Protestant Apostasy Pending?

[tom55]

You exaggerate. There are not 'thousands of different truths'. And there are things which believers can have different opinions on in the Scripture which are interesting but do not affect ones salvation or walk with God. Those things which cause a church to drift into apostasy are centered around what they believe concerning Jesus Christ and the Bible as the Word of God.

I'm not asking for forgiveness.

Stranger

There are, in FACT, thousands of different (independent) churches that all have their own version of The Truth based on THEIR interpretation of scripture.

That means there are in FACT thousands of different truths (what they believe to be true).

Who gave you the authority OR prophetic ability to identify which churches are in apostasy???

One can still forgive even though one did not ask for forgiveness.

Even though you didn't ask for it, it is thru GRACE that I forgive you for calling me a liar.

 

[Stranger]

There are, in FACT, thousands of different (independent) churches that all have their own version of The Truth based on THEIR interpretation of scripture.

That means there are in FACT thousands of different truths (what they believe to be true).

Who gave you the authority OR prophetic ability to identify which churches are in apostasy???

One can still forgive even though one did not ask for forgiveness.

Even though you didn't ask for it, it is thru GRACE that I forgive you for calling me a liar.

Most independent churches agree on the fundamentals of the faith. There are not 'thousands' that result in apostasy.

The Bible and the Holy Spirit gave me the authority. What gave the Roman church the authority?

Sorry, I don't seek your forgiveness. It looks good though.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

Most independent churches agree on the fundamentals of the faith. There are not 'thousands' that result in apostasy.

The Bible and the Holy Spirit gave me the authority. What gave the Roman church the authority?

Sorry, I don't seek your forgiveness. It looks good though.

Who gets to decide the fundamentals of the faith? What, in your opinion, are the top ten fundamentals of faith?

The bible and the Holy Spirit gave the RCC authority!!! So now how do we decide who has TRUE authority and who is being deceived by Satan since you are both claiming authority?

Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Are you claiming to be The Church and you are personally fulfilling that passage in scripture?

Are you the fulfillment of Matthew 18:17?

 

[Stranger]

Who gets to decide the fundamentals of the faith? What, in your opinion, are the top ten fundamentals of faith?

The bible and the Holy Spirit gave the RCC authority!!! So now how do we decide who has TRUE authority and who is being deceived by Satan since you are both claiming authority?

Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Are you claiming to be The Church and you are personally fulfilling that passage in scripture?

Are you the fulfillment of Matthew 18:17?

We who are believers, who have the Bible and the Holy Spirit, who are the Church, decide what are the fundamentals of the faith. The rcc is not the Church. It is part of the Church. We decide based on the Scriptures.

There was no rcc in first century. You had the church at Rome, but that was not catholic.

I am part of the church just like every believer is part of the church. If a disagreement arises in the local church, then you take it before the leaders of that church.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

We who are believers, who have the Bible and the Holy Spirit, who are the Church, decide what are the fundamentals of the faith. The rcc is not the Church. It is part of the Church. We decide based on the Scriptures.

Well, that’s fascinating, seeing that baptism, a pretty important doctrine and practice of Christianity, is subject to notoriously different interpretations in Protestant camps (all believing in perspicuity). Luther believed in baptismal regeneration, but the Calvinists did not. He and the Calvinists and the Anglicans all believed in infant baptism, but the Anabaptists and Baptists today do not. Wasn’t Scripture clear enough? We are told that it is (“all the articles of faith are plain”), yet all the manifest evidence to the contrary in real life and practice, shows otherwise.

“the other guy” is wrong because he lacks a fuller measure of the Holy Spirit. But of course this is a hopelessly contradictory state of affairs. Who decides who is right in the first place, and who lacks the Holy Spirit? Each one says this about the other. Who decides where the truth lies, and how? All appeal to Scripture, so obviously, Scripture cannot settle the question itself. Much the same for the Eucharist. Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations for "this is my body".

There was no rcc in first century.

There is truckloads of evidence to the contrary. Re-writing history is not an answer, it's an escape from the truth. I don't know how you can say that with any degree of honesty. As I have said many times, CATHOLIC originated in Scripture.

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic

It gets better...

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”
Acts 9:31 "So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied."

There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis"
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures. Rom. 1:8 and Acts 9:31

"Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.

St. Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch, and knew St. John the Apostle. He knew what he was talking about. Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing. What you really mean is you have no part of the Church of 106 AD.

Written records of the term "CATHOLIC" describing a character of the Christian Church:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

.You had the church at Rome, but that was not catholic.

That's absurd. What was it then? It was not fully blossomed at that time, but the seeds of Catholicism were there. I think you are comparing the 21st century church with the 1st century church, and that makes no sense.

