Doc Holliday said:

---

I've heard many claim sanctification is the evidence of justification, therefore no works indicates no justification, it begs the question: did God then fail to justify? How would one know? And when would one know?

It's epistemically inaccessible to have assurance of salvation because you have no reliable self knowledge or external verification if your faith is real.

God, to a Calvinist, deceives...
From Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3, Chapter 2).
"Evanescent grace is a theological concept primarily associated with John Calvin's writings, referring to a temporary or fading form of grace that God supposedly grants to some non-elect (reprobate) individuals."
"In this context, it describes a non-saving, illusory grace or faith that mimics true regeneration for a time (allowing the person to experience conviction, joy in the gospel, or apparent belief), but later dissipates, leaving the person without salvation."


Next question: how can you know you have saving grace and not evanescent grace?

"For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever was already elect would be regenerated so they could believe in Him and would not perish but have everlasting life." John Calvin 3:16

If salvation is entirely monergistic and you had no real part in receiving it, the only way to verify your elect is to inspect the fruits. So you spend your life forensically auditing your own spiritual state trying to determine if your faith is the real God-given kind or the fake kind that looks identical from the inside. Everyone continues to sin their entire life: this is why the Calvinists report the most anxiety about salvation.

---

Sanctification is the evidence of salvation, but not all sanctification is externally visible in the form of works.

Sanctification is separate from justification. It's possible that it may be minimal to none in a justified person depending on the situation. The tax collector in Luke 18:9-14 who merely repented in his heart was justified, before any act of sanctification. If he had died right on the spot, though he had no sanctification, Jesus himself tells us he was justified.

Not all assurance of salvation is faith, but all faith is assurance of salvation. Absence or denial of assurance means there is no faith. So while it is possible that a person with "assurance" may not have true faith and therefore not have salvation... a person without assurance definitely does not have faith and therefore does not have salvation.

Someone who struggles to know if they have saving grace or "evanescent" grace and therefore is always unsure about their salvation does not have assurance, and therefore does not have real faith. They're focusing on their own righteousness rather than on Jesus' righteousness in their stead. They haven't truly understood the gospel. The question is: how is this any different from Roman Catholics or Orthodox?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I've heard many claim sanctification is the evidence of justification, therefore no works indicates no justification, it begs the question: did God then fail to justify? How would one know? And when would one know?

It's epistemically inaccessible to have assurance of salvation because you have no reliable self knowledge or external verification if your faith is real.

God, to a Calvinist, deceives...
From Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3, Chapter 2).
"Evanescent grace is a theological concept primarily associated with John Calvin's writings, referring to a temporary or fading form of grace that God supposedly grants to some non-elect (reprobate) individuals."
"In this context, it describes a non-saving, illusory grace or faith that mimics true regeneration for a time (allowing the person to experience conviction, joy in the gospel, or apparent belief), but later dissipates, leaving the person without salvation."


Next question: how can you know you have saving grace and not evanescent grace?

"For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever was already elect would be regenerated so they could believe in Him and would not perish but have everlasting life." John Calvin 3:16

If salvation is entirely monergistic and you had no real part in receiving it, the only way to verify your elect is to inspect the fruits. So you spend your life forensically auditing your own spiritual state trying to determine if your faith is the real God-given kind or the fake kind that looks identical from the inside. Everyone continues to sin their entire life: this is why the Calvinists report the most anxiety about salvation.

---

Sanctification is the evidence of salvation, but not all sanctification is externally visible in the form of works.

Sanctification is separate from justification. It's possible that it may be minimal to none in a justified person depending on the situation. The tax collector in Luke 18:9-14 who merely repented in his heart was justified, before any act of sanctification. If he had died right on the spot, though he had no sanctification, Jesus himself tells us he was justified.

Not all assurance of salvation is faith, but all faith is assurance of salvation. Absence or denial of assurance means there is no faith. So while it is possible that a person with "assurance" may not have true faith and therefore not have salvation... a person without assurance definitely does not have faith and therefore does not have salvation.

