Facing the music

[dragonfly]

With Homeland Security teaching the military that Christians be classified as a 'domestic hate group', the following observations by Rand Paul (not a political statement, necessarily, or only) seem important to be apprehended by all for whom to 'endure to the end', Matthew 10:22, 1 Peter 1, does mean dying for Christ, literally.

http://blog.acton.org/archives/61222-rand-paul-global-slaughter-christians.html

 

[veteran]

Our Lord Jesus did already warn us about that you know...
John 16:1-4
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
(KJV)

 

[SelectThis!]

Our Lord Jesus did already warn us about that you know...
John 16:1-4
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
(KJV)

Excellent answers to this. Apart from baptism being the key to resurrection, we would not understand to day what is being stated from the scriptures above. You must be born again.

Have you considered this? We are the body of Christ below. Christ is with the Father above as the Head of the Church. What day did the Son rise? The third. What did Jesus say about raising the temple (his body) if they destroyed it? He would raise it again in three days.

Consider Hosea 6

2
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.
3 Let us acknowledge the Lord;

A day is 1000 years. The Son raised after three. Israel is revived at day two. On day three, the entire body rises after 1000 years of rest.

Adam to Abraham is the Age of the Father (2000 years / 2 Days)

Issac raised on the third day.

Issac to Jesus is the Age of the Son (2000 years / 2 Days).

Jesus to Today is the Age of the Holy Spirit (2000 years / 2 days)
When does Christ rise again? Day Three. The Day of the Lord.

Consult the Epistle of Barnabas

Barnabas 15:3

Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4

Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Makes you think.

What will they be killing? The body of Christ. What will they really be doing? Falling into the pit they dig. An abyss to be accurate.

Revelation 20

 

[dragonfly]

Thank you for your responses, veteran and SelectThis.

One of the things which was on my mind when starting this thread, is the general question of how to recognise persecution as well as how to deal with it.

It goes without saying that we need to feel comfortable calling on the grace of God for strength to bear and wisdom to speak or not speak.

According to David Bentley Hart, the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word. The counter-reformation against the first 're-formation', was extremely bloody and has never really stopped. This fact seems to be unacknowledged by Christians who seem to the think they have a right to live peaceably, rather than to live peaceably in the face of constant spiritual aggression which may or may not spill over into physical violence against oneself and/or one's family including one's children.

The fact is, that the kingdoms of this world cannot take away what we have received by faith, but unless we can see our difficulties in those terms while we are being persecuted, how easy it would be to begin the process of accommodation and compromise to the world's subtle demands, thinking (or should I say not thinking?) that these surrenders will not affect our standing with God in 'the end' to which we are exhorted to endure, namely, the salvation of our souls.

 

[daq]

Consult the Epistle of Barnabas

Barnabas 15:3

Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the creation; And
God made the works of His hands in six days, and He ended on the
seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

Barnabas 15:4

Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six days. He
meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all
things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand years;
and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day of
the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

Makes you think.

This makes me think of a time when I also was forced to face the music and make a decision at a fork in the road. When I first read this it was an eye opener to say the least. Should I really be expected to believe that the entire Gospel message relies upon the interpretation of the word "eis" which simply means "in", "into", "to", "unto", "for", and sometimes "on"? Yet that is what the modern definitions state; even going so far as to blatently proclaim that not just any persons view of the same Scriptures is dependent upon their rule but that the "the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works" message relies heavily upon this rule.

Strong's (BDB) Greek Definition for #1519
1519 // eiv // eis // ice //
a primary preposition; TDNT - 2:420,211; prep
AV - into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58,
toward 29, against 26, misc 322; 1774
1) into, unto, to, towards, for, among
++++
"For" (as used in Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery", "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one. So too in this passage, the word "for" signifies an action in the past. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace and not by works.

If this rule is so critical to all interpretation and understanding of the new covenant writings in Greek then why is this rule not mentioned in the Original Strong's Definition of the very same word? Perhaps the reason why may only be found by forcing ourselves to face the music and admit to ourselves that we have been duped and that the modern shepherds and scholars do not actually understand most of what they read in Biblical Greek, (and there are plenty of scholars that have already admitted this fact). However, one mindset has been allowed to foist its views upon the rest by first setting up rules for interpreting Greek grammar that clearly were invented to buttress a preconceived doctrine, (which rules the original authors of the original text clearly do not always follow) and secondly by subverting the definitions of the words even to go so far as using the Original Strong's numbering system for their own definitions so as to give them the appearance of more credibility.

