Testimony

This is an absolute joke! The church founded by Christ has continued until today but it is not heretical persecuting Christian killing Rome. Like Saul before he was saved, Rome has been the persecuter of the true churches of God.

NONE of the tradition cited by Priscilla is found in the Bible but in the teachings of mystery babylonialism.

Everything about Rome's claim is circular reasoning. Rome has been the depository of demons and deception and false doctrine.

 

How could you be a Catholic for 38 years and not know of this highly critical section of the Catechism? Maybe if you had been better schooled in your faith you would not have been seduced away from your faith so easily.

 

Do you think the Catholic Church doesn't emphasize faith? Try these sections of the Catechism on.

 

I didn't say that I didn't know this section of the Catechism; I do know the Catechism. I refer to it often as I did during my journey out of Catholicism. (In fact, my copy of the Catechism is on my desk as I write this.) The Catechism, however, is not my authority. The Word of God is my authority.

Hebrews 4:12 says this:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I'm sure you have read Matthew, Chapter 4, where Jesus is tempted in the desert by Satan. In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responds to Satan:

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God''.

I assure you that I have spent many hours with both the Catechism and the Bible, and I do understand what Catholicism teaches. I was not "seduced" away from my faith. My faith is in Jesus Christ -- not Catholicism.

 

None of these verses contradicts the teaching role of the magisterium. While 1 John 2:27 appears to discourage teaching of men, it is really telling the reader not to listen to the deceivers among them. Good advice for then and now!

 

Not many people are going to buy into your strange application of Isaiah 8:20. The law spoken of here was the Torah. The testimony was extra-scriptural tradition. Just as today, people are to obey both Scripture and Tradition, the people of ancient Israel were instructed to pay attention to both scripture and Tradition. This is definitely not related in any way to the book of Revelation.

 

Thank you for your opinion. I will take it for what it's worth.

The office of apostle was not continuative. However, there is a concept called “apostolic succession” which is totally scriptural. It’s called ordination and, like it or not, scripture declares it to be sacramental—not using that word but stating very clearly the transmission of grace by the laying on of hands. 1 Timothy4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6. This practice was first done by the apostles. Later it was done to others by the men ordained by the apostles. Never will you find a man ordaining others who had not himself been ordained. This is apostolic succession.

 

Paul would not have bought into your theory that the eldership is answerable to the church. No one told Paul what to do except God. Paul also instilled this concept of apostolic authority into his disciples, Timothy and Titus. I don’t recall reading anywhere in scripture about a church calling out an elder or an apostle for error.

 

History would prove you wrong on this. The Catholic Church has existed since the 1st Century and only fundamentalist zealots would say otherwise. Newt Gingrich is a man whose intellect towers above most of us. About one or two years ago he converted to the Catholic Church and gave as his reason that the history of the Church dates back to apostolic times and no other church can make this claim. That is simply the truth, no matter how much it irritates fundamentalists and no matter how much they attempt to rationalize it and even deny it. I suppose time will tell if Newt really underwent a conversion.

 

"Every word that comes from the mouth of God" says nothing about scripture. Certainly it includes scripture but it also includes prophesy that didn't make it into scripture. I think it is quite likely that Jesus was speaking of Himself and His upcoming ministry when He uttered this statement. The "word of God" in Hebrews 4:12 has nothing to do with scripture. Look at the context. It is referring to the eternal Word, Jesus Christ.

 

You either don't read too well, or you don't understand what you are reading. I give you the benefit of the doubt and believe the latter instead of the former. These texts most certainly teach that God the Holy Spirit is the teacher of the believer and the scriptures are His text book. It does not teach the slavery of souls by Rome.

 

Strange??? This is a Messanic context and it is quoted at least six times in the New Testament and several times by Christ. Isaiah 8:18 is explicitly applied to the apostles in Hebrews 2:3-4,12. What is strange, is your view as it has absolutely no basis whatsoever. Isaiah 8:20 applies to SCRIPTURE, then, during the apostolic period and now. The "testimony" is Messanic in context and is precisely what Jesus told the early church in Acts 1:8 - "ye shall be witnesses unto me" and it is precisely the finalization of scripture canon sealed and delivered by Christ to the last living apostle "the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 1:3) completed and sealed (Rev. 22:18-19).

