How To Idenify FALSE Teachers!

[smaller]

Then arn't you saying in effect that the scripture is the final source of authority? Many use scripture but not properly divide it "rightly" as Paul said must be done. Even Satan used scripture, but out of context, not "rightly dividing" it.

Again I ask, if the scripture is not the rule, then what is?

Technically speaking, Roman Catholic and Eastern and other Orthodox non-ordained lay people are not to be out teaching the positions of their churches as they are not authorized to do so, officially. Not saying they don't, obviously, but they are not doing so from 'any' official position authorized by their respective seats of authority.

The Roman Catholic Position on ownership of the scriptures is stated here, cited from their 'New Advent' publicly disseminated information, which is their 'official' statement regarding who 'they' allow to use the scriptures.

"Chapter 15. Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed)—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege."

And also a prohibition for non-ordained RCC laity to engage in defense of RCC doctrines/teachings in public forums with heretics (anyone who disagrees with them knowingly : )

"When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, "de haereticis"). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics."

I might only observe consequently that any such unofficial teachers of the above mentioned orthodoxy are engaging in matters perhaps beyond where they are supposed to be or what they are allowed to do.

In their respective units they, the 'official clergy body' do believe they have 'exclusive rights' for both all scripture and all official teachings derived thereof.

The laity (non-official) body are technically relegated to the role of 'receivers and have an accessory role' only to the officials and what 'they' dispense to same.

?

s

 

[Cassian]

Then arn't you saying in effect that the scripture is the final source of authority? Many use scripture but not properly divide it "rightly" as Paul said must be done. Even Satan used scripture, but out of context, not "rightly dividing" it.

Again I ask, if the scripture is not the rule, then what is?

They used scripture, but scripture as it meant, or what the Church was taught from the Holy Tradition that the Apostles gave before any letters or Gospels were written. Scripture has meaning within Holy Tradition. Scripture also is not the final source of authority.

I Tim 1:15 states that the House of God, the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth. The Revelation of God to the Apostles was given to the Church, it was entrusted to the Church, not man, nor even a group of men. It is the Holy Spirit who resides within the Body of Christ that ensures, guards and preserves God's revelation to man. Christ is the ultimate authority as Head of the Church.

The text of II Tim 2:15 presumes one knows what scripture means. Rightly dividing means to teach it correctly. It does not mean to determine what it means. Although that is what historically sola scripturists have done, divided scripture into thousands of differing doctrines, theories and ideas.

 

[Elijah674]

The first false teaching one, is seen calling God a LIAR in Gen. 3

[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

And this was even before the plan of salvation was needed or 'offered' to Adam & Eve.
And satan's lie has been taught for truth from that day forward as Eccl. 3:15 documents. (+ much more!)

--Elijah

 

[Webb]

Cassian wrote: "Scripture also is not the final source of authority."

Of course it is. It isn't the church for the passage you cited, I Tim.4:15 ( not 1.15 ) does not say the church is the source of truth, its the "pillar and ground of the truth". There is a difference.

 

[Cassian]

Cassian wrote: "Scripture also is not the final source of authority."

Of course it is. It isn't the church for the passage you cited, I Tim.4:15 ( not 1.15 ) does not say the church is the source of truth, its the "pillar and ground of the truth". There is a difference.

the correct text is I Tim 3:15.

 

[Webb]

Right!

 

[Elijah674]

This was just posted by me on another site, and is per/subject here as well. Remember names are inmaterial, for who even knows who Elijah674 is??
_____________________


[FONT=Verdana,arial]blinddog438 wrote: [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial]Believers are saved Because Jesus said so Himself.How can you possibly believe that Oneness Pentecostals have the only way?It only started in 1906 so your Denomination isnt that old really.No I wont argue with you or anyone else as the LORD doesnt want that.I realize you love to argue over the Word but find someone else.When Ive had my say thats the end of it period.Vaya Con Dios....[/FONT]

Well, Ren has more to accurately see 'in Obedience' which follow's TRUE BELIEF IN CHRIST. To be [IN CHRIST] (Rom. 8:1) must find 'Eternal Required' OBEDIENCE WITH A STARTING POINT!!! 1/2 'g'ospel of what we are seeing today of 'only belief' is NO GOSPEL at all! (such as seen in Matt. 4:6 with satan 'also' quoting 'some' scripture) From the Mankind starting point Eternal Life remains WORKING TOGETHER WITH CHRIST AND IS CONDITIONAL! Phil. 4:13 + 2 Cor. 4:12

