Mystery Babylon

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You can't try to change what Lord Jesus' Book of Revelation is about. It's the end cover of God's Word, and has many parallels to events in Genesis, the front cover of God's Word.

And ALL... of God's Word is spiritual, because it contains God's Plan of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. But spiritual does NOT... mean philosophical. The style of writing of Revelation with its many symbols is no different than the Books of the prophets. So those who show their lack of understanding of those symbols only show their lack of Old Testament study of God's prophets.

God uses symbols, allegories, metaphors, parable, idioms... to make it EASIER to understand His Word. All languages use that, so that method is very common to all peoples. (He knows how we express ourselves in languages). And those things the majority of time are about natural things He created easy to understand that the majority of people USED to know (like agriculture and things in nature He created).

And it's very easy to know when a parable or metaphor is given pointing to something else that is real. The locusts of Joel 1 for example. God's uses how real locusts in nature attack His people in the Book of Joel. But He lets us know He is not speaking of real locusts, but about a certain "nation" that only operates like real locusts, metaphorically speaking. What's difficult about that???

No, it's the crept in unawares that God allows to creep into the Churches that are not aware, to test His people with. Those preacher types push all sorts of spiritualistic philosophizing when preaching God's Word, and turn God's Word into a modern version of Funny Farm, and then speak about Aunt Edna for half an hour. Those will have their reward when Lord Jesus comes, and I do feel sorry for what they do. But God did not call those.

Metaphors, parable, etc., in God's Word always give a whole lot more information than it takes up to declare the parable. Lord Jesus showed this many times in The Gospels. Most all of them in The New Testament were covered first in The Old Testament Books. So there again, it's kind of easy to know who has done their homework in God's Word or not.
I do appreciate the substance our your posts, and arguments learned from Scripture, rather than simply dismissing things out of hand and not addressing them at all. Your research is more scholarly than mine by far, because I see things you write, that I have never studied. So in a way, I am doing round end run, that does not include such scholarship study, to go straight to the heart of Scripture by inspiration of Scripture.

You can't try to change what Lord Jesus' Book of Revelation is about

True, but I can and do change what I believe Revelation is about. You do not agree, because you still have your own belief of what it is about, and we both offer Scriptures to support our belief.

And so, I am not attempting to 'change' what Scripture is about, but rather have changed by Scripture my thinking on what Scripture is about.

What you object to is not me trying to change Scripture, but me giving Scripture and conclusions that do not agree with what you believe Scripture is about, which I also once believed, and now reject. To show I am 'changing' Scripture, you must be specific: in any single point I make, give Scripture to demonstrate it's error. If so, I will thank you for your help in perfecting my understanding of Scripture, especially of Scriptural prophecy.

Also, we know and agree on what Revelation is about, before the end of the old heaven and earth: the last great tribulation on earth before the Lord's return, with open warfare being made against the saints of God to destroy the faith of Jesus from the earth. There will be a faithful remnant for the Lord to resurrect with them that died in the Lord (Rev 14:13). There will be God's righteous judgement with plagues and powerful events to punish them that made war with the saints. And there will be a return of the Lord in the air with clouds and saints, to fight and win the final battle of the Lord before His reign on earth.

Who it is about, and how that warfare is fought is what we disagree on. I say it is spiritual warfare by false ministry to destroy the faith of Jesus, and you say, unless I am mistaken, that it is national leadership seeking to destroy the 'Jews' one last time, before the Lord's return to finally redeem all Israel, and establish His reign on earth with the seed of Abraham serving Him in a priestly fashion in the land promised to Abraham and His seed.

The only 'Jews' warred against and redeemed by the Redeemer are them inwardly circumcised by the Redeemer. And any Israel after the flesh left alive at the Lord's return and reign, will be divided up between sheep and goats, along with the rest of them born after the flesh and not after the Spirit.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello BOL, we haven't argued with and insulted each other in quite a while. How have you been, well I hope?
You do realize that Martin Luther was actually part of the Roman Catholic Church when he wrote his theses.
The Catholic church created protestantism, though only by failing in their attempt to murder Luther as a heretic.
He was a dissident when he coined the term, "Sola Scriptura". - which was NEVER a teaching of the historic Christian faith.

That was the entire point I was making because @robert derrick ignorantly stated that this was a degrading "Catholic" term.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As usual - your argument is ill thought-out and childish.