Original Strong's Ref. #1519
Romanized eis
Pronounced ice
a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases:
KJV--[abundant-]ly, against, among, as, at, [back-]ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for [intent, purpose], fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, [where-]fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

There has been plenty of debate over verb tense forms and Barnabas is no stranger to this argument. However, as for myself, if I cannot trust the modern shepherds and scholars to interpret the new covenant writings without a bias then why should I think that they would interpret extra-Biblical writings any differently? Therefore each must make his own decisions in such matters because truly one day every one of us will be forced to face the music before our Creator. Therefore because you have offered up an extra-Biblical source I likewise offer this alternative understanding from the Greek, not to be argumentative, but simply that the option be available for those that happen to pass by this way. :)

Barnabas 15:4 Greek Text
4. προσέχετε, τέκνα, τί λέγει τὸ συνετέλεσεν ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις. τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσιν συντελέσει κύριος τὰ σύμπαντα· ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα παρ’ αὐτῷ σημαίνει χίλια ἔτη. αὐτὸς δέ μοι μαρτυρεῖ λέγων· Ἰδού, ἡμέρα κυρίου ἔσται ὡς χίλια ἔτη. οὐκοῦν, τέκνα, ἐν ἓξ ἡμέραις, ἐν τοῖς ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσιν συντελεσθήσεται τὰ σύμπαντα.
http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/barnabas_b.htm

Barnabas 15:4 Transliterated
4. prosechete, tekna, ti legei to sunetelesen en hex hemerais. touto legei, hoti en hexakischilíois etesin suntelesei kurios ta sumpanta: ho gar hemera par' auto semainei chilia eti. autos de moi martyrei legon: Idou, hemera kuríou estai hos chilia eti. oukoun, tekna, en hex hemerais, en tois hexakischiliois etesin suntelesthisetai ta sumpanta.

IN SIX DAYS made Elohim the heavens and the earth and all the host of them. And was finished Elohim in the seventh day from his work which he had made; and he rested in the seventh day from all his work. And Elohim blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he ceased-reposed from all his work. Give heed, children, what this means that he was finished in six days. It means that in six thousand years the Master has finished all those things; for the day beside him signifies a thousand years. Himself moreover beareth me witness, saying, Behold, the day of the Master is as a thousand years. Is it not therefore, children, in six days? that is, in those six thousand years are finished all those things? And he rested the seventh day. This means that when the Son of him comes then he shall bring to nothing the times of the lawless and the judgments of the impious: and the sun, and the moon, and the stars shall be changed, then shall the rest be goodly in the seventh day. Furthermore he says: You shall sanctify it with clean hands and a pure heart. If then it be so that Elohim has sanctified a day; now then some may be able to sanctify it, the heart being cleansed of all things wherein we have strayed. And if it be so then we shall rest goodly and sanctify it when we are able ourselves, having been set right and having received the promise; no more being of the lawless, but all things having been made new by the Master: then we shall be able ourselves to sanctify it, ourselves having been sanctified first. (Barnabas 15:4-7).

Matthew 16:28 ~ 17:3
28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
1. And amidst [meta] Six Days Yeshua taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2. And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

 

[veteran]

Thank you for your responses, veteran and SelectThis.

One of the things which was on my mind when starting this thread, is the general question of how to recognise persecution as well as how to deal with it.

It goes without saying that we need to feel comfortable calling on the grace of God for strength to bear and wisdom to speak or not speak.

According to David Bentley Hart, the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word. The counter-reformation against the first 're-formation', was extremely bloody and has never really stopped. This fact seems to be unacknowledged by Christians who seem to the think they have a right to live peaceably, rather than to live peaceably in the face of constant spiritual aggression which may or may not spill over into physical violence against oneself and/or one's family including one's children.

The fact is, that the kingdoms of this world cannot take away what we have received by faith, but unless we can see our difficulties in those terms while we are being persecuted, how easy it would be to begin the process of accommodation and compromise to the world's subtle demands, thinking (or should I say not thinking?) that these surrenders will not affect our standing with God in 'the end' to which we are exhorted to endure, namely, the salvation of our souls.