And Ren has this part right. Where she & my convictions hugely differ is the OBEDIENCE REQUIREMENT that TRUE FAITH IN CHRIST LEADS TO! (James 2:10) One MUST MATURE! Nah. 1:9 That was why Adam + Eve were having the tree of testing in the Garden in the first place. They were created PERFECT, yet were NOT, NOR COULD NOT BE CREATED [[[MATURELY PERFECT]]] and still be as God REQUIRES, that of FREE IN OBEDIENCE TO HIM! (Tex. does not know that they were as babies!

)

--Elijah

PS: ????? This will most likely not help most, but Adam & Eve were said to be very GOOD (PERFECT) unless you think that God has anything faulty created?
So?? why have the forbidden TREE + satan allowed right there in the midst of the Garden of Eden? Surely even Tex's 10 yr. old son could tell her that God's creation are seen to have FREEDOM OF 'BRAINS'!! Complete TOTAL [[LIBERTY]] of free choice to MATURE one way or the other!

 

[smaller]

--Elijah

PS: ????? This will most likely not help most, but Adam & Eve were said to be very GOOD (PERFECT) unless you think that God has anything faulty created?
So?? why have the forbidden TREE + satan allowed right there in the midst of the Garden of Eden? Surely even Tex's 10 yr. old son could tell her that God's creation are seen to have FREEDOM OF 'BRAINS'!! Complete TOTAL [[LIBERTY]] of free choice to MATURE one way or the other!

Though Adam was Gods son he was far from perfect due to the conditions of his planting which was, in effect, in a wet compilation of DUST.

Scripture tells us clearly what Adam's planting conditions were:

1 Cor. 15:
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy;

Adam was no exception. Perfect? lol. Brainpower you claim? Apply same to reading plain statements. None of those factual conditions for Adam changed by any application of brainpower OR obedience/disobedience.

The facts of his planting showed their reality in the Garden.
s

 

[empathologicalism]

If they sell The Personal Jesus (TM) instead of the real Jesus

 

[Elijah674]

The First verse here gives the answer for ones [FREE/WILL] decision!

[21] And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

[22] Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

[23] Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:
[24] And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

[25] And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.
[26] And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.

[27] And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

[28] And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

[29] And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

[30] And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.
[31] And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:
[32] And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.

[33] And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.
[34] And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.
[35] And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

[36] And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.

[37] Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.
[38] Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

[39] And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.
[40] And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

[41] And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up, eat and drink; for there is a sound of abundance of rain.

--Elijah

 

[smaller]

The First verse here gives the answer for ones [FREE/WILL] decision!

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There is no choice for these. They can not hear and there is nothing anyone but God can do about it, period.

God Alone opens spiritual understandings.

s

 

[Cassian]

So, by the lack of any answer to what constitutes a test for false teaching, I presume there is no test. Its more like the lottery, you take your best shot with your own interpretation and it becomes your verification of truth?

 

[smaller]

So, by the lack of any answer to what constitutes a test for false teaching, I presume there is no test. Its more like the lottery, you take your best shot with your own interpretation and it becomes your verification of truth?

We 'all' see categorically only 'in part' so there is technically short sightedness in each and all.

I am not inclined as some determinists to take the hard line. Their position also contains several flaws and errors.

For example, one can claim God Sovereign, but when the determinations of men become The Sovereign Determinations they step on their own foot into a logical fallacy.

The same can be said of 'infallibility.' No man or conglomeration of faithful men, factually seeing only in part can be infallible.

s

 

[Cassian]

We 'all' see categorically only 'in part' so there is technically short sightedness in each and all.

I am not inclined as some determinists to take the hard line. Their position also contains several flaws and errors.

For example, one can claim God Sovereign, but when the determinations of men become The Sovereign Determinations they step on their own foot into a logical fallacy.

The same can be said of 'infallibility.' No man or conglomeration of faithful men, factually seeing only in part can be infallible.

s

So that some might be in error or everyone only sees in part is the standard, thus you are agreeing that there is no actual test for false teachings of scripture.