Someone who struggles to know if they have saving grace or "evanescent" grace and therefore is always unsure about their salvation does not have assurance, and therefore does not have real faith. They're focusing on their own righteousness rather than on Jesus' righteousness in their stead. They haven't truly understood the gospel. The question is: how is this any different from Roman Catholics or Orthodox?

---

We have faith in God, not faith in faith.

---

Without assurance, you have neither. That's straight from Scripture.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The schizophrenic guy in the mental hospital knows beyond a doubt that he is Napoleon. That doesn't make him Napoleon.
True story, a Calvinist friend of mine once told me she no longer went to church. When I asked her why, she told me that she did not have "assurance of her… https://t.co/wG7OHCdiUD

— Jonathan Pageau (@PageauJonathan) May 26, 2026

---

I know exactly where I'm going when I die.

I'm going to see Jesus.

What I absolutely do not know is whether I'm going to hear "Well done, good and faithful servant" or "Depart from me". That's because He makes that call, we don't. And whatever you all may say, none of you know that either, because it's not your call.

We have faith in God, not faith in assurance.

This is from Focus on the Family:

"Yes and no. The truth is that we all lack faith. To be more precise, faith is not something we merely have or do not have. It's more like a process a thing in which we either grow or diminish, progress or regress, with every passing day. It involves ups and downs, victories and setbacks, triumphs and disappointments. That's because faith is an aspect of our relationship with God a product of our walk with Christ and the constant, gentle influence of His indwelling Holy Spirit.

It's important to add that Christianity isn't about having faith in faith alone. From the biblical point of view, faith is only as strong as its object. I may believe that my chair is strong enough to support my weight, but I can't be fully convinced of this until I put the question to the test by sitting down. Similarly, I have faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior because I am persuaded by relevant evidence that He really is God-in-the-flesh, and that He has my best interests at heart. But my commitment will never be mature and perfect until I've learned to step out and act on these convictions. As Jesus said, "If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God …" (John 7:17). Among other things, this means pressing forward in spite of your feelings "ducking under" your fears and anxieties and doing what needs to be done."

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I've heard many claim sanctification is the evidence of justification, therefore no works indicates no justification, it begs the question: did God then fail to justify? How would one know? And when would one know?

It's epistemically inaccessible to have assurance of salvation because you have no reliable self knowledge or external verification if your faith is real.

God, to a Calvinist, deceives...
From Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 3, Chapter 2).
"Evanescent grace is a theological concept primarily associated with John Calvin's writings, referring to a temporary or fading form of grace that God supposedly grants to some non-elect (reprobate) individuals."
"In this context, it describes a non-saving, illusory grace or faith that mimics true regeneration for a time (allowing the person to experience conviction, joy in the gospel, or apparent belief), but later dissipates, leaving the person without salvation."


Next question: how can you know you have saving grace and not evanescent grace?

"For God so loved the elect that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever was already elect would be regenerated so they could believe in Him and would not perish but have everlasting life." John Calvin 3:16

If salvation is entirely monergistic and you had no real part in receiving it, the only way to verify your elect is to inspect the fruits. So you spend your life forensically auditing your own spiritual state trying to determine if your faith is the real God-given kind or the fake kind that looks identical from the inside. Everyone continues to sin their entire life: this is why the Calvinists report the most anxiety about salvation.

---

Sanctification is the evidence of salvation, but not all sanctification is externally visible in the form of works.

Sanctification is separate from justification. It's possible that it may be minimal to none in a justified person depending on the situation. The tax collector in Luke 18:9-14 who merely repented in his heart was justified, before any act of sanctification. If he had died right on the spot, though he had no sanctification, Jesus himself tells us he was justified.

Not all assurance of salvation is faith, but all faith is assurance of salvation. Absence or denial of assurance means there is no faith. So while it is possible that a person with "assurance" may not have true faith and therefore not have salvation... a person without assurance definitely does not have faith and therefore does not have salvation.

Someone who struggles to know if they have saving grace or "evanescent" grace and therefore is always unsure about their salvation does not have assurance, and therefore does not have real faith. They're focusing on their own righteousness rather than on Jesus' righteousness in their stead. They haven't truly understood the gospel. The question is: how is this any different from Roman Catholics or Orthodox?

