My Vow Concerning Doctrines

[dadof10]

I reject this explanation since it doesn't have any real outside sources to back it while the writer is interposing modern cultural norms onto ancient practices. It doesn't work in either archaeology, sociologically, and historically. When researching cultures of the past, even our own, we have to leave our bias and views at the door.

What explanation will you accept? If you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, what is your opinion of why the Holy Spirit allowed Paul to use (or create) this word? What do you think it means and why?

Incorrect, Strong's only uses what their views are regarding the word and ignore other manuscripts from the same time period that correspond to when a Biblical book was originally written. They extrapolate their definitions from only the known copies of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Latin Vulgate. They do not include other documents like Homer's Odyssey.

Well, concerning the word in question "arsenokoitēs", Perseus defines as "lying with men", so it seems THEY agree withthe explanation I posted.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...n=a)rsenokoi/ths0&prior=a)rsenogenh/s#lexicon

Also, could you please explain what you mean by this: "At first, Paul did not provide a definition for it, but later he had it defined as shrine prostitution, adultery, pederasty, sodomy, and rape." Where and how did he have it defined if it was only used twice in ALL of antiquity?

You'd be wrong to call it the standard. There have been Greek and Hebrew Lexicons that were developed from a broader range of documents then Strong's has.

Maybe Strong's is outdated, I don't know. Here is Strong's definition of the word "arsenokoitēs": 1) one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.

This definition definitely goes further than Perseus' definition. I think, for good or ill, they are trying to explain what Paul meant by combining these two words from Leviticus. That IS what was meant in Leviticus, a man lying with a man, homosexuality. Do you agree with that?

Everyone has access to Perseus. You just have to know how to use it. It accepts only the characters of the original Greek words to get the proper definition. If it's a legitimate word then it will appear in Perseus. There is also LexiLogos.

Thanks for the link. It's not as easy to use as BLB, but it's another resource.

Another example of a mistranslation done by Strong's is where they've translated onoma, which is singular in Greek, as to meaning the trinity ie plural. The Greek word that would have appeared in the original texts to refer to the trinity would have been phrw/numos.

One final example of a mistranslation by Strong's is from Colossians 2:9 KJV where it says, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form," according to Strong's Godhead's original Greek word is theotēs. However, according to Perseus and other Greek lexicons theotēs means God in the singular and lacks the trinity aspect that they translated it into.

OK, I'll look into them as time permits, and after we finish with "arsenokoitēs".

 

[dadof10]

Another example of a mistranslation done by Strong's is where they've translated onoma, which is singular in Greek, as to meaning the trinity ie plural. The Greek word that would have appeared in the original texts to refer to the trinity would have been phrw/numos.

I had a little time today and looked up this word in Strong's. I don't know where you are getting the "definition" as "trinity". Here is the entire entry for onoma:

1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason


Could you please clarify?

 

[dadof10]

One final example of a mistranslation by Strong's is from Colossians 2:9 KJV where it says, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form," according to Strong's Godhead's original Greek word is theotēs. However, according to Perseus and other Greek lexicons theotēs means God in the singular and lacks the trinity aspect that they translated it into.

OK. I must be missing something. Here is the entry in Strong's for the word theotes:

1) deity
a) the state of being God, Godhead


There is no reference to this word being tied to "trinity", however, if you go the root word "theos", this is what you get:


1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges


In the notes section this is the entry for 2)


"Whether Christ can be called God must be determined from [5 or 6 verses]. The matter is still in dispute among theologians."


Obviously, if the matter is still in dispute, IMHO, they shouldn't list the definitions. You are right in this instance. There seems to be Trinitarian bias within Strong's, at least on this one word.


Perseus only has "God, the Deity" for this entry.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

My resistance to what you are saying is not due to what you list above. It is due to:

1) When Jesus says "by their fruit you shall know them", He does not mean teachers, He is talking specifically about PROPHETS, and only about prophets. Strong's, which is THE standard for Greek to English translation, bears out this fact.

2) 2Pt. 2 NOWHERE says "Lawlessness is the signifying mark of the false prophet", as you claim.

3) Not all false teachers have the attributes listed in 2Pt. 2 and some false teachers have none of them. Some people who teach false doctrine look and act like saints, but that doesn't mean what they are teaching is True, or that what they are saying is even worth listening to.

4) NOWHERE in Scripture does it say "Their [false teachers] lawless fruit is the signifying mark of this agenda."

5) "False prophets" and "false teachers" are not interchangeable terms.

6) "Lawless fruit", "bad behavior" and "signifying mark" are all subjective terms.