 

[smaller]

So that some might be in error or everyone only sees in part is the standard, thus you are agreeing that there is no actual test for false teachings of scripture.

Of course there are. Early church fathers dealt with many false teachings and derived some fairly good standards imho.

Today most legitimate christian sects adhere to those general determinations. The Nicene Creed being an excellent example.

But even men of faith will continue to divide on as little as four words or even the pronunciation of a single word, which serves to show all of us our own fallibility.

s

 

[Brightmorningstar]

The NT actually tells us that false teachers teach stuff that is contrary to what the NT says.
This is not interpretation or disputable matters.

So for example women in leadership, whilst potentially important, is a disputable matter because scripture can be provided to support both views.
Blessing homosexual relations would be a clear example of false teaching as there is not scripture to support it and scripture actually excludes and specifically condemns it.
It is also an issue that affects salvation. Indeed, 2 Peter 2 says false teachers introduce heresies, lgbt would be a good example.

 

[Cassian]

Of course there are. Early church fathers dealt with many false teachings and derived some fairly good standards imho.

Today most legitimate christian sects adhere to those general determinations. The Nicene Creed being an excellent example.

But even men of faith will continue to divide on as little as four words or even the pronunciation of a single word, which serves to show all of us our own fallibility.

s

The Church Fathers as individuals never dealt with false teachings. It was the Church, consisting of every believer, that dealt with false teachings. As I stated many posts ago, they used the "rule of faith" which is, That which was given in the beginning, believed by all, everywhere is the Gospel. Anything else is false.

Your second paragraph deals with the principle of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of a text where we get all the differing interpretations.

For those, what is the test that one can use to determine false from Truth?

 

[smaller]

The Church Fathers as individuals never dealt with false teachings.

Sure they did. The compilation of the Canon began in response to Marcionism, false teachings and heresies largely revolving around the O.T. not being relevant to N.T. believers and that Jesus was not God Incarnate as a man. The first official list of accepted N.T. texts was the Muratorian Canon, but many of the earlier Bishops already had many of the texts already in place and were being used. They gradually formalized the compilations.

It was the Church, consisting of every believer, that dealt with false teachings.

Uh, no. That particular undertaking was largely of the Bishops in place at the time. This also paved the way for further official doctrinal positions, clarifications and the denouncement of numerous forms of heresy which denouncements extended even from the first Apostles.

As I stated many posts ago, they used the "rule of faith" which is, That which was given in the beginning, believed by all, everywhere is the Gospel. Anything else is false.

So traditionalists claim. That claim is obviously refuted by 'always and everwhere' having disintegrated quite long ago with at least 3 major sets of orthodoxy making claims to the same 'one true church.' E.O., RCC, and OO, none of them agreeing of course.

Your second paragraph deals with the principle of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of a text where we get all the differing interpretations.

Most sola adherents accept many of the early determinations as in the Nicene Creed for example.

For those, what is the test that one can use to determine false from Truth?

Tradition has it's issues. For example, as a non official church 'teaching' member it is unlikely they even allow you to discuss such matters. In the RCC the official role of the laity is as a secondary receiving member with rights of access to the teachings and dispensings of the sacraments of and by the official body. They, the RCC also claims the ownership and sole rights and uses of scripture and all determinations, period and only by their official body.

They allow none of their [laity] members to perform any official teachings and even praying in public may be considered marginal if it's not an official prayer allowed to be used by laity, as these functions are reserved only to their official class of adherents who are trained to do so.

It is also strictly forbidden for [all laity] secondary receiving accessories who only have access rights to the official members and the determinations/positions/functions they the officials alone make/made/teach/dispense to defend RCC doctrines or teachings in public forums with heretics, heretics being for example, anyone who disagrees with papal authority. (Mark me as an RCC heretic.)

One is a heretic by being in knowing disagreement with any determination of Trent, and is so by the fact of the fact, no official ruling required. It's automatic heresy. They allow outsiders/non members to use the scriptures only to come to their sole determinations. Heretics are forbidden to use or even cite scriptures.