---

We have faith in God, not faith in faith.

---

You just need faith in a doctrine about faith that your faith is real faith which requires faith in the doctrine that defines real faith which requires faith that your faith in the doctrine is itself genuine faith.

You RC's and Orthodox are running away from "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen." Scripture is directly telling us that faith IS assurance. If you don't have assurance, it means you don't have faith.

As usual, you're having to twist yourselves around Scripture in order to keep your beliefs.

"For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?"
Romans 8:24

Hope that is seen (assurance) is no hope at all.

Doc Holliday said:

---

"For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?"
Romans 8:24

Hope that is seen (assurance) is no hope at all.

---

Assurance is not hope that is seen. Assurance is knowing you're going to receive something you haven't seen yet. You're creating your own definitions that are directly against Scripture's.

"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for". Scripture says assurance is tied with hope, it does not negate it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

It's really simple guys.

Dead faith doesn't save…and we never lose free will.

Pray. Try to stop sinning. If you fall, repent and get back on track. Love God and love your neighbors.

If you really have faith, you're going to bootstrap all of this behavior and it's going to be very hard. That's not works righteousness, its saying 'yes' to Grace.

It's not going to magically happen to you. It's a work to involve your heart/mind and to allow it to be changed and to have faithfulness.

It's not easy to be Christian. It's not easy to persevere until death. Accept the difficulty. You don't need to play God or make decisions that belong solely to God about your salvation.

I know it's a hell of a lot easier to believe it's a transaction or a courtroom…but that isn't love.

---

Salvation comes with true faith. You can't ever be righteous by your effort, you need the righteousness of Jesus given to you, imputed to you. You receive this as a free gift, by faith. THIS is the simple gospel.

The one with true faith, who is thus saved, will persevere in their faith, love God, and their neighbors. They will desire to please God and have works, given time and opportunity. You can have assurance that you are saved. God tells us this directly in his word: "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life."

Just believe and trust in Jesus alone for your salvation. And let God's Holy Spirit work in you to produce fruit thereafter.

Don't be deceived by churches that tell you that you need their sacraments, otherwise you don't have true faith and you won't be saved. These are stumbling blocks placed before you to disrupt and confuse the gospel that God has made simple. They are the new Pharisees, putting their tradition on the same level of authority as God's word. These are the same churches that deny Jesus' finished, once-for-all work on the cross. They deny that Jesus took our punishment so we don't have to. They are the same ones that tie your salvation to your works and your merit, so that you can never know whether you are saved. These churches directly deny God's word by saying you are saved by faith PLUS works, and that you CAN'T ever know that you're saved. Please remember Jesus' words - you will know them by their fruits. If these churches directly contradict God's word as above, plus they even bow and pray to images of Mary, and credit her for their salvation - then you are given a tell-tale sign of the spirit behind them. Any church that does this, is not from God.

"You need faith".
…But how do you know your faith is real faith and not fake faith that looks like real faith?

You need faith that your assurance is real"
…But how do you know THAT faith is genuine faith and not evanescent faith that mimics real faith?

"You need assurance about your faith about your assurance".

How do you workout your salvation like St. Paul said to BELIEVERS, if salvation is already acquired?

Doc Holliday said:

---

"You need faith".
…But how do you know your faith is real faith and not fake faith that looks like real faith?

You need faith that your assurance is real"
…But how do you know THAT faith is genuine faith and not evanescent faith that mimics real faith?

"You need assurance about your faith about your assurance".

---

So, Scripture is false, then? Faith is NOT assurance?

Doc Holliday said:

---

How do you workout your salvation like St. Paul said to BELIEVERS, if salvation is already acquired?

---

Maybe your understanding of "work out your salvation" is flawed? And maybe you're looking at statements like this in isolation, without looking at Paul's other statements such as:

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:920

John 7:538:11

---

Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?

In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.

---

They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.

---

And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.

The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.

Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."

---

From cover to cover. Starting with Genesis 1, to the end of the NT, there are historical contradictions, lineage contradicitons, historical contradictions, contradictions of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and archaeology, and internal incosistencies in the mythological stories. Just what you'd expect from primitive people who were desparately trying to preserve and create their cultural identity and understanding of the world.