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning.

It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too.

• The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
• and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
• The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.

These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, and everything else???

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” increasingly corrupted by an encroaching Catholicism, as one common viewpoint would have it.

I am part of the church just like every believer is part of the church. If a disagreement arises in the local church, then you take it before the leaders of that church.

Of course you are, but the degree of separation from the historic Church varies from one church to the next. The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).


a satire

 

[Mungo]

[SIZE=medium]THE TIMES, [/SIZE]London

[SIZE=small]In a cache of recently discovered documents in [/SIZE][SIZE=small]Rome[/SIZE][SIZE=small], the following lost third letter of Paul to Timothy was discovered. It seems that it was never delivered to Timothy.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Paul, apostle and prisoner of Christ Jesus to Timothy, dear son of mine in the Lord. Peace be with you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Whilst in prison I have been considering many things with Luke, my faithful companion. We have been discussing the status of all that I have taught you and have written to you, those teachings that were passed on to me from the Lord, and from the other apostles. He has pointed out to me that the previous letters that I wrote to you have no canonical status as nothing has yet been decided concerning what is to be considered scripture in the future. Worse still the oral teaching I gave you has not even been written down, and so will never be considered as having any authority. I urge you therefore to pass on nothing of the things I wrote about or taught you by word of mouth. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]I hope this letter gets to you as I am having to send it via Diosthenus, who is very unreliable.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Peace be with you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Paul[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]P.S. Luke has just pointed out that this letter itself has no canonical standing and that therefore you should ignore what I write. On the other hand as I pointed out to Luke, if you do that you will persist in passing on what is not yet scriptural. Oh I give up.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]P.P.S Agibius, the prophet has just called in as we were discussing this and has prophesied that in 1500 years time a man called Martin Luther will sort everything out. I guess the Church will just have to muddle though until then.[/SIZE]

 

[epostle1]

[SIZE=medium]THE TIMES, [/SIZE]London

[SIZE=small]In a cache of recently discovered documents in [/SIZE][SIZE=small]Rome[/SIZE][SIZE=small], the following lost third letter of Paul to Timothy was discovered. It seems that it was never delivered to Timothy.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]Paul, apostle and prisoner of Christ Jesus to Timothy, dear son of mine in the Lord. Peace be with you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Whilst in prison I have been considering many things with Luke, my faithful companion. We have been discussing the status of all that I have taught you and have written to you, those teachings that were passed on to me from the Lord, and from the other apostles. He has pointed out to me that the previous letters that I wrote to you have no canonical status as nothing has yet been decided concerning what is to be considered scripture in the future. Worse still the oral teaching I gave you has not even been written down, and so will never be considered as having any authority. I urge you therefore to pass on nothing of the things I wrote about or taught you by word of mouth. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]I hope this letter gets to you as I am having to send it via Diosthenus, who is very unreliable.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Peace be with you.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=small]Paul[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]P.S. Luke has just pointed out that this letter itself has no canonical standing and that therefore you should ignore what I write. On the other hand as I pointed out to Luke, if you do that you will persist in passing on what is not yet scriptural. Oh I give up.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]P.P.S Agibius, the prophet has just called in as we were discussing this and has prophesied that in 1500 years time a man called Martin Luther will sort everything out. I guess the Church will just have to muddle though until then.[/SIZE]

 

[bbyrd009]

lol

 

[tom55]

We who are believers, who have the Bible and the Holy Spirit, who are the Church, decide what are the fundamentals of the faith. The rcc is not the Church. It is part of the Church. We decide based on the Scriptures.

There was no rcc in first century. You had the church at Rome, but that was not catholic.

I am part of the church just like every believer is part of the church. If a disagreement arises in the local church, then you take it before the leaders of that church.

Stranger

The Baptist and the Lutherens and the Methodist and Joes church in any town USA has the Bible and think they have the Holy Spirit guiding them. They ALL have different fundamentals of faith. So as you can logically see your theory does not work.

Who is this WE you speak of?? You and your friends sitting in your basement reading scripture believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding you??

You ONCE AGAIN dodged almost all of my questions. Why do you do that?

 

[tom55]

THE TIMES, London

In a cache of recently discovered documents in Rome, the following lost third letter of Paul to Timothy was discovered. It seems that it was never delivered to Timothy.

