Sola Scriptura

So this site is your authority for what you call "facts"?

 

It's an authority I believe you will accept as an Anabaptist, as you appear to be selective in what authorities you will accept. Have you actually read it? What authorities will you accept?

 

The Scriptures are the only authority I accept for doctrine. I don't accept the historical perspective of those who are unbiblical in their perspective of Christianity, especially in their interpretative reporting of those whom they deem as heretics from their perspective. Such reporting reminds me of the liberal news media - can't trust it and for reasons that are obvious to any objective investigator.

 

I'm still waiting for thr verse by Jesus that tell us that He gave your church founder the "authority" to start another church totally different from His Church.

 

That very question assumes that the church Jesus originated is not the same in kind that I already belong to. Sorry, but I deny your assumption. I belong to the same in kind that Jesus founded.

 

If ,as you say, "the same kind of church as Jesus founde", then you must be able to show that your church stems from Apostolic Teaching Tradition as in Luke 10: 16. Can you ????
Here are just a few of the many differences from your "man-made " church compared to the Church that Jesus left for "all" of us.
Your Protestant church has virtually ceased to regard marriage as a sacrament, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Holy Bible [ Matt. 19;4-5; 1 Cor. 7: 14, 39; Eph. 5: 25-33 ]
Your church has abolished the priesthood [ Matt. 18 v 18 and the sacrament of ordination , contrary to Christian Tradition and the Holy Bible [ Acts 6 v 6; 14 v 22; 1 Tim. 4: 14; 2 Tim. 1 V 6 ] Yet you continue to "ordain' ministers with ordination contrary to biblical ordination.

Your Protestant church doesn't contain "the whole of Jesus' Teaching" or Christianity , as many Protestants believe [ Mk. 4:33; 6:34; Lk. 24: 15-16, 25-27; Jn. 16:12; 20:30; 21:25; Acts 1: 2-3].

Your church founded from the 16th century doesn't contain the same Doctrine that was given to Christ's Apostolic Church back then [ Romans 16: 17-18 and 1 Cor. 1 v 10 ].
I would have to agree with the Holy Bible and agree that all verses describe your church totally foreign from that Apostolic Church that Jesus founded.Did I missed a verse that describes your church as being "apostolic" ????

 

Your question is founded upon a myriad of false assumptions.

1. That secular history is a reliable witness - (a) It is not inspired and therefore subject to revisionist bias, errors, limited perspectives; distortion; slanders; false misrepresentations; contradictions; (b) It is incomplete and selective;

2. That Romanan Catholicism is the standard of orthodoxy when in fact the Scriptures are the only standard of orthodoxy (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:15-16) which expose and condemn Roman Catholocism as apostate Christianity

3. That oral apostolic tradition was not superseded by Apostoic Scriptures (2 Pet. 1:19-21) when in fact the EFC traditions are a collection of confusion and records of apostate Christianity.

There is not even enough sufficient History to prove that Rome had any previous origin than the 4th century as there was no STATE CHURCH prior to the fourth century but that is exactly what Roman Catholocism has been and still is.

I refuse to accept the slanderous records of Rome concerning those she deemed as "heretics" as that was her modus operandi to justifiy SECULAR persecution against those that opposed her.

New Testament Congregations are the same in kind to what we find as examples in the New Testament and letter to the Romans proves the modern Roman Catholic Church has no similiarty to the church at Rome in the apostolic period.

 

Two points in response:

1. We are at the moment talking about church history (Donatists & Anabaptists, remember?). You clearly don't just accept the Scriptures as what you call 'authoritative' there, since you have already referred me to non-Scriptural secondary (at best) literature in support of your contention that these two groups are congruent or at least similar in nature, viz the Landmarkist revisionist books cited by you. I am somewhat bemused as to why to seem to accept their testimony but not that from other sources whilst in almost the same breath claiming that Scripture is your only trusted source.