I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.
I don't adhere to Scripture alone because the BIBLE doesn't teach this - and you have YET to show where it DOES. . .

I pointed out the the Canon of Scripture itself is a Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church (see post #58).
In other words, Einstein - the Bible does NOT include a list of Books that belong it in. That was the work of the Holy Spirit - working through His Catholic Church . . .
I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.

Using Scripture to prove your 'sacred' oral tradition is Sola Scriptura.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.

Let's try it this way: Sola Scriptura to me, is the necessity of using Scripture to prove if anything oral or written is truly of God or not. My Sola Scriptura is not rejecting everything not written in the Bible. My Sola Scriptura only rejects anything as truth of God, if it is not proven by Scripture to be so: It may not even be wrong. It just shouldn't be taught as truth of God.

Therefore, according to my Sola Scriptura, you are the same in that you try to use Scripture to prove your oral traditions.

And so, one last time: do you need Scripture to prove your Catholic Religion's oral traditions?

It is an honest yes or no question, that deserves an honest yes or no answer.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You can't try to change what Lord Jesus' Book of Revelation is about. It's the end cover of God's Word, and has many parallels to events in Genesis, the front cover of God's Word.

And ALL... of God's Word is spiritual, because it contains God's Plan of Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. But spiritual does NOT... mean philosophical. The style of writing of Revelation with its many symbols is no different than the Books of the prophets. So those who show their lack of understanding of those symbols only show their lack of Old Testament study of God's prophets.

God uses symbols, allegories, metaphors, parable, idioms... to make it EASIER to understand His Word. All languages use that, so that method is very common to all peoples. (He knows how we express ourselves in languages). And those things the majority of time are about natural things He created easy to understand that the majority of people USED to know (like agriculture and things in nature He created).

And it's very easy to know when a parable or metaphor is given pointing to something else that is real. The locusts of Joel 1 for example. God's uses how real locusts in nature attack His people in the Book of Joel. But He lets us know He is not speaking of real locusts, but about a certain "nation" that only operates like real locusts, metaphorically speaking. What's difficult about that???

No, it's the crept in unawares that God allows to creep into the Churches that are not aware, to test His people with. Those preacher types push all sorts of spiritualistic philosophizing when preaching God's Word, and turn God's Word into a modern version of Funny Farm, and then speak about Aunt Edna for half an hour. Those will have their reward when Lord Jesus comes, and I do feel sorry for what they do. But God did not call those.

Metaphors, parable, etc., in God's Word always give a whole lot more information than it takes up to declare the parable. Lord Jesus showed this many times in The Gospels. Most all of them in The New Testament were covered first in The Old Testament Books. So there again, it's kind of easy to know who has done their homework in God's Word or not.
But spiritual does NOT... mean philosophical.

True. I don't waste time on 'ministry' that is really just Christian philosophy. I want to be preached to, not philosophized to death, which could be one of the heads of the beast, like drinking water rather than wine at the Lord's supper. (Which the Mormons do, because they reject the blood of the Lamb, and so won't even drink grape-juice, because it is red in color)

But He lets us know He is not speaking of real locusts, but about a certain "nation" that only operates like real locusts, metaphorically speaking. What's difficult about that???

Nothing. Once again it is now what but who: that nation would be the falsely-chosen nation of false ministry: Rev 9 is about false apostles scattering out from the pit, as beasts of prey upon the believers, to overthrow the faith of the elect of possible. They are the false-nation builders of false churches.

Builders of churches are all wrong. God calls no one to 'build' a church for Him. He is the only builder of His church. His ministers do not build churches, but are builder-uppers of them that believe in the church. All other 'builders' than the one builder, Jesus, are false builders that deny the head of the corner, that they become heads themselves over the body.

The style of writing of Revelation with its many symbols is no different than the Books of the prophets. So those who show their lack of understanding of those symbols only show their lack of Old Testament study of God's prophets.

And those who show no spiritual understanding of them, but only see carnal nations to fulfill them, show their lack of knowing that old testament prophesies are fulfilled in new testament Scriptures, so that they only see the fulfillment of those prophesies in a physical seed born after the flesh.

No, it's the crept in unawares that God allows to creep into the Churches that are not aware, to test His people with.

And Revelation shows the manner of their creep: they don't creep in from the outside, but rather rise up with creepy doctrine from the inside:

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A real antichrist of Babylonish ministry, is a truly effective destroyer of the faith of Jesus in them that believe, because he was a truly convincing preacher of God's righteousness to them that would hear.