7) Four quotes in 300 plus years of writing by hundreds of ECFs, does not translate into "the early church was antisemitic".

8) There were Jewish leaders before Christianity was legalized, who sided with Rome during the persecutions, which could have led to the harsh language during this time.

9) The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. (Acts 15)

10) (A new one) Martin Luther and John Calvin both made "antisemitic" comments, yet you have (I'm assuming) no problem with their doctrines of sola-Scriptura (which is not in Scripture), sola-Fide (which is actually taught AGAINST in Scripture), and Invisible church (which is not taught in Scripture). How do you justify dismissing doctrines taught by the ECF's, yet accepting doctrines taught by the Reformers, if "antisemitic" behavior is so important to you?

These are the reasons I disagree with you, not because I believe that any of those things you list above have ANYTHING to do with "obeying God and pleasing Him." Straw man.


Please point me to the post where I said any of this. Where does the Catholic Church teach this? Please, Jethro, just respond to what I say instead of what you want me to say.

You're not accepting what I'm saying because you are refusing to acknowledge the full ministry and function of the prophet. It's not just about foretelling future events. I even pointed out to you that prophet Jesus is himself teaching us something in the very passage under discussion. If prophet Jesus had shown himself to be the very kind of prophet he is warning us about (bearing bad fruit, lawless) I would have no obligation to seek fruit from him as a legitimate leader in the church. In fact I'm told very clearly to 'beware' such a person.


And let's look at the implication of what you're saying. If 'prophet', and what Jesus is talking about, is to only be understood in the narrow view of prophet that you are insisting upon, then we do not have to 'beware' of teachers, elders, pastors, etc. that bear bad fruit and are lawless. But that is indeed what you are defending if you choose to only define 'prophet' in the narrow way that you do.

 

[dadof10]

You're not accepting what I'm saying because you are refusing to acknowledge the full ministry and function of the prophet. It's not just about foretelling future events.

I never claimed it was. A "Prophet" had a special role within the Church, the word isn't just a synonym for "teacher". A prophet CAN teach and a teacher CAN prophesy, but according to Paul, the two are unique offices with unique gifts.

"And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way."

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles."

"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As you can plainly see, when Scripture speaks of "prophet" it means something specific. Certainly a prophet can teach, but his main function, his GIFT, is to "prophesy".

I even pointed out to you that prophet Jesus is himself teaching us something in the very passage under discussion. If prophet Jesus had shown himself to be the very kind of prophet he is warning us about (bearing bad fruit, lawless) I would have no obligation to seek fruit from him as a legitimate leader in the church. In fact I'm told very clearly to 'beware' such a person.

Yes, you are told to beware of false PROPHETS, not false teachers. You are misunderstanding what Jesus means by "fruit". The "fruit" of a prophet is his "revelation".

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits."

Now, read Matt. 7:15 in light of Paul's teaching on prophets. Jesus is obviously talking about their "prophesying" not their "lawlessness", or evil deeds. Jesus is not telling us to judge teachers by their sins, then reject their teaching if WE JUDGE them personally to be too "lawless". This is futile subjectivity. "You will know them by their fruits", by the accuracy of their "revelation", because that's the gift of the prophet.

And let's look at the implication of what you're saying. If 'prophet', and what Jesus is talking about, is to only be understood in the narrow view of prophet that you are insisting upon, then we do not have to 'beware' of teachers, elders, pastors, etc. that bear bad fruit and are lawless. But that is indeed what you are defending if you choose to only define 'prophet' in the narrow way that you do.

We should stay away from seedy individuals, but that's not the subject of Matt. 7:15. You are trying to stretch it to encompass anyone's TEACHING who you disagree with, specifically the early Church. Again, Martin Luther and John Calvin made "antisemitic" remarks too, but you are not rejecting their teachings, are you? This fact speaks volumes. If you were consistant, and if antisemitism really was the issue, you certainly would reject Luther and Calvin teachings, including sola-Scriptura, sola-Fide and invisible church, then you would lump ALL the Reformers into the same "Jew-hating" group and make the broad statement "the Reformation was antisemitic", then, I guess, become a Buddhist. They are known for being peaceful and not judgmental. Following your logic, they are the ones who are the least "lawless", so they must teach the truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I never claimed it was. A "Prophet" had a special role within the Church, the word isn't just a synonym for "teacher". A prophet CAN teach and a teacher CAN prophesy, but according to Paul, the two are unique offices with unique gifts.
[...]
"Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As you can plainly see, when Scripture speaks of "prophet" it means something specific. Certainly a prophet can teach, but his main function, his GIFT, is to "prophesy".