Paul, apostle and prisoner of Christ Jesus to Timothy, dear son of mine in the Lord. Peace be with you.
Whilst in prison I have been considering many things with Luke, my faithful companion. We have been discussing the status of all that I have taught you and have written to you, those teachings that were passed on to me from the Lord, and from the other apostles. He has pointed out to me that the previous letters that I wrote to you have no canonical status as nothing has yet been decided concerning what is to be considered scripture in the future. Worse still the oral teaching I gave you has not even been written down, and so will never be considered as having any authority. I urge you therefore to pass on nothing of the things I wrote about or taught you by word of mouth.
I hope this letter gets to you as I am having to send it via Diosthenus, who is very unreliable.
Peace be with you.
Paul

P.S. Luke has just pointed out that this letter itself has no canonical standing and that therefore you should ignore what I write. On the other hand as I pointed out to Luke, if you do that you will persist in passing on what is not yet scriptural. Oh I give up.

P.P.S Agibius, the prophet has just called in as we were discussing this and has prophesied that in 1500 years time a man called Martin Luther will sort everything out. I guess the Church will just have to muddle though until then.

LOL....Thank God for Martin Luther. The Church has been at peace since he arrived on scene. No division. Everyone holding hands singin Kumbaya' and agreeing on every aspect of doctrine. The church WAS SO DIVIDED before he came along. I wonder if he was assumed into heaven?

 

[Stranger]

The Baptist and the Lutherens and the Methodist and Joes church in any town USA has the Bible and think they have the Holy Spirit guiding them. They ALL have different fundamentals of faith. So as you can logically see your theory does not work.

Who is this WE you speak of?? You and your friends sitting in your basement reading scripture believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding you??

You ONCE AGAIN dodged almost all of my questions. Why do you do that?

The older denominations such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc, over all have become apostate just like the Roman Church is today. Believers however can separate themselves from these apostate groups and form another church. And you will find their fundamentals of the faith being very similar. And what difference there is, will usually be in Church govt. Or if there is difference in doctrine it will not be as such to affect ones salvation before God. It works very well, because the believers have the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

The 'we' are believers. Those born-again. If one is not born-again, he has not the Spirit of Christ, and is not a believer.

So you're saying me and others who meet, who are born-again, cannot trust the Holy Spirit to guide us?

I don't.

Stranger

 

[epostle1]

The older denominations such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc, over all have become apostate just like the Roman Church is today. Believers however can separate themselves from these apostate groups and form another church.

When did this alleged apostasy of he Catholic Church, a monumentous event, take place that no one noticed until the middle of a revolt? It has no historical foundation. It's propaganda unless you can come up with a date and verify it with scholarly documentation, which you can't. The Bible repeatedly says the Church is infallible and indefectable, so the claim of apostasy is going against the Bible.
And you will find their fundamentals of the faith being very similar.

Similar doesn't cut it. There is no unity. St. Paul condemned division. Just having the Bible and the Holy Spirit is not in the Bible. Every heretic in history thought the same thing.

And what difference there is, will usually be in Church govt. Or if there is difference in doctrine it will not be as such to affect ones salvation before God. It works very well, because the believers have the Bible and the Holy Spirit.The 'we' are believers. Those born-again. If one is not born-again, he has not the Spirit of Christ, and is not a believer.

Your definition of "born again" has no consistency, unless you mean "of water and the Spirit" according to Jesus' instructions, and I don't think that is what you mean. Even then you are divided in 5 major camps on baptism. You are making a dogmatic statement on who is born again and who isn't. And you have no way to tell. This is your own distinct theology.

So you're saying me and others who meet, who are born-again, cannot trust the Holy Spirit to guide us?

There are varying degrees of separation from the true historic Church, yet all within the Church. The CC is far more inclusive than you can imagine. You have no absolute guarantee of infallible teaching.

How do " non-denominationalists" such as yourself , which has its own distinct theology, and often boast that you are “separated from any denomination,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)???

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."
What is the expiration date of this verse? 1517???

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23).
How can the world see an invisible "unity" that exists only in the hearts of believers?

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.


Daniel B. Wallace
Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

 

[bbyrd009]

Church Gov't by anyone other than Christ is an oxymoron, imo.

LOL....Thank God for Martin Luther. The Church has been at peace since he arrived on scene. No division. Everyone holding hands singin Kumbaya' and agreeing on every aspect of doctrine. The church WAS SO DIVIDED before he came along. I wonder if he was assumed into heaven?

 

[tom55]

The older denominations such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc, over all have become apostate just like the Roman Church is today. Believers however can separate themselves from these apostate groups and form another church. And you will find their fundamentals of the faith being very similar. And what difference there is, will usually be in Church govt. Or if there is difference in doctrine it will not be as such to affect ones salvation before God. It works very well, because the believers have the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

The 'we' are believers. Those born-again. If one is not born-again, he has not the Spirit of Christ, and is not a believer.