The star falls from a heavenly seat into the bottomless pit beneath the sea in Rev 9. The beast that was a star in heaven, and now is fallen from grace, rises up from the depths of Satan through the ministry of false and dark waters, to reveal himself openly as a god above the sea of people in Rev 13. He makes open war with the saints to pervert or destroy them for sake of personal power over those people. And in Rev 17 the success of that false ministry is worn in costly array and in fine jewels and made drunk with blood of saints made corrupt by her, and with blood of martyrs that defied and departed from her.

And John who saw the beast's rise above the people, by making himself above that which is written, marvels with great admiration and wonder of how so many could be deceived by so few, who know effectively how to wrest Scripture to their own profit and power, because they once knew what is written of a certainty, so as to preach it with convincing authority.

Mystery Babylon is the mystery of iniquity in the pulpit, of them that once preached Jesus and Him crucified with authority of Scripture to convince even the gainsayers with power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, and now preaches another gospel of a false Christ in Jesus' name, with authority of his own mind and word as Scripture, and exercises the power of the dragon to convince the believers of Jesus to worship another head as God.

They give up the seal of the Spirit of God, to be replaced by a mark of that risen beast, and to become just another number of conquest, rather than remaining numbered among the seed of Abraham and the saints of God, which are in number as the stars of heaven in multitude.

Like Lucifer, no antichrist wants to fall alone, but seeks to draw as many as possible in his train to hell.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
He was a dissident when he coined the term, "Sola Scriptura". - which was NEVER a teaching of the historic Christian faith.

That was the entire point I was making because @robert derrick ignorantly stated that this was a degrading "Catholic" term.
True enough. Thanks for responding, and the Lord bless you in your endeavors to serve Him. Amen.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.

Using Scripture to prove your 'sacred' oral tradition is Sola Scriptura.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.

Let's try it this way: Sola Scriptura to me, is the necessity of using Scripture to prove if anything oral or written is truly of God or not. My Sola Scriptura is not rejecting everything not written in the Bible. My Sola Scriptura only rejects anything as truth of God, if it is not proven by Scripture to be so: It may not even be wrong. It just shouldn't be taught as truth of God.

Therefore, according to my Sola Scriptura, you are the same in that you try to use Scripture to prove your oral traditions.

And so, one last time: do you need Scripture to prove your Catholic Religion's oral traditions?

It is an honest yes or no question, that deserves an honest yes or no answer.
Hey there fella. As a former Catholic who eventually became a born again Christian and a member of a congregation that held to reformation theology, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the concept of Sola Scriptura came from neither the Roman Catholic Church or the original church in Jerusalem. The first church didn't even have a New Testament, but wrote it.
The five solas were derived by those who created reform theology and specifically to deny the authority of the Pope, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and the novel idea that there is no salvation without the church.
I personally believe that the 5 solas are true, but I'm also convinced that reform theology is in error with regard to certain points like the imagined cessation of spiritual gifts and the notion that God stopped talking to people when the Revelation of the person of His Son was complete. Both ideas contradict scripture and I'm not going to accept a theology that lifts scripture as the only standard yet denies what it plainly says.
It's amazing that the same people who don't believe what they haven't experienced, actually do believe that they are people of faith.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,426
1,681
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.

Using Scripture to prove your 'sacred' oral tradition is Sola Scriptura.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.

Let's try it this way: Sola Scriptura to me, is the necessity of using Scripture to prove if anything oral or written is truly of God or not. My Sola Scriptura is not rejecting everything not written in the Bible. My Sola Scriptura only rejects anything as truth of God, if it is not proven by Scripture to be so: It may not even be wrong. It just shouldn't be taught as truth of God.

Therefore, according to my Sola Scriptura, you are the same in that you try to use Scripture to prove your oral traditions.

And so, one last time: do you need Scripture to prove your Catholic Religion's oral traditions?

It is an honest yes or no question, that deserves an honest yes or no answer.
Hey Robert,

I think what @BreadOfLife is saying is that we have our 27 books of the New Testament because of oral tradition. After all, God didn’t give us a list of those 27 books. Men, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided what books are to be canonical and what books were to be considered non-canononical. For many years after the Apostles died different churches were using different canons (letters) and The Church decided what was canonical and not canonical.

Scripture does not tell us what is Scripture. Oral tradition does.