So maybe you are out of your league?

s

 

[Cassian]

smaller,

The compilation of the Canon began in response to Marcionism, false teachings and heresies largely revolving around the O.T. not being relevant to N.T. believers and that Jesus was not God Incarnate as a man. The first official list of accepted N.T. texts was the Muratorian Canon, but many of the earlier Bishops already had many of the texts already in place and were being used. They gradually formalized the compilations.

They were working within the Church not as individual men. They did not of themselves rule against false teachings officially. It was the Church that did this, and it was the Church that determined the Canon.

It was the Church, consisting of every believer, that dealt with false teachings.
YOur response.....
Uh, no. That particular undertaking was largely of the Bishops in place at the time. This also paved the way for further official doctrinal positions, clarifications and the denouncement of numerous forms of heresy which denouncements extended even from the first Apostles.

the bishops representing the churches would meet, but it was the Body that approved by consensus. Ecumencial Councils were never Ecumenical simply because they met, but that the canons of those councils were accepted by the Body which is why at every succeeding Council the former Council's findings were approved.

There were some councils overturned by the Body.

So traditionalists claim. That claim is obviously refuted by 'always and everwhere' having disintegrated quite long ago with at least 3 major sets of orthodoxy making claims to the same 'one true church.' E.O., RCC, and OO, none of them agreeing of course.

It is still very valid today and has worked for 2000 years.

That schisms have occured does not effect the Body as a Body. If a leg is amputated, the Body still exists. It does not take much research in historical record to find that ONE True Church that has been continuous from the beginning. I might also add that the OO for all purposes have rejoined the Orthodox Church and it is just a matter of formality and organizational adjustment that remains. ONLy the RCC still remains outside of the ONE True Church and have consistantly moved further away from their roots over the last 1000 years.

Your second paragraph deals with the principle of sola scriptura and individual interpretation of a text where we get all the differing interpretations.

Your response.....

Most sola adherents accept many of the early determinations as in the Nicene Creed for example.

They may in word, but then I see many changing the meaning of the Nicene Creed to fit their particular interpretations, just like they do scripture. NOt a single protestant adheres to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. YOu will always find notations of their reinterpretations of those words. There are many, theologically do not accept the salvfic content and purpose of the Incarnation. Roman Catholics have changed the meaning of the Trinity with the addition of the filioque clause which is what is stated by all protestants as well. The definition of the Church is Trinitarian which no protestant accepts either.

Tradition has it's issues. For example, as a non official church 'teaching' member it is unlikely they even allow you to discuss such matters. In the RCC the official role of the laity is as a secondary receiving member with rights of access to the teachings and dispensings of the sacraments of and by the official body. They, the RCC also claims the ownership and sole rights and uses of scripture and all determinations, period and only by their official body.

but that is RCC, and does not apply to the Orthodox, the Church from which they split.

However, for the Orthodox, the Body is what is considered infallible. The Body of Christ, whose Head is Christ, is animated by the Holy Spirit. Man has never had authority over Christ's Church, or His Gospel. It is the Body that confirms Truth, not man either individually or as a group such as a Magisterium. Man can teach the Gospel, but cannot interpret it since he does not possess that authority. One needs to know what the Gospel means before one can rightly divide(teach) it. That is one of the functions of the Church, to teach that Gospel. It is not a function of man to determine what a bare text might mean for him. There is nothing in scripture that gives man that authority.

By definition a person is a heretic when he teaches against a particular group, or set of ideas of which he is a member. In other words, speaking against the RCC does not make you a heretic unless you are RCC. Same for the Orhtodox or any other Church or group.

This poses a problem for a sola scripturists because He is the arbiter of his own truth and can be the only one of that truth, thus will never have a heretic of that view. Even if one uses scripture as the common unit, he must then proclaim that all who have a different view than his is a heretic of his view. Which is why we get thousands of interpretations and no one can declare any of them heretical since all are based on the same common unit, scripture.

All a sola scripturists can do is state his view and must accept all other views as equal and valid. If one sola scripturists declares another a heretic based on his view, then so can the other sola scipturists do the same. Opinions of scripture cannot be refuted or ever be heretical since they are all equal and valid.

Thus the problem for the protestant milieu, there is no test for false teachings against the common unit, scripture. There can be no false teachings, except on an individual basis. Which is essentially what is manifest in all the thousands of private interpretations, theories, relative to scripture.