You're still doing it. You're still ignoring the fact that both 'foretelling' and 'forth telling' are both called prophesying. In fact, the passage above is where we gain insight into the 'forth telling' function of the prophet's ministry that, generally speaking, the church has become ignorant of.

I, too, used to be one who could only understand 'prophet' in regard to the spectacular foretelling aspects of the gift. But for those of us who are familiar with the operation of the gifts in the church we know well how prophets instruct through their prophesy, teachers prophesy through their teaching, encouragers instruct through their encouragement, and so on, yet each gift remains distinct and personally identifiable.

Yes, you are told to beware of false PROPHETS, not false teachers. You are misunderstanding what Jesus means by "fruit". The "fruit" of a prophet is his "revelation".

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits."

Now, read Matt. 7:15 in light of Paul's teaching on prophets. Jesus is obviously talking about their "prophesying" not their "lawlessness", or evil deeds. Jesus is not telling us to judge teachers by their sins, then reject their teaching if WE JUDGE them personally to be too "lawless". This is futile subjectivity. "You will know them by their fruits", by the accuracy of their "revelation", because that's the gift of the prophet.

You are so very wrong. The passage concludes with Jesus' warning that only those who hear his words and "puts them into practice" are the ones who will not be swept away. This is not a passage about false prophetic messages. It's a passage about bearing the fruit of the Word of God. IOW, obeying it:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

24 “Therefore (signifying continuity of context) everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matthew 7:21-27 NIV)

It's very clear that 'bad fruit' and 'lawlessness' is in regard to not doing the Word of God, not in regard to inaccurate prophetic (foretelling) messages. Very clear...assuming one reads the entire passage and doesn't stop at the 'therefore' in verse 24.

We should stay away from seedy individuals, but that's not the subject of Matt. 7:15. You are trying to stretch it to encompass anyone's TEACHING who you disagree with, specifically the early Church.

Specifically? Not really. But I am convinced that if the primary truth of the early church had been "love your neighbor as yourself" (as signified by what they did) we would not have fallen into the empty, meaningless, unspiritual 'religion' that Christianity has become. I'm totally convinced of that, for that is what rescued me from cold dead, legalistic, pharisitical (spell?, lol) 'religion'--religion that emphasizes and glorifies the means instead of the ends. Religion that is signified by it's lack of fruit in regard to godly character, but full of the importance of ministry and an abundance of doctrine.

Again, Martin Luther and John Calvin made "antisemitic" remarks too, but you are not rejecting their teachings, are you?

I do not hold a single doctrinal belief simply because Calvin or Luther taught them and I therefore blindly follow them. Not one. The point of all this for me is in the paragraph above. I don't think the church would have become so encumbered with misguided and uneducated and meaningless doctrines leading away from what really matters in the kingdom if she had been careful to first of all know that Christianity is all about 'love your neighbor as yourself', and those who prophesy, and teach, and encourage, and exhort, etc., but who do not bear the visible manifest fruit of 'love your neighbor as yourself' are not the ones, generally speaking, that we learn that truth from and are made ready by to stand on the Day of Judgment. Good fruit is not picked from bad trees! Beware them!. This is true of prophets, this is true of teachers, this is true of encouragers, this true of any gift in the church. It's unreasonable for you to argue otherwise.

If you were consistant, and if antisemitism really was the issue, you certainly would reject Luther and Calvin teachings including sola-Scriptura, sola-Fide and invisible church, then you would lump ALL the Reformers into the same "Jew-hating" group and make the broad statement "the Reformation was antisemitic", then, I guess, become a Buddhist.

You're really missing the point. Even though the reformation led us out of a very dark and corrupt time in the church the reformers, generally speaking, still failed to completely rescue the church from cold, dead religious doctrine and into the truth of 'love your neighbor as yourself'. As a Catholic I understand your tendency to see this as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue, but it is not. The church will realize her potential when we begin to recognize misguided doctrines and beliefs by the fruit it bears. Jesus' teaching, if believed, would have rescued us from even the failure of reformation doctrine to lead us fully into that which matters in the Christian faith. You're not getting it if you think this is a defense of reformation doctrine.

They are known for being peaceful and not judgmental. Following your logic, they are the ones who are the least "lawless", so they must teach the truth.

Wouldn't it be nice if the church had known all along that the fruit of godly character was the thing that mattered in the Christian faith, not what worship practices, and church government, and freewill doctrines, and original sin doctrines (etc. etc.) one held? Then it would be impossible for anyone to ever suggest Buddhists are somehow more peaceful and godly than Christians. You don't believe the Bible if you think unbelievers can be, or are, more obedient to do right than a Spirit filled believer (read Romans 8).