Hope that helps...Mary
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey Robert,

I think what @BreadOfLife is saying is that we have our 27 books of the New Testament because of oral tradition. After all, God didn’t give us a list of those 27 books. Men, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided what books are to be canonical and what books were to be considered non-canononical. For many years after the Apostles died different churches were using different canons (letters) and The Church decided what was canonical and not canonical.

Scripture does not tell us what is Scripture. Oral tradition does.

Hope that helps...Mary
we have our 27 books of the New Testament because of oral tradition

We have the Scriptures, because God gave it to His prophets and apostles to write for us.

There were many oral traditions in the world, before the first Scripture was written into the world. When God began having Scripture written, is when God began confirming in writing what oral traditions were true of Him.

It is the same today: we now have all the Scriptures God gave His prophets and apostles to be written into the world, and all traditions are now judged by those Scriptures to be true of Him or not.

Anything taught as truth of God, that is not proven by Scripture, is the false teaching of false prophets and apostles, who make up their own things out of their own minds to be believed as Scripture.

The Church decided what was canonical and not canonical.

The leaders of the church did, and God helped them. They are the blessing. Not the problem. The problem is leaders that teach traditions as truth of God and are not proven by Scripture of God.

The Scriptures were written into the world by God's prophets and apostles, and were 'canonized' into one Book, with God's help by His church leaders. The 'canonizers' did not write Scripture, but only confirmed what was written by His prophets and apostles: Scripture inspired of God.

Scripture does not tell us what is Scripture. Oral tradition does.

Scripture does not tell us what is Scripture. Scripture proves what is truth of God. Oral traditions do not tell us what Scripture is. Scripture tells us what oral traditions are true of God.

The Scriptures were all written by prophets and apostles of God. Men with help of God later canonized them into one book, called the Bible.

When men teach any tradition, rule, law, doctrine of God, it must be proven by Scripture, or it is to be rejected as true of God.

Sola Scriptura is not the rejection of all things said and written, that are not specifically written in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is the rejection of any such things that Scripture does not prove as true of God.

Sola Scriptura is the sole authority for proving truth of God. If anything outside the Bible is anything true with God, it is because it is confirmed as such by Scripture.

Oral traditions proved by Scripture, true. Oral traditions not proved by Scripture, not.

Conclusion: if anything is taught for doctrine of God, it must be proven by Scripture, else it is false doctrine. People can believe and practise it all they want, but they are not believing the truth, nor are they serving God.

Sola Scriptura keeps us on the straight and the narrow. Anything to the left or right, taken away from or added to, is error.

Anyone that rejects Sola Scriptura, who then relies on Scripture to prove their traditions as truth of God, are being self-contradictory.

Anyone who truly rejects Sola Scriptura will reject the need for Scripture to prove their traditions, which they count as truth of God without Scripture needing to prove it.

I.e. Buddhists don't need Biblical Scripture. They have their own books to believe and practise. Some things may be true of God, if Scripture shows it, and the rest is stuff of man and not true of God.

The error of the Catholic religion is to claim religion from the God of the Bible, and then act like Buddhists with their own books that Scripture does not show to be true of the God of the Bible. I have more respect for Buddhists that don't claim any Biblical authority, than for those who claim it, and then set it aside for their own traditions and teachings.

Hope this helps answer...Robert
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey there fella. As a former Catholic who eventually became a born again Christian and a member of a congregation that held to reformation theology, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the concept of Sola Scriptura came from neither the Roman Catholic Church or the original church in Jerusalem. The first church didn't even have a New Testament, but wrote it.
The five solas were derived by those who created reform theology and specifically to deny the authority of the Pope, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and the novel idea that there is no salvation without the church.
I personally believe that the 5 solas are true, but I'm also convinced that reform theology is in error with regard to certain points like the imagined cessation of spiritual gifts and the notion that God stopped talking to people when the Revelation of the person of His Son was complete. Both ideas contradict scripture and I'm not going to accept a theology that lifts scripture as the only standard yet denies what it plainly says.
It's amazing that the same people who don't believe what they haven't experienced, actually do believe that they are people of faith.
Great. You can help me. I am a Christian that believes only Scripture tells us what is true of God: all books are judged by the Bible. All traditions, doctrines, matter of the faith of God, are judged true of God by Scripture only. I found this to be demonized as 'Sola Scriptura', by zealous Catholics.

So teach me. What in the world are you talking about with the '5 solas'?
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That was the entire point I was making because @robert derrick ignorantly stated that this was a degrading "Catholic" term.