If a person disagrees with another's private personal interpretions, all you need to do is create your own teaching as truth. Man becomes his own authoritative, private arbiter, and determiner of truth for himself.

What has resulted in the protestant milieu is a myriad of interpretations, all of equal validity but none that are actually the Truth of scripture.

 

[smaller]

smaller,

but the point is that individual men did not of themselves rule against false teachings officially. It was the Church that did this, and it was the Church that determined the Canon.

Will stand by the bishop determination methods. These things were not left to the untrained masses.

the bishops representing the churches would meet, but it was the Body that approved by consensus. Ecumencial Councils were never Ecumenical simply because they met, but that the canons of those councils were accepted by the Body which is why at every succeeding Council the former Council's findings were approved.

Uh, no. The determinations were made by the Bishops and that what was delivered to the balance. It didn't come from a bottom up methodology.

There were some councils overturned by the Body.
It is still very valid today and has worked for 2000 years.

Then I'm guessing you have an EO or OO slant on these matters. The EO votes in their clergy, locally. The RCC certainly doesn't operate that way. Chalk up another differential for traditions.

That schisms have occured does not effect the Body as a Body. If a leg is amputated, the Body still exists. It does not take much research in historical record to find that ONE True Church that has been continuous from the beginning. I might also add that the OO for all purposes have rejoined the Orthodox Church and it is just a matter of formality and organizational adjustment that remains. ONLy the RCC still remains outside of the ONE True Church and have consistantly moved further away from their roots over the last 1000 years.

Yeah, whatever. They can all chase their self subscribed 'one true church' X 3 authoritarian tails for another few hundred years as far as I'm concerned. They will never get it worked out until they all bow to the pope and we know that is very unlikely to happen.

They may in word, but then I see many changing the meaning of the Nicene Creed to fit their particular interpretations, just like they do scripture. NOt a single protestant adheres to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Well, I have the pleasure of seeing my fellow believers as saved regardless of EO, RCC or OO traditions.

You are welcome to see otherwise as your group imposes upon you.

YOu will always find notations of their reinterpretations of those words. There are many, theologically do not accept the salvfic content and purpose of the Incarnation. Roman Catholics have changed the meaning of the Trinity with the addition of the filioque clause which is what is stated by all protestants as well. The definition of the Church is Trinitarian which no protestant accepts either.

Oh please. Who are you kidding? There is a super abundance of various reflections within each of the units as well. The matter of the 4 words is only the beginning of a mountain that will never be climbed until they all get off their high horses.

If you think it expedient to condemn other believers to possibly burn alive forever over the dispute on 4 words I'd suggest a severe form of spiritual myopia is upon such.

but that is RCC, and does not apply to the Orthodox, the Church from which they split.

My understanding is that non-teaching body EO and OO members are in pretty much the same shape as the RCC laity, though there may be some difference in terms, such as in the EO all members are laity but some are teaching members.

The differential in what they allow non-teaching membership to do is pretty similar to the RCC. The non teaching/ministerial body members are relegated to a receiver accessory role and assuredly not an 'official' teaching role. Such members are outside where their own group says they belong.

However, for the Orthodox, the Body is what is considered infallible. The Body of Christ, whose Head is Christ, is animated by the Holy Spirit. Man has never had authority over Christ's Church, or His Gospel.

Yes, I understand the various religious fantasies that are deployed to justify the structures of the authorities. Just as I understand the baptism of infants is what prompted some early church splits.

It is the Body that confirms Truth, not man either individually or as a group such as a Magisterium. Man can teach the Gospel, but cannot interpret it

Look, orthodoxy in all it's forms is all 'self' defined and 'self' authorized and subject to no scrutiny but their own. They are all what I call 'closed loop' systems that stand on their own internal legal systems.

That is why they will never see eye to eye. The only way they can even communicate is on the ground of worldly law which is ethics based. Ethics is safe ground and outside their own legal grounds.

So anything that is seen being churned out amongst these factions as 'ecumenical' is almost entirely outside of the official internal legal ground and is given to assuage the masses who are ignorant enough to buy their political statement follies.