2. At no point does Scripture make the claim for itself which you are arrogating to it.

 

I accept only the Scriptures as final authority on doctrine, including the doctrine of the church. I believe the scriptures clearly teach that through the Great Commission Christ will reproduce "disciples" after their own kind "all the days until the end of the age" (more literal translation). Hence, I believe that in every generation from the first generation there have been "disciples" of Christ that are like faith and order with Christ in the same gospel, same baptism that habitually congregate together in order to observe all things whatseover Christ has commanded.

I also believe in the prophetic future of New Testament Christianity as set forth in the Scriptures. The prophetic outlook of Post apostolic Christianity is that apostate Christianity (Mt. 13 parable of the tares) will increase while the true congregations will decrease in so much that Christ asks rhetorically if when he comes he shall even find "the faith" (Lk. 18:8). There will be a great apostasy that will increasingly grow larger until in the final days it will manifest itself in a great miracles, signs and wonders movement (2 Thes. 2:3-12). That the true Congregations of Christ will be slandered and killed all in the name of God. Thus I interpret so-called "Church History" through these biblical lenses. The STATE CHURCH Rome is the beginning of this great apostasy as there was no such thing as a STATE CHURCH prior to the fourth century and she is the mother of all other STATE CHURCH denominations.

Now, you most likely do not agree with me but do you at least understand and see my perspective? Hence, I do not accept secular church history as valid. I look through its pages identifying the great apostate form and increasing rise and size of it and then regard those that were regarded as "heretics" by her as containing the remnant of New Testament Christianity. I totally disrgard her claims as tainted by slander in order to make them subject of her secular arm. I regard her testimonies as lies, revisionism, based upon the authority of prophetic scriptures as my only source of authority.

nothing could be more false. Apostolic oral traditions were not designed to continue as the source of apostolic teaching but were to be superseded by apostolic inspired writings (2 Pet. 1:15-19) as apostolic scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-17) were "more sure." The only Apostolic teaching that was set apart by God by "inspiration" for the purpose of doctrine, teaching, correction, instruction and reproof so that the man of God could be thoroughly, completely be equipped for every facet of ministry were the Scriptures.

Even common sense demands that oral traditions had been and would be entirely corrupted. That was the case with the "traditions of the elders" currently among the Jews at the arrival of Christ and the Apostles. That is the condition of the so-called "Father's" (Ante, Nicene, Post-nicen). All you have to do to prove this is attempt to pass down an oral tradition from one person to another in a line of individuals and when you reach the end you will find another story being stated that is full of holes and errors.

 

No it doesn't, and you know better than that. Daniel was primarily written in Hebrew. He wrote a portion of it in Aramaic under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for it was directed to the Gentile people, or was speaking of God's plan for the Gentile people. This is a few verses or chapters (in comparison to the rest of the Old Testament less than 1%), in the OT. The rest is written in Hebrew. The fact is that the Hebrews would not allow any Scripture into their canon after 400 A.D., nor would they allow any Scripture that was not written in Hebrew, their sacred language. If you study OT Introduction books you will find that most of them consistently agree on these same facts.

 

And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)
--This was the Apostle Paul. He had never been to Rome, not before his missionary journeys, and not before his epistle. He went there as a prisoner, to die. Before that he completed three missionary journeys in which he established about 100 different local churches, all independent one from the other, and none of them related to Rome. The church you belong to has no authority at all. It has no foundation.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 3:11)
--You don't claim Christ for its foundation; you claim Peter. It's built on a false foundation. It isn't a church at all. It is apostate. It teaches false doctrine.

 

It's really very simple: was the OT written wholly in Hebrew or not?

[ETA - to The Biblicist - I prefer to rely on history rather than fables invented to suit a particular group's ideology]

 

What point does it make whether it was written in two or ten languages? Does that make it less inspired? Less authoritative of what God's revealed will is in any given matter it addresses?

Not to respond tit for tat, but let's be clear here. What you define as "history" I define as a collection of uninspired personal perspectives collected chiefly by Rome. What you define as "fables invented to suit a particular group's ideology" I define as interpretations of "a collection of uninspired personal perspectives collected cheifly by Rome" in keeping with inspired scriptures.

