to decide that some of it is optional, some are chickens the rest only eggs you are saved anyway, and you have no free will to decide to do more!
Last edited:
if someone believes in, or puts their trust in, anyone that even tends towards the heresy, they are being led astray. that is true no matter who it is.
it is a shame that Lutherans in germany supported hitler, yes.
that was a carry-over from the roman abomination that has murdered Jews ever since constantine and the wolves started the state religion; Jews and gentiles, and men, women, and children and babies, whenever it was 'convenient' to the abomination. remember the thief comes only to kill, steal and destroy - and anything else the thing claims as if good or as if a credit or as if there's anything good in the rdd(sic) then it is complete and utter deception from hasatan, from hell.
even quoting the so-called early church fathers is quite possibly sinful and tending towards sin, because our (ekklesia) faith in yahshua hamashiach (jesus messiah) is not helped by human means or by trusting in those associated with / leading to the great deception.
the enemy uses (((men!!!))) (false interpretations and messages from satan through men) to try to defend its heresy, and has lead to and leads to the destruction of billions of souls and not to salvation in christ jesus. this has always been true about the great deception - heresy of the rdd(sic). notice that the adherents keep trying any which way to get a foot in the door for support of the heresy.
it is worse than the yeast yahshua warned the disciples severely to watch out for.
naturally, those deceived by it call this a rant, and so on - they cannot stand the light or the truth. they have been made seven times as evil as their teachers, just as it is written in yahweh's word.
yahweh's desire through yahshua is still that they would be saved. if they are willing - like martin luther and charles chiniquoy, even 'high up' roman catholics can be saved from the heresy; it is a miracle when they are, and the angels in heaven rejoice each time, just like when a mormon or hindu or jw or anyone on earth is saved - yahweh is no respecter of persons.
it is a shame that Lutherans in germany supported hitler, yes.
that was a carry-over from the roman abomination that has murdered Jews ever since constantine and the wolves started the state religion; Jews and gentiles, and men, women, and children and babies, whenever it was 'convenient' to the abomination. remember the thief comes only to kill, steal and destroy - and anything else the thing claims as if good or as if a credit or as if there's anything good in the rdd(sic) then it is complete and utter deception from hasatan, from hell.
even quoting the so-called early church fathers is quite possibly sinful and tending towards sin, because our (ekklesia) faith in yahshua hamashiach (jesus messiah) is not helped by human means or by trusting in those associated with / leading to the great deception.
the enemy uses (((men!!!))) (false interpretations and messages from satan through men) to try to defend its heresy, and has lead to and leads to the destruction of billions of souls and not to salvation in christ jesus. this has always been true about the great deception - heresy of the rdd(sic). notice that the adherents keep trying any which way to get a foot in the door for support of the heresy.
it is worse than the yeast yahshua warned the disciples severely to watch out for.
naturally, those deceived by it call this a rant, and so on - they cannot stand the light or the truth. they have been made seven times as evil as their teachers, just as it is written in yahweh's word.
yahweh's desire through yahshua is still that they would be saved. if they are willing - like martin luther and charles chiniquoy, even 'high up' roman catholics can be saved from the heresy; it is a miracle when they are, and the angels in heaven rejoice each time, just like when a mormon or hindu or jw or anyone on earth is saved - yahweh is no respecter of persons.
M
You for example!
We call it a rant, because as we have become accustomed. your posts are factless rants!
I refer you to the dictionary...
Rant
1. To speak or write in an angry or emotionally charged manner; rave.
2. To express at length a complaint or negative opinion:
3. A Monologue, a lengthy discourse by a single performer, especially if irritated or upset;
A good description of most of your posts!
Jeff. More people would listen if you included a few facts rather than just accusations.
Reality is the bible is not the complete teachings of jesus! Even the bible says it. John 21:25
The teachings were passed on by word of mouth and tradition, not in a book, 2 thesalonians 2:15 so it is clearly valuable to find out what was understood by those listening to them at the time, since they will have heard more than we can know through the narrow lens of the gospel. The scripture is true, but provably not the whole truth, and nowhere in scripture claims that!. There are clearly ambiguities which is why are there opposing protestant beliefs on this forum, and it is hard to understand, even Peter says that!
So In the end you rely on the very people you insult! The church councils and early fathers are those who decided the canon of scripture. Who chose it on the basis of what it meant You rely on those people being inspired, or the New Testament could not be inspired! Luther recognised that as well! So if you want to ignore the views of the fathers, you can bin the new testament too! Which is hardly a christian thing to do.
Disregard RCC, luther and others, and you are one of the "only me and my insights are right" everyone else is wrong or misguided. AKA non denominational.
Which not only is a bold position, it is also non scriptural! As I have pointed out before...
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do NOT rely on your own insight
Not that anything anyone says will ever stop your next factless rant!
We call it a rant, because as we have become accustomed. your posts are factless rants!