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:920

John 7:538:11

---

Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?

In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.

---

They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.

---

And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.

The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.

Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."

---

From cover to cover. Starting with Genesis 1, to the end of the NT, there are historical contradictions, lineage contradicitons, historical contradictions, contradictions of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and archaeology, and internal incosistencies in the mythological stories. Just what you'd expect from primitive people who were desparately trying to preserve and create their cultural identity and understanding of the world.

---

Based on your posts, you have never encountered the Holy Spirit.. you have no idea what you are missing. I will continue to pray for you.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Prooftexting: selecting verses that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring verses that complicate it. The conclusion drives the exegesis instead of the exegesis driving the conclusion.

You can't cherry pick a handful of verses and build an entire theology on them while the rest of Scripture sits there contradicting you.

Hebrews 11:1 doesn't erase Philippians 2:12. 1 John 5:13 doesn't erase Matthew 7:21. Romans 8:24 doesn't erase itself. The whole Bible requires a theology big enough to hold all of it. If your system only works by ignoring half the relevant texts it isn't exegesis.

---

So... Hebrews is wrong, then? Faith is NOT assurance?

So....1 John 5:13 is wrong, then? We CAN'T know that we have eternal life?

Note the irony of you continuing to dodge these questions. It makes you guilty of exactly what you described.

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

Because Iniquity abounds the love of many shall wax cold. Prophesy is the edification of the church.

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

You: "You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide."

The Roman Catholic Church had all these. Yet your church still believed they were in such egregious error that you separated from them.

The Jews had all these as well in their priests, oral tradition, and the Sanhedrin. Yet they got it completely wrong. And who did Jesus save? Those who followed their authorities? No. He saved individuals who went against their religious authorities and **intepreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.**

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

You: "You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide."

The Roman Catholic Church had all these. Yet your church still believed they were in such egregious error that you separated from them.

The Jews had all these as well in their priests, oral tradition, and the Sanhedrin. Yet they got it completely wrong. And who did Jesus save? Those who followed their authorities? No. He saved individuals who went against their religious authorities and **intepreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.**

---

Catholics split from Orthodox, we didn't split from them. Don't get it twisted. The Great Schism of 1054 was Rome departing from the synodal structure of the ancient Church adding the filioque unilaterally, claiming universal papal jurisdiction, and eventually papal infallibility in 1870. Orthodox didn't split from Rome. Those who developed are the ones who split. That's how it works in Protestantism too. You're the product of radical reformers who rejected aspects of the original reformers…you split from them.
Rome innovated and separated itself from the conciliar consensus. The burden of proof for novelty lies with the innovator.

Jesus says in Matt 23: 2-3: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you."
Christ explicitly validates the Seat of Moses as a legitimate, binding, extra-scriptural authority. He tells His followers to obey it even while condemning the hypocrisy of those sitting in it.

The seat of Moses isn't in the OT or Torah. It's not deceived in ANY text. It is a living institutional office that arose within the covenant community through tradition and practice. And Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, explicitly affirms it as binding. Therefore Christ Himself validates the existence of authoritative, extra-scriptural tradition as a legitimate vehicle of divine governance over His people. That's where He worshipped at. Your principles say He was in error.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

You: "You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide."

The Roman Catholic Church had all these. Yet your church still believed they were in such egregious error that you separated from them.

The Jews had all these as well in their priests, oral tradition, and the Sanhedrin. Yet they got it completely wrong. And who did Jesus save? Those who followed their authorities? No. He saved individuals who went against their religious authorities and **intepreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.**

---

Catholics split from Orthodox, we didn't split from them. Don't get it twisted. The Great Schism of 1054 was Rome departing from the synodal structure of the ancient Church adding the filioque unilaterally, claiming universal papal jurisdiction, and eventually papal infallibility in 1870. Orthodox didn't split from Rome. Those who developed are the ones who split. That's how it works in Protestantism too. You're the product of radical reformers who rejected aspects of the original reformers…you split from them.
Rome innovated and separated itself from the conciliar consensus. The burden of proof for novelty lies with the innovator.

