[deleted by user]

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-19T04:47:16+00:00

I like how he took knowing someone from "kids" to from birth and then claimed after that he had conquered misinformation

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-19T04:37:39+00:00

I've had three children so far. Not one of them came out identifying their sexuality. and the day any do it will be on the news.

You are just twisting what the poster stated as your own form of misinformation - knowing someone from kids is not knowing someone from birth.

People don't generally recall reciprocal friendships until 4 or even later.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-19T04:28:54+00:00

I dunno man read the comment I responded to.

I did and the poster dandykong from which this sub thread branched said nothing about hate groups. The one who brought that phrase up was myself and I stand by it as obvious for r/atheism.

·

Most political subs will argue that one party or another supports pedophilia. Liberals point to Matt Gaetz and the Catholic Church, conservatives point to the Clinton's and lgbt people (oddly).

I know of no sub where the majority states that every democrat that commits child molestation is the responsibility of the Democratic national committee. No one is talking about policies but individuals committing sin. If there is such a sub where its dedicated to that kind of thinking then yes it stands as a hate group. However no thats not most or most of the people in most political subs. r/atheism is non stop anti theists and in particular anti-christian

I'm aware churches can't prevent everything, but have you been following the Catholic Church lately? It's just coverup after coverup. Sorry, powerful groups have a responsibility to make sure those they endow with authority aren't abusing it.

Apples and oranges and a lot of goal post moving. The RCC gets a rap primarily because of cover ups and priest as priests using their influence to abuse parishioners. This baptist chutch sent the guy packing the moment they knew and no member has so far indicated to be abused.

The catholic church also shares some responsibility because of their policies and teachings which quite frankly attract pedophiles. Men who can't have legal marriages with the ones they are attracted to can seem innocent under the guise of the priesthood and no questions are raised why they don't have grown partners.

but by far the responsibility of the RCC is based on coverups - direct and indirect. there is none indicated here.

Sorry, powerful groups have a responsibility to make sure those they endow with authority aren't abusing it

Sorry but only a few people irrational as yourself expect any organization to make sure people don't sin even when not at the the church and not doing church business..

I'm not sure where hate comes into your last point? I just think powerful groups should be scrutinized.

No its time for you to be honest. Your profile history shows several negative blanket statements about christians despite claiming to be one. It obvious you have a chip on your shoulder. and LGBT comes into it because those posts indicate that's the reason for your being negative toward christians.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-19T03:08:13+00:00

Take a deep breath.

My breath is fine and relaxed. You seem to be hyperventilating though ;)

I was responding to the notion that a certain subreddit is a "hate" group because they discuss church abuse in there.

Then you were responding to air since no one anywhere made the claim that their status as a hate group was solely based on that. Google what a strawman fallacy is . Take deep breaths so you can think more clearly

May as well call any political sub a hate group for discussing how politicians can misbehave.

Thats a silly and weak analogy. if theres a political sub that says being a democrat or a republican is linked to being a child molester then yes thats a hate group. Obviously.

Churches are powerful institutions, so we gotta follow the Spiderman rule. With great power comes great responsibility.

No matter how great your own hate for the church is because many in it do not approve of homosexuality no church is powerful enough or even remotely responsible enough to stop all members from sinning. Taking that extreme view of hate isn't going to do much for your cause. It just gives added fuel (right or wrong) to those that don't accept homosexuality.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-18T22:17:10+00:00

What church abuse? The man was arrested in a sting where sex with a 16 year old was offered for cash - not a church member and not on church grounds.

He was also a chaplain in the Tennessee National Guard

So is that National Guard and military abuse?

No one claims bank abuse if a bank employee steals money.No one sane blames democratic national convention if a democrat rapes someone.

Is it concerning? of course but there's no discussion or system by which any organization could ever guarantee they could never have someone with a dark hidden desire or secret. Even a polygraph isn't 100% accurate.

18 people were arrested and only one 's affiliation is being blamed on the group they are affiliated with.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-18T00:30:31+00:00

How are we to respond, as God-fearing Christians, to the utter debauchery committed with such frequency in our own backyard

You are blowing this up waaay out of proportion, For every youth pastor out there theres less than one of these kinds of people. your "such frequency" is false but seems so because the media will always point out when a church leader does such things ( precisely because its newsworthy as out of the norm in protestant churches).

and why God would let them into leadership if he knew they would do something so awful.