I refer you to the dictionary...
Rant
1. To speak or write in an angry or emotionally charged manner; rave.
2. To express at length a complaint or negative opinion:
3. A Monologue, a lengthy discourse by a single performer, especially if irritated or upset;
A good description of most of your posts!
Jeff. More people would listen if you included a few facts rather than just accusations.
Reality is the bible is not the complete teachings of jesus! Even the bible says it. John 21:25
The teachings were passed on by word of mouth and tradition, not in a book, 2 thesalonians 2:15 so it is clearly valuable to find out what was understood by those listening to them at the time, since they will have heard more than we can know through the narrow lens of the gospel. The scripture is true, but provably not the whole truth, and nowhere in scripture claims that!. There are clearly ambiguities which is why are there opposing protestant beliefs on this forum, and it is hard to understand, even Peter says that!
So In the end you rely on the very people you insult! The church councils and early fathers are those who decided the canon of scripture. Who chose it on the basis of what it meant You rely on those people being inspired, or the New Testament could not be inspired! Luther recognised that as well! So if you want to ignore the views of the fathers, you can bin the new testament too! Which is hardly a christian thing to do.
Disregard RCC, luther and others, and you are one of the "only me and my insights are right" everyone else is wrong or misguided. AKA non denominational.
Which not only is a bold position, it is also non scriptural! As I have pointed out before...
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do NOT rely on your own insight
Not that anything anyone says will ever stop your next factless rant!
M
What concerns me is not what it SAYS, we can all see, but what it MEANS - and that is where the problem is, and we argue.
The missing piece has to be filled with the help of authority - the only question is where authority comes from.
There are clearly ambiguities as witness at least three mutually opposing doctrines of salvation, and all of those people will claim they discerned the holy spirit to choose their version. In that case two thirds of them must be wrong, the only question is which of them!
The words themselves are not enough for truth. Provably. Or why such dissent on what they mean?
The missing piece has to be filled with the help of authority - the only question is where authority comes from.
There are clearly ambiguities as witness at least three mutually opposing doctrines of salvation, and all of those people will claim they discerned the holy spirit to choose their version. In that case two thirds of them must be wrong, the only question is which of them!
The words themselves are not enough for truth. Provably. Or why such dissent on what they mean?
M
If it were that easy, everyone would agree and they do not, armies of seriously clever people claiming to take their meaning from the grammatical text are fundamentally opposed on doctrine!
History and culture are important.
A simple example. I relate this not to defend one interpretation or the other, but prove there is a bona fide argument from history and culture.
The bible makes no reference to the fact that the working language of common people was aramaic. So that a lot of the quotations now found in greek scripture must already be translations of the quotes out of aramaic.
Which questions what Jesus actually said in speaking to Peter, which will not have been Petra and Petros, but probably Cepha in both cases, so the distinction between Peter and Large Rock made by protestants is therefore questionable! If it was cepha in both cases, the distinction was made as a wordplay for effect by the translator, not to change the meaning of what is said - those who believe it was aramaic have every right to believe that Peter and Large Rock were one and the same!.
Now please dont argue that particular issue. The point I am making is that regardless of which side of that debate you are on, the debate is partly in history and culture, and why there is a bona fide disagreement now.
Therefore there is a need for authority, and without it you see on this forum many passionately held but mutually exclusive views, all of whom claim they were guided by spirit.
It is a brave man, that says , they are all wrong, I am right, because I have greater wisdom!
History and culture are important.
A simple example. I relate this not to defend one interpretation or the other, but prove there is a bona fide argument from history and culture.
The bible makes no reference to the fact that the working language of common people was aramaic. So that a lot of the quotations now found in greek scripture must already be translations of the quotes out of aramaic.
Which questions what Jesus actually said in speaking to Peter, which will not have been Petra and Petros, but probably Cepha in both cases, so the distinction between Peter and Large Rock made by protestants is therefore questionable! If it was cepha in both cases, the distinction was made as a wordplay for effect by the translator, not to change the meaning of what is said - those who believe it was aramaic have every right to believe that Peter and Large Rock were one and the same!.
Now please dont argue that particular issue. The point I am making is that regardless of which side of that debate you are on, the debate is partly in history and culture, and why there is a bona fide disagreement now.
Therefore there is a need for authority, and without it you see on this forum many passionately held but mutually exclusive views, all of whom claim they were guided by spirit.
It is a brave man, that says , they are all wrong, I am right, because I have greater wisdom!
Last edited:
V
And ... ?? Did not those same "early church fathers" found the Catholic church, which to this day teaches salvation depends on works, not grace. Thankfully, many Catholics reject that teaching and believe that grace alone has saved them.
But you want to cite the false doctrines that led to the founding of the Roman church. Exactly why is that?
But you want to cite the false doctrines that led to the founding of the Roman church. Exactly why is that?