Some people make an art of ignorantly reading what they call ignorant writing.

Sola Scriptura is a term Catholics degrade.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I didn't use Sola Scriptura to prove Sacred Oral Tradition - I used Scripture to prove it.

Using Scripture to prove your 'sacred' oral tradition is Sola Scriptura.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out.

Let's try it this way: Sola Scriptura to me, is the necessity of using Scripture to prove if anything oral or written is truly of God or not. My Sola Scriptura is not rejecting everything not written in the Bible. My Sola Scriptura only rejects anything as truth of God, if it is not proven by Scripture to be so: It may not even be wrong. It just shouldn't be taught as truth of God.

Therefore, according to my Sola Scriptura, you are the same in that you try to use Scripture to prove your oral traditions.

And so, one last time: do you need Scripture to prove your Catholic Religion's oral traditions?

It is an honest yes or no question, that deserves an honest yes or no answer.
That is an asinine statement (in RED).
Recognizing the authority of Scripture is NOT Sola Scriptura, Einstein.

Sola Scriptura is the false, 16th century, man-made invention that Scripture is our "SOLE" Authority. As I have showed you on numerous occasions - Scripture itself states that it is NOT (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

The ONE thing you keep forgetting is that the Church didn't come out of the Bible - the Bible came out of the Church.
LONG before the 73 Book Canon of the Bible was declared - the Church was already here. LONG before Paul ever penned a single Letter - Christ's Church existed.

LONG before Protestants removed Seven books from the Bible along with portions of Daniel and Esther - there was the Catholic Church who declared the Canon . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,950
3,391
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Great. You can help me. I am a Christian that believes only Scripture tells us what is true of God: all books are judged by the Bible. All traditions, doctrines, matter of the faith of God, are judged true of God by Scripture only. I found this to be demonized as 'Sola Scriptura', by zealous Catholics.

So teach me. What in the world are you talking about with the '5 solas'?
The Fivbe "Solas" of the Protestant Revolt:
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solis Christus
Soli Dei Gloria


Your ignorance of Protestantism is outdone only by your ignorance of ALL things Catholic . . .
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That is an asinine statement (in RED).
Recognizing the authority of Scripture is NOT Sola Scriptura, Einstein.

Sola Scriptura is the false, 16th century, man-made invention that Scripture is our "SOLE" Authority. As I have showed you on numerous occasions - Scripture itself states that it is NOT (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

The ONE thing you keep forgetting is that the Church didn't come out of the Bible - the Bible came out of the Church.
LONG before the 73 Book Canon of the Bible was declared - the Church was already here. LONG before Paul ever penned a single Letter - Christ's Church existed.

LONG before Protestants removed Seven books from the Bible along with portions of Daniel and Esther - there was the Catholic Church who declared the Canon . . .
Recognizing the authority of Scripture is NOT Sola Scriptura, Einstein. Sola Scriptura is the false, 16th century, man-made invention that Scripture is our "SOLE" Authority

I agree. Sola Scriptura is the sole authority on proving anything oral or written is true with God. Any other authority without Scriptural proof is man-made authority separate from God.

The ONE thing you keep forgetting is that the Church didn't come out of the Bible - the Bible came out of the Church.
LONG before the 73 Book Canon of the Bible was declared - the Church was already here. LONG before Paul ever penned a single Letter - Christ's Church existed.


Long before any church, including that of the wilderness, there was Scripture given by God to Moses on the mount, and he assured all the people, that the commandments he gave them were from God and not from his own mind. (Numbers 16:28)

Any tradition not confirmed by Scripture is from the mind of men, and is not the Word of God that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Jesus' church is built by Him upon the foundation the apostles laid by Scripture given them by our risen Lord. Your religion is built upon another foundation of another gospel that is not from Scripture of the apostles, but from the minds of foolish men playing apostles.

Using Scripture to prove your position in things of God, is proof that Scripture is necessary to prove your position in things of God.

So long as you use Scripture to try and prove a rejection of Sola Scripture, which is the use of Scripture to prove all things of God, you are practising Sola Scriptura in order to reject it.

Either stop using Scripture to prove your position, and just declare your religion's traditions to be your truth for God and be truly nona-sola-Scriptura, or admit you are in conscience Sola Scriptura, but in mind you also like to believe other fairy tales, like the immaculately-concepted virgin and mother of God, that you call 'Mary', but is in fact a reincarnated Demeter with a Catholic twist.