The point is, the problem with your argument is it has the false assumption that Buddhists are more obedient than believers. Knowing that it is impossible for them to be pleasing to God (Romans 8) removes the possibility that they teach the truth. They are in fact a good example of what I've been defending here. They are NOT bearers of good fruit. What they teach will not lead you into the truth that prepares a person for the Day of Judgment. Beware them.

 

[dadof10]

You're still doing it. You're still ignoring the fact that both 'foretelling' and 'forth telling' are both called prophesying. In fact, the passage above is where we gain insight into the 'forth telling' function of the prophet's ministry that, generally speaking, the church has become ignorant of.

Sorry, no. Nowhere does Paul, or anyone else, teach about "foretelling" and "forth-telling" as being different "functions" of the ministry of the prophet. The reason I am "ignoring" it is because it does not exist in Scripture. It may exist within your church, but you would be interpreting Scripture differently than I.

I, too, used to be one who could only understand 'prophet' in regard to the spectacular foretelling aspects of the gift. But for those of us who are familiar with the operation of the gifts in the church we know well how prophets instruct through their prophesy, teachers prophesy through their teaching, encouragers instruct through their encouragement, and so on, yet each gift remains distinct and personally identifiable.

And, I too, used to arrogantly throw up straw man arguments and knock them down, then I got humility. When have I EVER said I ONLY understood "'prophet' in regard to the spectacular foretelling aspects of the gift"? I said "The "fruit" of a prophet is his "revelation", contrasting this to his "teaching", which is secondary. I have REPEATEDLY said "a prophet CAN TEACH", yet I still get the same straw man argument. You are the one who won't move on, stubbornly trying to PROVE I really don't mean what I'm saying, but mean a "narrow definition" of the ministry and role of a prophet.

Prophetic Revelation does NOT mean "spectacular foretelling" or "seeing" future events. Here is the definition which INCLUDES SECONDARILY (of course) teaching, because how could a prophet SAY ANYTHING without taking the role of teacher, at least temporarily?

1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.
2. (in the Old Testament) a. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
b. ( often initial capital letter ) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
c. one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and, according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
d. a person who practices divination.
3. one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
4. the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
5. a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader.

Now, please read the next paragraph carefully. There was, within the early Church, an office or ministry of "prophet". This ministry was primarily that of giving and interpreting revelations, whether they had anything to do with "future events" or not. These revelations were what Jesus was talking about when he referenced "fruit". The fruit of the prophet is NOT his teaching on doctrinal matters, although it could secondarily include them, his "fruit" are his revelations because this is what DEFINES his ministry. I hope that's clear.

You are so very wrong. The passage concludes with Jesus' warning that only those who hear his words and "puts them into practice" are the ones who will not be swept away. This is not a passage about false prophetic messages. It's a passage about bearing the fruit of the Word of God. IOW, obeying it:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

24 “Therefore (signifying continuity of context) everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matthew 7:21-27 NIV)

Answer one simple question. Is there a specific "ministry" of "Prophet" within the Church, yes or no?

Specifically? Not really. But I am convinced that if the primary truth of the early church had been "love your neighbor as yourself" (as signified by what they did) we would not have fallen into the empty, meaningless, unspiritual 'religion' that Christianity has become.

Again, there are FOUR "ANTISEMITIC" QUOTES IN 300+ YEARS OF WRITINGS. There are also 300+ years (2000+, really) of charity, feeding the poor, taking care of the sick and orphans, giving money and care to the most needy in society, basically, LOVING GOD AND NEIGHBOR, yet you focus on FOUR quotes and paint the "early church" with this brush? Again, this tells more about your attitude toward the Church than about the actual soul of the Church.

This is what astounds me about people of your ilk. You will attack the Church for a few quotes or actions you consider "lawless", and ignore the MASSIVE body of Christian charity (i.e. loving your neighbor, what you consider SO important) shown by the Church throughout Her 2000+ year history. The good the Catholic Church and the mainstream Protestant churches have done throughout the centuries, FAR outweighs the relatively tiny "lawlessness" you complain about. You only see what bolsters your preconceived hatred of "the early church". I'm not the one doing the "ignoring" here.

I'm totally convinced of that, for that is what rescued me from cold dead, legalistic, pharisitical (spell?, lol) 'religion'--religion that emphasizes and glorifies the means instead of the ends. Religion that is signified by it's lack of fruit in regard to godly character, but full of the importance of ministry and an abundance of doctrine.