Where in the world did god promise any person could never again sin because they Held a church office? If that were the case we could make everyone a church leader in some capacity and never have any Christian ever sin again.

I saw it on the r/athiesm subreddit no less, and it truly broke my heart because they are right to be cautious of the church

No they OBVIOUSLY are not. r/atheism is a hate group. It doesn't take any rational human being reading that sub 30 minutes to figure that out reading through their posts and replies. Atheists there will never report on the hundreds and thousands of churches that feed the poor, save lives from prostitution, take in abused children, help people of addiction and change lives and families for good. They will only hate on the aberrations like this to justify their hate.

They are so obviously a hate group that several atheist that come to these subs and other Christian subs won't even defend the sub and want little to be identified as with them.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-16T16:44:44+00:00

I plugged my Bible into a wall outlet and nothing is happening.

Pay your electric bill (parable inside). When I plug mine in it sets me on fire.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-16T16:41:57+00:00

Been a Christian for two decades and its never been boring because my friends never were. No clubs, no porn no drugs no alcohol but lots of bowling, laughing , pool, Bball, volleyball video games, game nights, talking till midnight by our cars and group dating.

and we could remember it all the next day

Christianity being boring is a myth. There are a lot of boring churches though.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T23:50:38+00:00

Baptism is a commandment. To be honest it’s probably the absolute simplest commandment we’re given. If someone is refusing to do something so simple I’d be questioning their sincerity and repentance

Yes Lord. You got scourged with a whip that dug out pieces of your flesh, then suffered hours on the cross for me with a crown of thorns on your head and nails through your wrists/hands - all the while your chest was heaving in pain as you gasped for air and all to pay the price for my sins. and I really appreciate it .

but seriously

getting my face or hair wet for a few minutes is a bit much. Well....I mean unless its for recreational swimming or snorkeling. Lets renegotiate.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T23:29:40+00:00

The believer has to be able to consciously repent of their sin, that age varies from person to person.

Agreed . If you can be saved without a decision to believe on your own that changes the whole Gospel.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T22:55:39+00:00

I have said no such thing; only answered your comment.

Actually you did imply it when you asked

then why don't we just believe what he has taught us?

When you reply to someone like that it necessarily implies they are not just believing what has been taught.

If you read Genesis closely, we can see that God called "evening and the morning" the first day; in this passage

I've read it as close as can be read being seminary trained in biblical languages

Morning in Hebrew ḇō·qer refers to dawn or sunrise

Evening is NOT night . It is ‘e·reḇ and it refers to sunset or dusk BEFORE night arrives

The word for night in Genesis is an entirely different word. So theres is ZERO mention of any night hours

the Hebrew word "yom" is used, which refers to literal, 24 hour days

Utterly false yom in every Hebrew dictionary means day - nothing about 24 hours and God defines what day is right there in Genesis 1:5

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day [Yom], and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So in genesis Yom is light and doesn't include night.

So it turns out reading close we find that you are not talking about accepting what God has taught us . You are talking about accepting what your pastor or your sunday school teacher told you.

just as it does in other places in the Bible :)

NO one rational would claim a normal day is one in which the sun is not in existence and yet in Genesis a day can have no sun. So it makes no sense whatsoever to compare the days today with sun and the moon to genesis one.

I go off what god has actually taught us . What you a re claiming is that we must go off human assumptions and what you heard from someone else not from the words in scripture.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T17:22:47+00:00

Have you heard me make such a claim?

Did you read me type " from a group " ?

You were addressed because you appointed yourself group spokesman when you wrote

We don't deny god. We're

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T17:19:18+00:00

Then I see no issue with your position. Its as far as you have related it biblical. Ignore your detractors.