Jesus says in Matt 23: 2-3: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you."
Christ explicitly validates the Seat of Moses as a legitimate, binding, extra-scriptural authority. He tells His followers to obey it even while condemning the hypocrisy of those sitting in it.

The seat of Moses isn't in the OT or Torah. It's not deceived in ANY text. It is a living institutional office that arose within the covenant community through tradition and practice. And Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, explicitly affirms it as binding. Therefore Christ Himself validates the existence of authoritative, extra-scriptural tradition as a legitimate vehicle of divine governance over His people. That's where He worshipped at. Your principles say He was in error.

---

Roman Catholicism will claim the opposite, that you split from them, and will lay claim to their episcopate, Tradition, and Councils all the same. Therein lies the problem for your claim.

Did Jesus really tell people to obey those on the "seat of Moses" and deny he is the Messiah like they did?

Didn't Jesus lambast those on the seat of Moses for holding their Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture, to where they negated Scripture in favor of their Tradition? Kind of like how Orthodoxy has to outright ignore what Scripture says in order to hold to their Tradition, as I demonstrated above?

Was this "seat of Moses" authority infallible? Pretty obvious that they weren't, right?

And you're completely glossing over the fact that Jesus didn't save those following the authority of the seat of Moses, but rather saved individuals going against their authorities' interpretation, and who interpreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

You: "You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide."

The Roman Catholic Church had all these. Yet your church still believed they were in such egregious error that you separated from them.

The Jews had all these as well in their priests, oral tradition, and the Sanhedrin. Yet they got it completely wrong. And who did Jesus save? Those who followed their authorities? No. He saved individuals who went against their religious authorities and **intepreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.**

---

Catholics split from Orthodox, we didn't split from them. Don't get it twisted. The Great Schism of 1054 was Rome departing from the synodal structure of the ancient Church adding the filioque unilaterally, claiming universal papal jurisdiction, and eventually papal infallibility in 1870. Orthodox didn't split from Rome. Those who developed are the ones who split. That's how it works in Protestantism too. You're the product of radical reformers who rejected aspects of the original reformers…you split from them.
Rome innovated and separated itself from the conciliar consensus. The burden of proof for novelty lies with the innovator.

Jesus says in Matt 23: 2-3: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you."
Christ explicitly validates the Seat of Moses as a legitimate, binding, extra-scriptural authority. He tells His followers to obey it even while condemning the hypocrisy of those sitting in it.

The seat of Moses isn't in the OT or Torah. It's not deceived in ANY text. It is a living institutional office that arose within the covenant community through tradition and practice. And Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, explicitly affirms it as binding. Therefore Christ Himself validates the existence of authoritative, extra-scriptural tradition as a legitimate vehicle of divine governance over His people. That's where He worshipped at. Your principles say He was in error.

---

Roman Catholicism will claim the opposite, that you split from them, and will lay claim to their episcopate, Tradition, and Councils all the same. Therein lies the problem for your claim.

Did Jesus really tell people to obey those on the "seat of Moses" and deny he is the Messiah like they did?

Didn't Jesus lambast those on the seat of Moses for holding their Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture, to where they negated Scripture in favor of their Tradition? Kind of like how Orthodoxy has to outright ignore what Scripture says in order to hold to their Tradition, as I demonstrated above?

Was this "seat of Moses" authority infallible? Pretty obvious that they weren't, right?

And you're completely glossing over the fact that Jesus didn't save those following the authority of the seat of Moses, but rather saved individuals going against their authorities' interpretation, and who interpreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.

---

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their oral halakha: man made fence traditions (the "traditions of men," Mark 7:8) …not for having authoritative tradition.

The Pharisees weren't condemned for having tradition; they were condemned for using their tradition to nullify the commandment of God..

Nobody claimed the seat of Moses was infallible. The point of Matt 23:2-3 is that Jesus acknowledged a legitimate, extra scriptural, institutional seat of authority and told His disciples to obey it even while the occupants were personally corrupt.