Sola. Sola. SOLA. SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!! :D
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Hey there fella. As a former Catholic who eventually became a born again Christian and a member of a congregation that held to reformation theology, I can tell you with 100% certainty that the concept of Sola Scriptura came from neither the Roman Catholic Church or the original church in Jerusalem. The first church didn't even have a New Testament, but wrote it.
The five solas were derived by those who created reform theology and specifically to deny the authority of the Pope, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and the novel idea that there is no salvation without the church.
"no salvation without the church" was never a novel idea, it was taught by the Apostles and the historic Church does not have the authority to change that. What the historic Church has done is reformulate Trent to include separated communities as part of the Church. That's what Vatican II (partly) was about.

suggested reading: Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation (catholiceducation.org)
 

Jane_Doe22

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2018
5,247
3,444
113
116
Mid-west USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
like drinking water rather than wine at the Lord's supper. (Which the Mormons do, because they reject the blood of the Lamb, and so won't even drink grape-juice, because it is red in color)
Clarifying:
‘Mormons’ very much believe in the importance of remembering Christ’s sacrifice. The Last Supper is the central point of weekly worship services. It’s not viewed as literal blood and flesh being partaken of: rather it’s a symbolic ritual. It does not matter if you use water, grape juice, etc. The point is remembering the Savior and His all important sacrifice.
 

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
11,768
2,521
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But He lets us know He is not speaking of real locusts, but about a certain "nation" that only operates like real locusts, metaphorically speaking. What's difficult about that???

Nothing. Once again it is now what but who: that nation would be the falsely-chosen nation of false ministry: Rev 9 is about false apostles scattering out from the pit, as beasts of prey upon the believers, to overthrow the faith of the elect of possible. They are the false-nation builders of false churches.

So then per God's Word, who would be the false-nation builders of false churches? He tells us in His Word.

Builders of churches are all wrong. God calls no one to 'build' a church for Him. He is the only builder of His church. His ministers do not build churches, but are builder-uppers of them that believe in the church. All other 'builders' than the one builder, Jesus, are false builders that deny the head of the corner, that they become heads themselves over the body.

You're starting to sound like one of those preachers, doing the philosophizing of men with that church builder idea. Is that something you learned last Sunday from your preacher coming up with that slogan? God's Word has no need to be sloganized, but that seems to be the popular thing many preachers today do, some even taking advantage of God's Word with building a slogan thick enough to write a book about, and make money off it!

The style of writing of Revelation with its many symbols is no different than the Books of the prophets. So those who show their lack of understanding of those symbols only show their lack of Old Testament study of God's prophets.

And those who show no spiritual understanding of them, but only see carnal nations to fulfill them, show their lack of knowing that old testament prophesies are fulfilled in new testament Scriptures, so that they only see the fulfillment of those prophesies in a physical seed born after the flesh.

Of course by my meaning of understanding them, it means their spiritual and physical application per God's Word. I already said that God's symbols, metaphors, allegories, and parables are ALWAYS about something literal. I think you don't know when to properly use the word 'spiritual'.

The matter of Old Testament prophecies that have been fulfilled per The New Testament is a whole... different... subject... altogether. It has nothing... to do with recognizing a symbol first given in the Old Testament that is repeated in The New Testament, like that locust example I gave from the Book of Joel which appears again in Revelation 9. I see many making errors in understanding that locust symbol in Rev.9 simply because they have never studied the Book of Joel. And even with some hard-heads, once you reveal it to them, they still... will deny there's a link between the two Scriptures!
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Clarifying:
‘Mormons’ very much believe in the importance of remembering Christ’s sacrifice. The Last Supper is the central point of weekly worship services. It’s not viewed as literal blood and flesh being partaken of: rather it’s a symbolic ritual. It does not matter if you use water, grape juice, etc. The point is remembering the Savior and His all important sacrifice.
Problem is turning an event requiring a pure conscience into a 'symbolic' ritual that is remembering something that requires no act of conscience.

We are not symbolically washed in His blood for forgiveness of sins and being made clean before God. If it is only symbolic, then so is the forgiveness and cleansing just symbolic and not real and true.

But of you believe in redemption by the incorruptible blood of the Lamb of God, and do not reject being washed in His blood, then my error in thinking water was used to avoid even the stain of red in your communion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jane_Doe22

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So then per God's Word, who would be the false-nation builders of false churches? He tells us in His Word.