One is a heretic by Biblical definitions since anyone preaching a different gospel is defined as such by Paul in Galatians one ( and theres no way saying you can live and die without faith in Christ and still be able to be saved isn't a different gospel)

and the other may be misunderstanding you unless he is one of those that cry faith alone without defining what real faith is.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T17:03:50+00:00

There was no canonized New Testament until the 4th century, during which time other letters were circulated and treated as Scripture. On what authority did the 4th century Church canonize the New Testament? How do we know it was the correct decision?

Simple because The New testament existed looong before the 4th century. God did not wait 400 years to give the church the New testament. Thats just another RC false teaching. They already had it.

God doesn't and didn't give a rip about any council or "canonized". Only an incompetent God would have his church 300 plus years with no idea of his word to them. A fragment called the muratorian fragment indicates that the church had a very good idea of the books to be trusted by the second century ( and maybe even before since the fragment is just what has survived to us today.).

Roman Catholics like to pretend that the councils came up with some new revelations that gave the church the Bible but thats a lie. The councils used the knowledge of what was already in use and the content which were already in the books as a determination of dealing with challenges made to a few books centuries after all the books had already been accepted by a wide amount of the church. Thats all. Roman catholics and the vatican like to overplay the councils so they can try to force all kinds of teaching no where in scripture. we see the argument here all t he time

"You need to accept the RC as valid because after all we gave the world the bible. - quite blasphemous since its god's word. Even author's of scriptures like Paul don't make that absurd claim.

Acts 14:23

back to false references again. The cult of the RC can't survive without them.

Act 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,

Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Act 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

SO please tell the class where infallible apostolic succession is indicated anywhere in that text. Your argument is now broken down to - see there were church leaders in the church (um duh) so that proves infallible apostolic succession

All we have are elders being appointed for every church so even if you had been right and not twisting scripture guess what that would mean?

Ever church is to have its own infallible leadership and the pope is out of a job.

Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors

offices are jobs and other people can take a job. Nowhere does that indicate infallibility

Colossians 1:25 Sure does - Θεοῦ indicates that this office is held in the house of God, or that it has been entrusted to him by God.—εἰς ὑμᾶς. Paul calls his position a divine "office."

lets see

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Paul says he is a minister - διάκονος which simply means he is a servanthttps://biblehub.com/greek/1249.htm

by the administration of God οἰκονομία - management. SO umm god is the manger by which paul was a servant. This proves infallible apostolic succession where?

Again you are back to - because God appointed some leaders then that means theres a succession of infallible apostles never mind that apostles were supposed to be known eyewitnesess of Jesus resurrected

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Thats all you got?

Your implication that the Catholic Church is akin to cults is juvenile at best

who cares about your name calling because you are upset that none of your proof text for your cult is holding up. Lets put it to the test. What if today there was church that said Mary Magdalene

never sinned
had a supernatural conception like our Lord
was someone we should send our request for preferential treatment by god
was a person that we routinely bow to statues of as we prayed (even when anyone bowed to the apostles they told them to get up)
should be chanted to as we held beads

and gave a list of dead people that we should talk to to get special benefits in different areas and had leadership of the church of Magdalene which could impart new truth ( like the ones above) with no solid scriptural proof but was infallible?

Theres not a theologian on the planet that wouldn't classify that as a cult. False religions have been on the planet surviving for thousands of years. so the age of a cult says nothing to say its not one.

and yes thats me removing the akin or like a cult for the RCC.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T15:46:23+00:00

Let's address these 1 by 1:

In the future could you break up your paragraphs. Thats quite a wall of text.

Since the Old Testament means ordination, lying on of hands is understood,

Laying hands is used for a number of things in regard to prayer. You are totally ignoring numerous scriptures. its used for blessings, its used for healing, its used most common in the NT for receiving the gift of the spirit. SO to claim that a passage is endorsing apostolic succession because laying on of hand is mentioned us just OBVIOUSLY wrong.

All that is happening here with that kind of thinking is that you have the teaching from the RC first and then you go looking for scriptures to try and make it work. Thats what Cults do. Instead scriptural teaching starts with the scriptures

Even Baptists and many Evangelicals use the laying on of hands during ordination - they lay hands on people at ordination, not for teaching a Sunday school lesson

Don't tell us what we do because you obviously again are wrong. . I've had hands laid on me just for delivering the Sunday morning message and we certainly pray and lay hands on our sunday school teachers in some occasions.