The disciples didn't arrive at Christ through private interpretation of texts they responded to a living Person who taught with authority, performed miracles, and commissioned an Apostolic community. The model they established was not "read the text and decide for yourself" it was "receive the Apostolic deposit and guard it" (2 Tim. 1:14, 1 Tim. 6:20)

You just think everyone is totally depraved and you see mankind as the enemy. You can't fathom that God could establish a visible church through history. That's why you're on here condemning everyone to hell and accusing everyone that doesn't follow your papacy as evil.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

J.J.Crockett said:

---

1 CORINTHIANS, Chapter 2

---

Yep Paul is writing to the Church, about apostolic transmission of the mind of God. The interpreter is the Spirit bearing community, i.e., the Church. That's why 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church "the pillar and ground (or bulwark) of the truth".

---

the true church is people filled with the Holy Spirit. Everybody else is a wolf in sheeps clothing

---

So who are these Spirit-filled people? How do you identify them? How do you know you're one of them and not the wolf?

Christians that have opposing dogma, those that deny the divinity of Christ and those that contradict each other all claim to have the Holy Spirit. Am I to believe the Holy Spirit sews confusion? How does an invisible, unidentifiable community function as a pillar and ground of truth in the world?

You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide. The Spirit was promised to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13)

You have two choices. Either believe yourself to be an individual pope or you can believe Christ established a visible Church aka Orthodoxy.

---

You: "You need an external, authoritative, historically continuous standard against which claims to the Spirit can be tested. That is exactly what the Church's episcopate, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils provide."

The Roman Catholic Church had all these. Yet your church still believed they were in such egregious error that you separated from them.

The Jews had all these as well in their priests, oral tradition, and the Sanhedrin. Yet they got it completely wrong. And who did Jesus save? Those who followed their authorities? No. He saved individuals who went against their religious authorities and **intepreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.**

---

Catholics split from Orthodox, we didn't split from them. Don't get it twisted. The Great Schism of 1054 was Rome departing from the synodal structure of the ancient Church adding the filioque unilaterally, claiming universal papal jurisdiction, and eventually papal infallibility in 1870. Orthodox didn't split from Rome. Those who developed are the ones who split. That's how it works in Protestantism too. You're the product of radical reformers who rejected aspects of the original reformers…you split from them.
Rome innovated and separated itself from the conciliar consensus. The burden of proof for novelty lies with the innovator.

Jesus says in Matt 23: 2-3: "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you."
Christ explicitly validates the Seat of Moses as a legitimate, binding, extra-scriptural authority. He tells His followers to obey it even while condemning the hypocrisy of those sitting in it.

The seat of Moses isn't in the OT or Torah. It's not deceived in ANY text. It is a living institutional office that arose within the covenant community through tradition and practice. And Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, explicitly affirms it as binding. Therefore Christ Himself validates the existence of authoritative, extra-scriptural tradition as a legitimate vehicle of divine governance over His people. That's where He worshipped at. Your principles say He was in error.

---

Roman Catholicism will claim the opposite, that you split from them, and will lay claim to their episcopate, Tradition, and Councils all the same. Therein lies the problem for your claim.

Did Jesus really tell people to obey those on the "seat of Moses" and deny he is the Messiah like they did?

Didn't Jesus lambast those on the seat of Moses for holding their Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture, to where they negated Scripture in favor of their Tradition? Kind of like how Orthodoxy has to outright ignore what Scripture says in order to hold to their Tradition, as I demonstrated above?

Was this "seat of Moses" authority infallible? Pretty obvious that they weren't, right?

And you're completely glossing over the fact that Jesus didn't save those following the authority of the seat of Moses, but rather saved individuals going against their authorities' interpretation, and who interpreted for themselves that Jesus was the Messiah.

---

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their oral halakha: man made fence traditions (the "traditions of men," Mark 7:8) …not for having authoritative tradition.

The Pharisees weren't condemned for having tradition; they were condemned for using their tradition to nullify the commandment of God..

Nobody claimed the seat of Moses was infallible. The point of Matt 23:2-3 is that Jesus acknowledged a legitimate, extra scriptural, institutional seat of authority and told His disciples to obey it even while the occupants were personally corrupt.