None of them will be giving up their particular thrones. As soon as they do their system falls and fails as 'the one true church.' So there will continue to be multiple 'one true churches.'

since he does not possess that authority. One needs to know what the Gospel means before one can rightly divide(teach) it. That is one of the functions of the Church, to teach that Gospel. It is not a function of man to determine what a bare text might mean for him. There is nothing in scripture that gives man that authority.

I am happy to see that Gods Word and Spirit continues to effectively work in the hearts of mankind regardless of the multiple 'one true churches.'

By definition a person is a heretic when he teaches against a particular group, or set of ideas of which he is a member. In other words, speaking against the RCC does not make you a heretic unless you are RCC. Same for the Orhtodox or any other Church or group.

I'd suggest you probably need a brush up on those facts. Don't you know that the extension of imperfect communion in the RCC is only to the ignorant and uninformed? It's an extension only to the intent of proselytizing to themselves.

This poses a problem for a sola scripturists because He is the arbiter of his own truth and can be the only one of that truth, thus will never have a heretic of that view. Even if one uses scripture as the common unit, he must then proclaim that all who have a different view than his is a heretic of his view. Which is why we get thousands of interpretations and no one can declare any of them heretical since all are based on the same common unit, scripture.

And I'd suggest you have a pale view of sola in general. The task of being fully convinced of anything remains solely in the conscience of the holder. No other man or sect can answer before God in Christ for matters of conscience.

Romans 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

One of the reasons I left the RCC and would not adhere to EO or OO is the matter of icons for example. I can not in good conscience kiss the little brass feet of a 4 foot tall artist rendering of Jesus on a cross no matter how much 'traditional teaching' tries to apply to that matter. If they want to do that, fine. I am not an iconoclast. But I can't in good conscience, participate. Nor can I pray to Mary, make repetitious prayers and abundance of other angles that are promoted by orthodox traditions.

My conscience prohibits me from doing those things.

All a sola scripturists can do is state his view and must accept all other views as equal and valid.

I am not going to take the demand of tradition to potentially condemn another believer, no. That is not in the repertoire of my conscience to do that. Some however delight in carrying that in their own hearts. The "me or my sect" is totally right and everyone else who believes is going to possibly fry. Not for me, thank you. I have a command to love that comes before all else.

If one sola scripturists declares another a heretic based on his view, then so can the other sola scipturists do the same. Opinions of scripture cannot be refuted or ever be heretical since they are all equal and valid.

That activity is part of the heart disease that comes with the arena of faith. To me it is an internal sickness that I won't participate in.

Thus the problem for the protestant milieu, there is no test for false teachings against the common unit, scripture.

Tradition answers to none but themselves and their own determinations.

There can be no false teachings, except on an individual basis. Which is essentially what is manifest in all the thousands of private interpretations, theories, relative to scripture.

It is more than likely to me that every person that sits in any pew is going to have a different reflection on many matters regardless of the overall general adhesion's.

Word and Spirit in the final analysis provide us our own reflections of heart and they are by nature going to be different. That's how we were created. There are many reflections that I see from the Apostles that I take for myself that are flat out rejected by traditional authorities today. You will not find the pope [or any minister in your sect] sitting in the chair of St. Peter with the truth coming from his lips, that he has evil present with him as Paul did in Romans 7:21 for example nor will you hear them say they have a devil in their flesh as Paul did in 2 Cor. 12:7 nor will you find them claiming they are the chief of sinners post salvation as Paul did in 1 Tim. 1:15.

All of these factual statements of Paul have long departed traditional authorities. Were any of them to make those same claims today they would be immediately shunned from the ministry for speaking such truths. It just shows me how far the facts have fallen away from traditions.

If a person disagrees with another's private personal interpretions, all you need to do is create your own teaching as truth. Man becomes his own authoritative, private arbiter, and determiner of truth for himself.

You are welcome to discard the workings of the Spirit of God in Christ in all of these matters and just 'blame the man.' I can't do that or get there.

What has resulted in the protestant milieu is a myriad of interpretations, all of equal validity but none that are actually the Truth of scripture.

God in Christ will continue to keep the evil in the hearts of men utterly divided. And I'm fine with that fact as it's a fact.

Paul rejoiced even with the Gospel preached in pretence. So am I. I believe he trusted God in Christ for the outcome. So do I.

s