So you're saying me and others who meet, who are born-again, cannot trust the Holy Spirit to guide us?

I don't.

Stranger

[SIZE=medium]Your theory makes no sense. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If one belongs to a denominational church they are apostate? If they meet in their basement, read the bible, feel like the Holy Spirit is guiding them then they are not apostate?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What if the people meeting in their basement, guided by the Holy Spirit, come up with the same doctrines and fundamentals as a denominational church? Are they then apostate??[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Born again? What does that mean? Are you talking about baptism (John 3:5)?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I am asking how do you KNOW you have the Holy Spirit guiding you? Every preacher who starts a bible study in his basement (Fred Phelps, David Koresh, Jim Jones) thinks they have the Holy Spirit guiding them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Do you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you just like it guided the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28)?[/SIZE]

 

[tom55]

Church Gov't by anyone other than Christ is an oxymoron, imo.

That depends on what YOUR definition of "Church Government" is.

Based on your anti-scriptural and non-factual and non-logical post in the past, I suspect your answer will be interesting.

Although I must admit, I have agreed with you on a few occasions.....

 

[Stranger]

[SIZE=medium]Your theory makes no sense. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If one belongs to a denominational church they are apostate? If they meet in their basement, read the bible, feel like the Holy Spirit is guiding them then they are not apostate?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]What if the people meeting in their basement, guided by the Holy Spirit, come up with the same doctrines and fundamentals as a denominational church? Are they then apostate??[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Born again? What does that mean? Are you talking about baptism (John 3:5)?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I am asking how do you KNOW you have the Holy Spirit guiding you? Every preacher who starts a bible study in his basement (Fred Phelps, David Koresh, Jim Jones) thinks they have the Holy Spirit guiding them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Do you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you just like it guided the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28)?[/SIZE]

Where did I say if one belongs to a denominational church they are apostate?

Where did I say that if believers 'feel' like the Holy Spirit is guiding them then they are not apostate?

You misrepresent what I have said.

If I have to explain to you what being 'born-again' means, that tells me all I need to know. See (John 3:10) as a start.

Why wouldn't it be the Holy Spirit that is guiding me? Scriptures tell me I as a believer have the Holy Spirit. Don't they? Please answer. A false teacher is not hard to spot when you know the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit will not lead you into contradiction of the Scriptures.

Plus, are you saying you are not aware of the 'spirit' that leads you? Are you saying you cannot make the distinction between a false or demonic spirit and the Holy Spirit in your life? Please answer,

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

m

 

[bbyrd009]

That depends on what YOUR definition of "Church Government" is.

Based on your anti-scriptural and non-factual and non-logical post in the past, I suspect your answer will be interesting.

Although I must admit, I have agreed with you on a few occasions.....

ah well i have a different definition of Church than you do, which does not necessarily include incorporated congregations whose borders are shrinking, etc, so for what it's worth, i don't mean the administration of a congregation, although that is essentially what everyone else means, i guess.

That's quite an attack there, in that middle line, Tom--too bad you can't back it up, huh?

 

[tom55]

ah well i have a different definition of Church than you do, which does not necessarily include incorporated congregations whose borders are shrinking, etc, so for what it's worth, i don't mean the administration of a congregation, although that is essentially what everyone else means, i guess.

That's quite an attack there, in that middle line, Tom--too bad you can't back it up, huh?

[SIZE=medium]I apologize. I should have said IN MY OPINION.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I did not mean it as an “attack”. :wub: [/SIZE]

 

[epostle1]

Where did I say if one belongs to a denominational church they are apostate?

Post #71: The older denominations such as Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc, over all have become apostate just like the Roman Church is today. Believers however can separate themselves from these apostate groups and form another church.

That is a dogmatic declaration.
Where in scripture does the Holy Spirit permit formation of churches apart from the historic Church Jesus founded? Chapter and verse, please. If you have no church authority, on what grounds do you determine apostasy? Does the Holy Spirit speak to individuals or the group? Where in the Bible is the Bible ever pitted against the Church? Chapter and verse, please.
Every "Bible alone" heretic in the world claimed to have the Holy Spirit.


The Holy Spirit will not lead you into contradiction of the Scriptures.

There is only one Holy Spirit, and one set of doctrines that has never changed. Development is not change.

Plus, are you saying you are not aware of the 'spirit' that leads you? Are you saying you cannot make the distinction between a false or demonic spirit and the Holy Spirit in your life? Please answer,

Demonic spirits don't concern us much, unless there is a possession, which is extremely rare. First they see a psychiatrist, then the priest. There is no sensationalism like the tv preachers.