The disciples didn't arrive at Christ through private interpretation of texts they responded to a living Person who taught with authority, performed miracles, and commissioned an Apostolic community. The model they established was not "read the text and decide for yourself" it was "receive the Apostolic deposit and guard it" (2 Tim. 1:14, 1 Tim. 6:20)

You just think everyone is totally depraved and you hate mankind. You can't fathom that God could establish a visible church. That's why you're on here condemning everyone to hell and accusing everyone that doesn't follow your papacy as evil.

---

The Pharisees were putting their oral tradition over the word of God, similar to how the RCC and Orthodoxy does it today. Again, if you want proof, just look at all the questions you ignored and dodged above.

If the seat of Moses wasn't infallible, then there is no reason to believe that any church authority today is, or has to be either.

Yes or no - Jesus saved those who, despite what their religious authorities were telling them, believed for themselves through their own understanding that Jesus was the Messiah. "Who do YOU say that I am?"

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:920

John 7:538:11

---

Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?

In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.

---

They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.

---

And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.

The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.

Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."

---

From cover to cover. Starting with Genesis 1, to the end of the NT, there are historical contradictions, lineage contradicitons, historical contradictions, contradictions of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and archaeology, and internal incosistencies in the mythological stories. Just what you'd expect from primitive people who were desparately trying to preserve and create their cultural identity and understanding of the world.

---

Please cite the most specific or egregious error that doesn't allow you to accept the Bible as inherent.

As a scientist, you should be able to produce ONE for us to discuss. Let's address these "contradictions."

4th and Inches said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:920

John 7:538:11

---

Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?

In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.

---

They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.

---

And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.

The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.

Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."

---

From cover to cover. Starting with Genesis 1, to the end of the NT, there are historical contradictions, lineage contradicitons, historical contradictions, contradictions of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and archaeology, and internal incosistencies in the mythological stories. Just what you'd expect from primitive people who were desparately trying to preserve and create their cultural identity and understanding of the world.

---

Based on your posts, you have never encountered the Holy Spirit.. you have no idea what you are missing. I will continue to pray for you.

---

You haven't either. It's a mythical belief that produces a psychological induced emotion. People in every religion experience religious induced euphoria.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

1 John 5:7

Mark 16:920

John 7:538:11

---

Would you care to provide context concerning these passages?

In others, please cite your specific objections or contradictions in these passages. As a good scientist, I'm sure you'd like for me to address your concerns.

---

They weren't original to the oldest manuscripts - add ons.

---

And? Most bibles today footnote that these may have not be in the original manuscripts. What point of yours do that prove? The earliest monks deemed that they were not contradictory to the faith or teachings of Jesus.

The 99.99% of the bible is of the original.

Please feel free to elaborate on any other "contradictions."

---

From cover to cover. Starting with Genesis 1, to the end of the NT, there are historical contradictions, lineage contradicitons, historical contradictions, contradictions of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and archaeology, and internal incosistencies in the mythological stories. Just what you'd expect from primitive people who were desparately trying to preserve and create their cultural identity and understanding of the world.

---

Please cite the most specific or egregious error that doesn't allow you to accept the Bible as inherent.

As a scientist, you should be able to produce ONE for us to discuss. Let's address these "contradictions."

---

Any error by definition refutes inerrancy. One being more egregious than another is not the point. The totality of errors and inconsistencies overwhelmingly demonstrate errancy. Start with Genesis - Genesis 1 describes a false cosmology where a solid "firmament" separates waters above from below.

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

---

You: "A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list."

Of course it can. This is exactly how God has been able to achieve his infallible will through fallible man ever since the fall. It's how the Jews were able to recognize their infallible canon of Scripture, despite obviously being fallible themselves.

No one doubts that oral tradition is how it started. But for us today, we don't have the original apostles with us, we only have the written record of their oral tradition, as well as their written letters. The simple fact is this: everything the church has today in its possession that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

**Do the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have ANYTHING in their possession that we know came from the apostles through a continuous, unbroken chain of witness, that is NOT in Scripture? If so, what is it?