So, we simply have different intepretative approaches to uninspired sources.

 

It is the inspired Word of God, and we accept it as such.

That aside, here is an article of interest:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-marks-400th-anniversary-king-james-223241537.html

 

That sort of thing is one of the few things we still do reasonably well in this country.

It doesn't matter to me particularly; it seems to matter to DHK for some reason.

But the bizarre thing about this theory - and where it falls down IMO -is that at no point did the nascent Catholic or Orthodox Church, or indeed anyone else for that matter, attribute to the Donatists the 'errors' (from the Catholic perspective) that they would later attribute to Anabaptists eg: congregational government, believer's baptism etc. I find that rather odd. The Catholic side is keen to stress where they believed the Donatists to be in error ie: not regarding as valid ordinations and consecrations by bishops who had given way under persecution (which indicates that the Donatists were episcopal rather than congregational in their ecclesiology); the Catholic side are quite open about that but make no mention of Anabaptist practices - surely if such practices existed, they would have mentioned them also as being 'errors'; indeed, if 'Rome' was and is as bad as you claim, surely they would have mentioned any Anabaptist traits as a method of further blackening the Donatists' name (eg: "even worse than being schismatics, they don't even have bishops!") But they don't, which leads me to the reasonable conclusion that Donatists and Anabaptists don't really have a great deal in common...

 

The problem is that the Donatists did have any opportunity to express what they did or did not beleive. It is their enemy that represents what they did or did not believe - Augustine. Hence, the whole source is questionable.

 

GE:

Exactly! Despite them, hey?! Yes, their iniquities regardless!

The Holy Scriptures do not require holy men for their holiness. It needs a Holy God to keep them the Holy Scriptures vis-a-vis the devil and his cohorts.

 

Gerhard, very simply; you are so wrong ; God very much differs with you and your family of religious cohorts, here is why ; "For not by will of man was prophesy brought at any time ; but "HOLY MEN " of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit " [ 2nd Peter 1 v 21 ]

Show me one verse that proves that the man/woman founder of your church can trace its religious lineage back down through Apostolic succession? Your other Protestant pal couldn't provide it , he gave a bunch of written malarky to try and convince without any biblical proof. How about you?


God moved these men to write down the things He ordered, although He allowed them to write in their own language and style. " For I give you to understand , brethren , that the gospel which was preached by me is not mine. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it: but received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ" [ Galatians 1: 11-12 ]

Nobody else but the Bishops of Christ's Apostolic/Catholic Church gave us the Canonical List of Books .

 

Neither can Rome! There is no STATE CHURCH in the apostolic age! There is no STATE CHURCH in the first three centuries. The STATE CHURCH is an APOSTATE DENOMINATION that originated in Rome during the fourth century.

I challenge you to find any STATE CHURCH established by the Apostles!!! Indeed such a UNION between secular government and CHURCH is the cheif characteristic of the GREAT WHORE not the apostolic congregations.

 

Biblicist, I'm not going to let you try and wiggle out of my question; and that is : Show me any verse or verses where Jeusus gave your founder "Authority" to start a church different than His??
And show me a verse that proves that your church is of apostolic origin as Christ's Apostolic Church is ???
To answer your question about the Catholic Church being a state Church that I would like you to understand that when Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king, Jesus replied that his kingdom was not of this world (Jn 18:36). When Jesus was asked, "Is it lawful to pay the tax to Caesar? ," notice what Jesus does in response. He asks whose image and inscription are on the coin. They say "Caesar’s." "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s," he tells them (that’s the yes to the state) "but give to God what is God’s" (that’s the no; see Mt 17:24-27, 22:17-21). In other words there’s something higher here. There’s a duty to be given. Now, from where does that duty flow? Think of what he said. The coin belongs to Caesar because it bears the image of Caesar, so give it to him. But "give to God what belongs to God." That belongs to God which bears the image of God, namely human beings—including Caesar himself! So Christ establishes the framework. Caesar himself belongs to God. The state itself belongs to God.The Catholic/Apostolic Church belongs to God, being that He is the Founder.