You're starting to sound like one of those preachers, doing the philosophizing of men with that church builder idea. Is that something you learned last Sunday from your preacher coming up with that slogan? God's Word has no need to be sloganized, but that seems to be the popular thing many preachers today do, some even taking advantage of God's Word with building a slogan thick enough to write a book about, and make money off it!



Of course by my meaning of understanding them, it means their spiritual and physical application per God's Word. I already said that God's symbols, metaphors, allegories, and parables are ALWAYS about something literal. I think you don't know when to properly use the word 'spiritual'.

The matter of Old Testament prophecies that have been fulfilled per The New Testament is a whole... different... subject... altogether. It has nothing... to do with recognizing a symbol first given in the Old Testament that is repeated in The New Testament, like that locust example I gave from the Book of Joel which appears again in Revelation 9. I see many making errors in understanding that locust symbol in Rev.9 simply because they have never studied the Book of Joel. And even with some hard-heads, once you reveal it to them, they still... will deny there's a link between the two Scriptures!
who would be the false-nation builders of false churches?

For everything true of God in Scripture, there is a false and corrupting counterpart inspired by the devil: since the holy nation of Christ's church is on earth in the natural bodies of His saints, then the devil produces a false counterpart:

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

First the nation of Israel allowed the devil to turn them from the first covenant of the God of Israel, yet still calling themselves His chosen nation in a lie, even unto this day. And so the holy nation of the risen God of Israel will in like manner be tried by the dragon thru the deceitful ministry of the rising beast and his prophet, to make war with the holy nation of Christ's body on earth.

Them that are seduced from the faith of Jesus will be turned into a hypocritical nation of the dragon, still calling itself the holy nation of Christ in a lie.

O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

That antichrist will be as that Assyrian to make war with the nation of God, to purge and purify it, by treading down them that can be tread down. Like the children of Israel that lagged behind in the wilderness were destroyed, so the Christians that are found along the court of the temple of the body of Christ, will also be tread down underfoot.

It is not the physical body that is all important, but the soul. We're not supposed to fear them that can kill the body: in fact we are told to rejoice when such physical threats are against us. We are to rather fear God and any threat to our souls, that could turn us from Him.

Revelation is the spiritual warfare of false ministry and purposed destruction of the faith in the believers, manifested in old covenant manner of physical warfare. The Assyrian of old was a foreign uncircumcised nation physically attacking the nation of Israel. The Assyrian antichrist is a false nation of them that were circumcised inwardly and are now made uncircumcision, who join him to ministerially attacking the remnant of the saints of Christ.

No elect of Christ cares one bit for, nor is threatened by the openly false religions of the world, that don't even name Jesus. It is them that are of false doctrine from within, erring however slightly or much from Scripture, that God has always warned His people against: false prophets, apostles, christs, teachers using the name of Jesus.

These are the real danger and threats to the Christian soul. Simply put: we should care less what Mohomed thinks. We shouldn't even bother disputing with them. He is just another false religion maker one earth. Neither should we engage the so-called Jews that do still agree with Christ' crucifixion for blasphemy. It is them naming Jesus that put forth false law, rule, ordinances, traditions, and commandments of men for doctrine of Christ: these are the real dangers to our souls, that we must stand up against and not be harmed to our own undoing.

That is what the two witnesses are doing: standing up at the door of the temple in defense of the gospel as Paul, against a whole nation of false believers, first calling themselves Jews and now Christians, and are not, but are liars. Let all such tread the outer court of the earth all they want, but no more Canaanites shall enter the house of God with their false doctrine in name of Jesus.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So then per God's Word, who would be the false-nation builders of false churches? He tells us in His Word.



You're starting to sound like one of those preachers, doing the philosophizing of men with that church builder idea. Is that something you learned last Sunday from your preacher coming up with that slogan? God's Word has no need to be sloganized, but that seems to be the popular thing many preachers today do, some even taking advantage of God's Word with building a slogan thick enough to write a book about, and make money off it!



Of course by my meaning of understanding them, it means their spiritual and physical application per God's Word. I already said that God's symbols, metaphors, allegories, and parables are ALWAYS about something literal. I think you don't know when to properly use the word 'spiritual'.