If you guys don't know anything about Church history, liturgical worship, 2nd temple Judaism, ecumenical councils, canons etc.…then you're following along blindly. At minimum you should look into and research this.

I know you like to think you're confident. Bible-clutching. Convinced you've cut through centuries of corruption to recover "real" Christianity. That you're getting back to Scripture, back to the early church, back to the apostles. But don't lie to yourself that you think you know enough. It's one thing to understand and still reject it, but another to completely lack understanding and reject it.

Many former Baptist and Protestant pastors have converted to Orthodoxy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Any error by definition refutes inerrancy. One being more egregious than another is not the point. The totality of errors and inconsistencies overwhelmingly demonstrate errancy. Start with Genesis - Genesis 1 describes a false cosmology where a solid "firmament" separates waters above from below.

---

Thank you for listing one apparent contradiction.

Do you assume that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are designed to be a science book?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Are ya'll aware that the word of God isn't just scripture?

The Word of God is primarily a Person, not a text. The Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity. Scripture bears witness to Him, it's a letter about the Word, not the Word itself in the most proper sense.

Oral tradition preceded and accompanied written Scripture throughout salvation history. From Adam to Moses there was no written revelation, yet no one considers that period devoid of God's word. The prophets preached far more than was ever written down, Obadiah's 21 verses hardly represent his entire ministry.

The apostles didn't establish a canon. If sola scriptura were foundational to the Gospel, Christ and the apostles would have prioritized assembling one. Instead it took centuries of councils and debate, meaning the early church operated without sola scriptura by definition.

Paul explicitly calls his oral preaching the word of God. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is direct, the Thessalonians received his spoken teaching "not as the word of men but as the word of God."

The canon itself is a product of Tradition. Even evangelical scholars like FF Bruce and Lee McDonald concede that apostolic tradition and church authority were absolutely necessary for determining which books belong. A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list.

The lectionary and liturgical context produced the canon, not academic textual scholarship, and not a self authenticating biblical text.

---

You: "A fallible process can't reliably produce an infallible list."

Of course it can. This is exactly how God has been able to achieve his infallible will through fallible man ever since the fall. It's how the Jews were able to recognize their infallible canon of Scripture, despite obviously being fallible themselves.

No one doubts that oral tradition is how it started. But for us today, we don't have the original apostles with us, we only have the written record of their oral tradition, as well as their written letters. The simple fact is this: everything the church has today in its possession that we know came from the apostles is in Scripture, and nowhere else.

**Do the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have ANYTHING in their possession that we know came from the apostles through a continuous, unbroken chain of witness, that is NOT in Scripture? If so, what is it?

---

Paul explicitly tells the Tessalonians to hold to traditions delivered by word or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). He tells Timothy that the things he heard orally in the presence of many witnesses are to be committed to faithful men after him (2 Tim 2:2). Paul himself says he taught in Ephesus for three years day and night: do you seriously believe every word of that three year teaching is containing in his epistles? The text itself even tells you it isn't.

The Jews had no settled, universally agreed canon in the 1st century. There were competing canons, debates over books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs well into the 2nd century. So the example you chose...actually demonstrates that the canonization required an authoritative community process, not individual fallible recognition producing a clean infallible result.

Yes the Church possess several things traceable to apostolic origin that aren't in Scripture.

1.) The Liturgy: The eucharistic liturgical structure, the shape of Christian worship, predates any canonical New Testament document and is attested continuously from the Didache, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius forward. Paul references an already established eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:23 using technical transmission language parelabon/paredoka: recieved/delivered. The same language used for oral tradition.

2.) Baptismal practice/formula: The trinitarian baptismal formula and its theological freight is transmitted liturgically and catechetically, not exhaustively defined in the text alone.

The irony of your position is that you asked what the Church has that came from the apostles outside of Scripture...but the table of contents you're using to define Scripture is itself not in Scripture. The canon is an apostolic tradition transmitted through the Church. You received it from people you identify as pagan idol worshippers.

Here's an easy one. The tile "The Book of Matthew" is not found anywhere in the text itself. So how do you know it's Matthew's book? Answer 'Apostolic Tradition'.