I don't have a clue what "church" you belonged to. All my experiences in both Catholic and Protestant have been the exact opposite of what you describe above. I guess you get what you give.

I do not hold a single doctrinal belief simply because Calvin or Luther taught them and I therefore blindly follow them. Not one.

Right, but you do follow the three main doctrines of these "antisemitic, lawless" men, correct? Can't you see the inconsistency of REJECTING DOCTRINE (Sunday worship) on the grounds of the antisemitism and lawlessness of the "early church", yet NOT REJECTING doctrine that comes from other "antisemitic lawless" men?

The point of all this for me is in the paragraph above. I don't think the church would have become so encumbered with misguided and uneducated and meaningless doctrines leading away from what really matters in the kingdom if she had been careful to first of all know that Christianity is all about 'love your neighbor as yourself', and those who prophesy, and teach, and encourage, and exhort, etc., but who do not bear the visible manifest fruit of 'love your neighbor as yourself' are not the ones, generally speaking, that we learn that truth from and are made ready by to stand on the Day of Judgment. Good fruit is not picked from bad trees! Beware them!. This is true of prophets, this is true of teachers, this is true of encouragers, this true of any gift in the church.

What about the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of members who were Holy and righteous men? Why do you ONLY (and I do mean only) focus on the "bad apples"?

It's unreasonable for you to argue otherwise.

I don't think taking 99% of Christendom into consideration before making blanket statements is unreasonable. I think judging 2000+ years of Christianity, both Catholicism and Protestantism, by a relatively TINY number of quotes is.

You're really missing the point. Even though the reformation led us out of a very dark and corrupt time in the church the reformers, generally speaking, still failed to completely rescue the church from cold, dead religious doctrine and into the truth of 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

That's all both Catholics and Protestants have done throughout history, with a few exceptions. You, however choose to ignore (there's that word again) all the good done in favor of talking points.

As a Catholic I understand your tendency to see this as a Catholic vs. Protestant issue, but it is not.

No, it's not. I only brought up Luther and Calvin to point out your inconsistency. This is a Protestant and Catholic vs. you issue.

The church will realize her potential when we begin to recognize misguided doctrines and beliefs by the fruit it bears.

Would this include the thousands of churches all teaching different combinations of doctrines? Is division what Jesus had in mind? Would you consider all the splits within Protestantism "lawlessness"? It's the DEFINITION of lawlessness, and the three major Protestant doctrines are directly responsible for these splits. So, will you be consistent and reject these three doctrines due to the fact they are not bearing "good fruit", or can you just ignore or minimize this fact too?

Jesus' teaching, if believed, would have rescued us from even the failure of reformation doctrine to lead us fully into that which matters in the Christian faith. You're not getting it if you think this is a defense of reformation doctrine.

What matters is what's at the heart of both Protestant and Catholic theology, which is what you are complaining against.

Wouldn't it be nice if the church had known all along that the fruit of godly character was the thing that mattered in the Christian faith, not what worship practices, and church government, and freewill doctrines, and original sin doctrines (etc. etc.) one held?

Ask the apostles and Paul. Take a look at Acts 15 and tell me if "worship practices, and church government, and freewill doctrines, and original sin doctrines (etc. etc.)" mattered to them. Look at Paul's railing against false DOCTRINES throughout his letters, and tell me it's all about "love thy neighbor". Love is the heart of the Church, but doctrine is the head. You can't have one without the other and if it were so unimportant, why did so many martyrs die for their DOCTRINE?

Then it would be impossible for anyone to ever suggest Buddhists are somehow more peaceful and godly than Christians. You don't believe the Bible if you think unbelievers can be, or are, more obedient to do right than a Spirit filled believer (read Romans 8).

The point is, the problem with your argument is it has the false assumption that Buddhists are more obedient than believers. Knowing that it is impossible for them to be pleasing to God (Romans 8) removes the possibility that they teach the truth. They are in fact a good example of what I've been defending here. They are NOT bearers of good fruit. What they teach will not lead you into the truth that prepares a person for the Day of Judgment. Beware them.

It was not an argument or an assumption, it was absurdity. You are arguing that "lawlessness" = false doctrine, yet never addressed my point in a previous post that there are PLENTY of false teachers who come teaching false doctrine and are upstanding citizens, ostensibly "sinless". Aren't Buddhists a great example of "love thy neighbor"? Aren't Mormons? I'm pointing out, in a different way, subjective judgement of someones actions are no way to judge their doctrines.