The matter of Old Testament prophecies that have been fulfilled per The New Testament is a whole... different... subject... altogether. It has nothing... to do with recognizing a symbol first given in the Old Testament that is repeated in The New Testament, like that locust example I gave from the Book of Joel which appears again in Revelation 9. I see many making errors in understanding that locust symbol in Rev.9 simply because they have never studied the Book of Joel. And even with some hard-heads, once you reveal it to them, they still... will deny there's a link between the two Scriptures!
Is that something you learned last Sunday from your preacher coming up with that slogan?

You have done this kind of insulting before, and no doubt I deserve it by accusing you of repeating learned mantra, but now that we are actually engaging one another with substance, let's move on and respect one another's integrity: We agree neither of us just repeat what we learn from elsewhere, but arrive at our own conclusions by our own reading of Scripture. It doesn't mean we haven't learned from others, but we do not just scarf up catchy slogans, without first proving them with Scripture. I have never heard these things I offer from any person anywhere: not in pulpits nor in writing. I have searched and found none.

that church builder idea.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner...Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

In the old covenant the builders of the temple and city were good and faithful believers. In the new covenant, the only builders spoken of, other than the One Builder of His own church, Jesus, are all condemned as disallowing the Head of the corner, and by disobedience not allowing Jesus to be Head of His body.

The apostle Paul never said he 'built' a single church, but as an apostle he helped lay the foundation of the doctrine of Christ, upon which Jesus would build His church: by the rock of faith in Him as Christ, built upon the apostles' doctrine, and if any bring not that doctrine of Christ to our doorstep or into the pulpit, we are to reject.

That foundation is now laid, and if any would build thereon, then let him take heed that he do so in obedience to the foundation of Scripture given us by the apostles. The disobedience of so-called 'builders' is twofold: they preach other things than Scripture for Scripture, thus deceiving the sheep with a false faith called that of Jesus, and they merchandize the sheep by turning the ministry of Christ into a successfully profit making business.

In the covetous efforts of turning the Father's business into the people business, and further manipulate Scripture to succeed in doing so, they make themselves Assyrian heads and taskmasters over the believers, calling it the 'program of God' for building and growing churches: they turn winning souls to christ into a local church recruitment drive called 'soulwinning'.

The only program of God in Scripture is to make manifest Jesus Christ and His faith among the hearers: preach the faith of Jesus according to the Scriptures only.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you... But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

Programma: evidently set forth.

Church building beasts become far more about numbers than names, and the only name that really matters in their great congregations are their own. Paul spoke of names among the churches. Beastly builders report numbers to one another.

Antichrists are builders of Christian churches preaching for doctrine of Christ their own righteous rules, while pushing programs of recruitment in the name of Jesus, with which they first build a congregation of zealous believers, with whom they then make great 'soulwinning warriors' to grow their churches. Finally they raise up builders from among their members under the authority and banner of the organizational rule: a grossly great organizational tree, greater than all bushes, grown with hands of men from a small mustard seed of desire for success in ministry.

They are as full of zeal to proselytize other Christians into their own truly righteous nation of churches, even as the Jews of old did with synagogue-building in their zeal for Moses, and they are willing to destroy the names of any that get in their way, and are more than willing to curse the names of them that refuse to join.

We are not talking about your average honest believer, who believes themselves called to ministry with a desire to 'start' a church. However, many of such do become corrupted in time by their ignorance of the ministerial rule to only preach Jesus according to the Scriptures, as well as the damning desire to not just 'start' a church, but to build one into something grand and big and great, that becomes more of a congregation built around themselves, than a church built upon the foundation of the apostles, who's Head truly is Jesus Christ.

Neither is this an indictment on 'megachurches', which in my mind are safer for the average believer, than the zealous 'starter' of a church, looking and seeking and spying out believers to 'help' do so. They become possessive of any souls that remain in their assemblies. They can call it love and care as a nurse that cherishes the sheep, but then there comes a line between nursing the sheep for their own health of soul and body and pushing them for one's own success.

And 'end times' or 'last days' prophets warning of how really, really close we are, usually start preaching that warning out of a growing angst about 'doing something for God' before it's too late. And what would that 'service to God' be? Strengthening the sheep in their faith? Sort of. But the real goal is pushing the sheep in one last and final church recruitment drive for more souls to 'get saved'. The effect on them that are zealous to do so, is to then neglect their own family, household, and career. Afterall, Pastor really believes the end is near...

If such an antichrist ever does get hold of gvt power to kill, then that one would do so, even as Saul of Tarsus did.