I think our Lord's Message in the Scripture I quoted was for us to expect persecution in this world, because He and we are not 'of' this present world. In Luke 4 with Satan tempting our Lord, the devil showed Jesus the kingdoms of this world and offered them to Him if He would follow him, and the devil even said those kingdoms were given to him, and he can give to whom he will. That means our Heavenly Father Himself set the devil over this present world and time. And that's why if we are The LORD's, then we should expect these things to come upon us, and be spiritually and mentally read for them (i.e., "not offended").

One of the problems some have had though, is to look for persecution in order to prove they belong to Christ, which really is vanity, because no true servant of Christ would seek persection just to prove that point. Instead, we are to recognize it when it happens, and still stay in Christ's Work He has given us, all the way to the end, and to the death if it comes to that.

As for what you stated from Bently's ideas about Protestantism, my ancestors from France were hugeunots, the first French protestants that sought to worship The LORD apart from the Catholic system that had France in wraps in that time, both politically, physically. That is exactly how many of those came to the Americas to flee persecution because they refused to bow to a pope. So ideas that Protestantism sprang from corrupt doctrine is more of a Catholic ploy than anything else. These same battles happened in Great Britain also with the Catholics trying to prevent an English translation of God's Word for the people.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi veteran,

As for what you stated from Bently's ideas about Protestantism

Please would you read again the following two sentences, as I think -from your comment - that you may have skipped over some vital word or phrase.

'the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word.'

The point David Bentley Hart was making, is that the very first group to 'protest' about (truly) Christian doctrine, were those who did not like what the Bible says, and therefore introduced their own religious variations to what should be believed, (thus) challenging the purity of scripture, and effectively altering local Christian practice. (I am not quoting Hart. That is my paraphrase.) The people who have become known as 'Protestants', were trying to reverse that process. With this in mind, can you see that I am suggesting that what is known as 'Protestantism' did spring from corrupt doctrine?

 

[Dodo_David]

Consult the Epistle of Barnabas

The books that this website recognizes as being Scriptures are those books that are recognized as such by all Christians.

The Epistle of Barnabas is not one of them.


Here are excerpts from this website's Statement of Faith:

Christianity Board (CyB) acknowledges that the nature of a forum community dictates that its members will hold a diverse range of beliefs within the Christian faith. In addition to this, we recognize that all Christians are a work in progress (Ephesians 4:13), and therefore we each are at different locations in our walk with Jesus at any given time. However, this diversity does not mean that we must sacrifice essential truths of living as a follower of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, throughout the centuries, certain doctrines have crept in that attempt to corrupt the core of the faith, and we must diligently stand against them. We must adhere to some measure of orthodoxy in order to protect the essential core of the faith.

We believe that Christian issues are able to be separated into two descriptions: *open-handed issues* and *close-handed issues*. Close-handed issues (or closed issues) are issues that are central to being a Christian; these issues are simply not up for debate because they are what defines Christianity. If closed-handed issues are debatable, then Christianity is simply yet another religion and nothing more. We will define those below in regards to the community, but this includes doctrines like the divinity of Christ. Open-handed issues (also called open issues) are issues that concern topics that are not essential to salvation. In other words, belief in a certain eschatological view (end times view) does not determine if one is saved, so that would be defined as an open-handed issue. However, Jesus being the Son of God is absolutely essential to salvation, so that is a close-handed issue.

The below clearly outlines the core, closed-handed, and Christian orthodox issues that we expect members of Christianity Board to uphold. We accept that this declaration essentially defines Christianity for Christianity Board. Disagreement with the below, we believe, places one outside the realm of reasonable orthodox Christianity....

We believe the Bible (composed of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, 1 Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation) is the inspired and infallible Word of God to all men and women. It was composed by human authors under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the primary source for Christian beliefs, practices, and doctrines. (Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5, II Timothy 1:13, II Timothy 3:16-17, II Peter 1:20-21)

In his PhD thesis about the Epistle of Barnabas, Dr. Robert Alan Kraft writes the following:

Despite the fact that the "Epistle of Barnabas" contains scores of explicit quotations (i.e. with formulae citandi; see below, ch.3) based on the Jewish scriptures and other related materials of unidentified origin, the precise relationship between these quotations and known sources (especially the LXX/OG) virtually has been ignored by the commentators.\1/ This is all the more striking since Barn is one of the oldest pieces of non-canonical Christian literature, and may well have been written (in part or in whole; see below ch. 1) before the close of the first century. It is probable, therefore, that a detailed investigation of Barn's citations will contribute not only to a better understanding of the Epistle itself, but also will shed light on the traditional backgrounds (favorite kinds of material used, relation to other ancient [[2]] quotations, etc.) of the early Christianity represented by the Epistle.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, dragonfly.