Strange?? No, it is the Roman whore that is the stranger to Scripture and proves it by her vulger abominations.

 

God the Holy Spirit is our companion, our comforter, even our conscience. Our teacher? I think not and those verses don't teach it. I stand on what I said and will leave you to fantasize over scripture. Rome does not enslave souls. Rome liberates souls to serve their living Lord.

 

The theory is self-contradictive. First you say "the office of apostle was not continuative" and you have to say because the Biblical qualifications restrict it to eyewitnesses (Acts 1:22-23) and Paul says he was the "last" (eschatos) (I Cor. 15:8) and that term "eschatos" is used three times in this chapter and it refers in each case to the "last" with none to follow.

Second, you contradict the first admission by saying it is continuative by "ordination" and "laying on of hands"!!! Hence, you invalidate the Biblical qualifications in Acts 1:22-23 and repudiate Paul as the "last" in I Cor. 15:8. Pastor's and deacons are ordained and yet they are not apostles in succession!!! The old Whore simply perverts the scriptures and twists them to please her abominations.

 

I stand corrected - you can't read or understand what you read:

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

 

Oh, but Peter would because he got called in on the red carpet for his action by just ordinary church members (Acts 11:1-2) and felt he had to give a defense for himself. Oh, Paul would too, because it was the church that determined he should go to Jerusalem in Acts 15:2-3.

Jesus would certainly agree with me as well as when he was talking to his disciples which included the apostles he told them that the final tribunal in the use of the keys was not apostles or elders or a pope or some governing body but "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17-18).

Not only is the antichrist pope a usurper of Christ but Rome is a usurper of Christ's authority given to his churches.

 

There is not on scrap of history to prove there was any kind of a pope between first and sixth century. Several churches within the apostate group later called Roman Catholic churches had bishops who all claimed the title of papa before the sixth century.

Newt Gingrich is not the final authority for truth - the scriptures are (Isa. 8:20).

The truth is that Rome is the predicted apostasy by the apostles (1 Tim. 4:1-5) and the pope is "A" antichrist. There is nothing in the first two centuries that identifies with much of anything that characterizes Roman Catholicism.

The truth is that the true churches of Christ were called "anabaptists" by the old whore and became the objects of distortion, false charges, and hatred by Rome.

 

DW: Honest question. Are you a Landmark Baptist?

 

I don't like to be classified by non-Biblical terms. I believe that the churches found in the New Testament reproduce after their own kind through the principles given them in the Great Commission and will until Jesus comes again.

There are absolute essentials for any person to be recognized as a New Testament Christian. There are also absolute essentials for two or more Christians to be recognized as a New Testament church and those essentials are found in the Great Commission passage of Matthew 28:19-20.

1. The right gospel - the same gospel Jesus preached (Jn. 3:16) and commissioned.

2. The right baptism - the same baptism Jesus submitted to and commissioned (Mt. 3:15-17; Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30)

3. The right faith and practice - the faith once delivered - the apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:42; Jude 3; 2 Thes. 3:6).

4. The right authority - The plural great commission "ye" assembled body of baptized believers of like faith and order (Mt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:15-23; 2:1,41-42,47).

 

I believe the above and I am not a Landmark Baptist.

I know of some Landmark Baptist Churches.
Some of them are secessionists. You must come from a "true" Baptist church that came from a "true" Baptist church, that came from a "true" Baptist church, etc. right back to the Apostles.
I was not permitted to speak in a church once because I was not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist who was Baptized by a Baptist who was Baptized by a Baptized by a Baptist etc. right back to John the Baptist.
Only the "true" Baptists will be part of the bride of Christ.

I don't believe the above, and I doubt if Dr. Walters does either. These beliefs are often characteristic of Landmark Baptist Churches.