Hi veteran,


Please would you read again the following two sentences, as I think -from your comment - that you may have skipped over some vital word or phrase.

'the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word.'

The point David Bentley Hart was making, is that the very first group to 'protest' about (truly) Christian doctrine, were those who did not like what the Bible says, and therefore introduced their own religious variations to what should be believed, (thus) challenging the purity of scripture, and effectively altering local Christian practice. (I am not quoting Hart. That is my paraphrase.) The people who have become known as 'Protestants', were trying to reverse that process. With this in mind, can you see that I am suggesting that what is known as 'Protestantism' did spring from corrupt doctrine?

With all due respect, I think you have misunderstood Hart a little yourself. What he was saying is that the "papacy" itself is among the "non-biblical doctrines." Therefore, the first "protestants" that he is talking about is the papal-oriented "Roman Church" that substituted {the papacy and the religious structure of priests and cardinals and popes} for the ORIGINAL, BIBLICAL teaching of "the universal priesthood of all believers." He was NOT talking about the "Protestant Reformation," which happened much later! Indeed, being an Eastern Orthodox theologian, he probably has his own slant on that teaching, as well. They have their own clergy and do not believe in "sola scriptura" but also embrace the following:

Orthodoxy argues that the Holy Scriptures (as interpreted and defined by church teaching in the first seven ecumenical councils) along with Holy Tradition are of equal value and importance.

Christianity.about.com also has this to say about the Eastern Orthodox Church:

The word orthodox means "right believing" and was adopted to signify the true religion that faithfully followed the beliefs and practices defined by the first seven ecumenical councils (dating back to the first 10 centuries). Orthodox Christianity claims to have fully preserved, without any deviation, the traditions and doctrines of the early Christian church established by the apostles. This is why they believe themselves to be the only true and "right believing" Christian faith.
The primary disputes that led to the split between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church centered around Rome's deviation from the original conclusions of the seven ecumenical councils, such as the claim to a universal papal supremacy.

(Emphasis in boldface is mine.)

More can be seen here: http://christianity.about.com/od/easternorthodoxy/a/orthodoxbeliefs.htm.

The bottom line is that it is not an "either - or" scenario; rather, it is a THIRD position closer to adding a third dimension to the argument, although in your defense, such a third position probably DOES think of Protestantism as springing "from corrupt doctrine," or "non-biblical doctrines," stemming from the error of the Roman Catholic Church of which they never fully detached within their new belief structures. However, it was the RCC that "introduced those non-biblical doctrines."

 

[dragonfly]

Hi Retrobyter,

I don't know if you read my post to which veteran replied, but unless you did, my attempt to clarify that earlier offering was probably confusing. You have restated my point. Thank you for the additional information about the thinking of the Orthodox church, which I have not researched. :)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shabbat shalom, dragonfly.

Hi Retrobyter,

I don't know if you read my post to which veteran replied, but unless you did, my attempt to clarify that earlier offering was probably confusing. You have restated my point. Thank you for the additional information about the thinking of the Orthodox church, which I have not researched. :)

Yeah, sorry about that. Don't mean to steal your thunder.

 

[veteran]

Hi veteran,


Please would you read again the following two sentences, as I think -from your comment - that you may have skipped over some vital word or phrase.

'the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word.'

The point David Bentley Hart was making, is that the very first group to 'protest' about (truly) Christian doctrine, were those who did not like what the Bible says, and therefore introduced their own religious variations to what should be believed, (thus) challenging the purity of scripture, and effectively altering local Christian practice. (I am not quoting Hart. That is my paraphrase.) The people who have become known as 'Protestants', were trying to reverse that process. With this in mind, can you see that I am suggesting that what is known as 'Protestantism' did spring from corrupt doctrine?

No, I disagree.

The idea of protestantism began because of Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, as in Germany was where the movement first began with Lutherians protesting the 1529 Diet of Speyer which was designed by the Catholics and Charles V to try to affirm Martin Luther as a heretic. The quote from Bently you offered was totally opposte in meaning...

'the first protestants were those who altered the terms of reference between God and man by their introduction of non-biblical doctrines, such as the papacy amongst many others. But, we think of protestants as those protesting against those alterations, seeking to re-form back to the original bedrock of God's word.'


Firstly, the Protestants did not alter anything concerning God's Word, which their view was based on Martin Luther's 95 Theses against the abuses of the Catholic Church in that time. Furthermore, Luther based his 95 Theses against the Catholic system directly on Bible Scripture, and proclaimed to be tested by such Scripture. So that statement that the first Protestants introduced "non-biblical doctrines" is totally, and completely whack.

Now was that first statement about the Catholic system, about their introduction of non-biblical doctrines? Yes, but they were not the ones the label Protestant applied to, because they held the power with Charles V over those like Martin Luther that were protesting. The letters of protest in 1529 written by supporters of Luther against the edict at Speyers that was designed by the Catholics to try and have Luther destroyed is what officially began the label Protestant.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi vetern,

I completely take your point that Protestants with a capital P is a reference to the reformers trying to take back the supremacy of the word of God from episcopy of whatever brand. Bentley Hart's point is, as you note, that the first 'protest' against sound doctrine, came from Rome. That's all.

 

[Dodo_David]

Uh, how do the last few posts in this thread pertain to the OP?

 

[dragonfly]

Hi David,

The OP is about the present day persecution which some of us are experiencing. The Reformation and counter-reformation are about persecution. We were just straightening out a little misunderstanding, and sharing our thoughts on Bentley Hart's assertion about the first 'protestants'. :)

 

[Dodo_David]

Hi David,

The OP is about the present day persecution which some of us are experiencing. The Reformation and counter-reformation are about persecution. We were just straightening out a little misunderstanding, and sharing our thoughts on Bentley Hart's assertion about the first 'protestants'. :)

Ah, now I understand.

Martin Luther faced persecution because courageously stood up to the false teachings that were being promoted in his day.

William Tyndale was persecuted because he dared to translate the Bible into the English language.

 

[veteran]

Hi vetern,

I completely take your point that Protestants with a capital P is a reference to the reformers trying to take back the supremacy of the word of God from episcopy of whatever brand. Bentley Hart's point is, as you note, that the first 'protest' against sound doctrine, came from Rome. That's all.

I would only partially agree with that, since it was actually the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees that were first to 'protest' against sound doctrine in God's Holy Word. Our Lord Jesus set them as the blueprint for all those kind doctrinal abberations thereafter.

How you presented Bently's idea is misleading, if you'll honestly go back and look at how you presented it. It kind of infers the idea of 'protest' and Protestantism being about bad guys.

Ah, now I understand.

Martin Luther faced persecution because courageously stood up to the false teachings that were being promoted in his day.

William Tyndale was persecuted because he dared to translate the Bible into the English language.

Yes, and some of us here will be delivered up in these last days to give similar Testimony against those behind that same working against God's Truth in His Word as actually written.

A believer that comes to forums like this where even an atheist can disguise theirself and post heresays should be able to fathom those who twist and push abhorant doctrine against God's Holy Writ, that is, if one has paid attention to what our LORD has written in His Word without 'their' conditioning upon the mind.

 

[dragonfly]

I would only partially agree with that, since it was actually the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees that were first to 'protest' against sound doctrine in God's Holy Word. Our Lord Jesus set them as the blueprint for all those kind doctrinal abberations thereafter.

How you presented Bently's idea is misleading, if you'll honestly go back and look at how you presented it. It kind of infers the idea of 'protest' and Protestantism being about bad guys.

Hi veteran!

Aaaaaah! NOW I see what you are getting at. Fair points. It probably was difficult to divide between the 'protest'ers that I mentioned. Thanks for persevering with this clarification. :)

 

[veteran]

Hi veteran!

Aaaaaah! NOW I see what you are getting at. Fair points. It probably was difficult to divide between the 'protest'ers that I mentioned. Thanks for persevering with this clarification. :)

Love you brother!