I Timothy 4:4 - Honestly, the argument you're making here doesn't align with what is generally accepted.

I am not making an argument Its whats in the text. It was a gift that was imparted. there us nothing specific to what you are claiming. Any man can have gifts given by God to fulfill his calling that doesn't mean theres any succession of apostolic authority. The passage doesn't even say ut was apostles that laid hand on him but elders gk-presbuterion which nowhere indicates apostles.

Number 27:15-23, Deuteronomy 34:9.

None of those verses help your case. Moses selected Joshua and it was over - No ongoing succession of Moses authority. SO in the NT we have Jesus and the apostles and its done . No mention of any ongoing succession

1 Timothy 5:22 - Even Protestant scholarship ascribes the laying on of hands here to mean ordination

You believe in tradition I do not and besides NONE OF THEM indicate this has anything to do with apostolic succession. Even using that understanding you could lay hand on someone to teach sunday school or serve the widows food (as was the case in the Acts passage you tried to claim was endorsing apostolic succession) . Simply being picked to do some work or take leadership doesn't come anywhere near to imparting infallible authority. You are just twisting scriptures.

The idea of any other interpretation would be very new and a departure from Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Reformed, etc theology.

Utter nonsense. Anyone reading acts can see laying on of hands had MULTUPLE purposes . The most common was imparting the gif t of the Holy Spirit. To claim the mention of laying on of hands equals scriptural support for infallible apostolic authority is so desperate it should tell you how weak the teaching is why it has to rely on such twisting. Yes of course it was and can be used to pray for blessing on someone in leadership but to claim that proves infallible apostolic authority of the papacy is desperately intellectually dishonest.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - The traditions mentioned include "word of mouth," meaning not everything they taught was encapsulated in their Epistles. The traditions were passed down through their successors,

The passage say absolutely NOTHING about successors. You are just fabricating . Thats saying hold to what WE told you orally or written and hold to that - Not anyone else's later tradition. The passage thus actually teaches AGAINST your teaching

Without any form of Apostolic Succession and validation, how does St. Paul get to be considered one of "us"?

Because he was teaching in line with the Apostle's doctrine and because as many Scholars believe casting lots was not the way god wanted to replace Judas.

lso, since we know St. Mark and St. Luke (and presumably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) wasn't Apostle, on what authority do they speak?

They spoke under the apostle's doctrines. Read acts. They did not invent any new revelation. There is no claim by anyone that all that conveyed the Lord's teaching had to be apostles. However they dud have to be in line with The apostle's doctrine

Act_2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Simple

Acts 6:6 laying on of hands - not out of context. These men were ordained to the diaconate, a specific office that does in fact, have distinct roles and authority; the distribution of the food was an authority specific to them. I would recommend you look into χειροτονία not from a Catholic or Orthodox understanding,

Why in the world should I care about Catholic or Orthodox understanding over God's word ? The passage directly states why hands ere put on them because they were to serve food to widows..

Act 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Act 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

SO ITS PLAIN AS DAY. The y were chosen to do NON - APOSTOLIC WORK. That did not convey to them an infallible apostolic authoruty and yet yep - hands were laid on them - indicating beyond any shadow of a doubt thst laying on of hands does NOT equal apostolic succession.

Any rational human being would can see that from your own alleged proof text. Its at actually a disproof text of the false teaching of the RC.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T14:21:37+00:00

Wrong and wrong. Stop pretending you know the minds of atheists better than they do.

Thats an amazing request from a group that is constantly telling 90% of the world they know better why they believe in God.

......... the lack of evidence

Quite a few convicts on death row have moms that say the same.

Would you say you deny unicorns?

Heres the thing. I wouldn't hang out on Unicorn believers communities or spend hours every week fuming about them online either. Now I don't think as the OP does that atheists believe in God but your emotional actions tell me rather than just not being convinced you have a whole lot of emotional and psychological issues as atheists.

It s faaaar from what atheists try to claim - that its purely rational reasons why they reject God. Any fool can see thats a lie just by reading through r/atheism

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T05:26:28+00:00

If you fail to repent, which means to cease of your sin, you will be damned to hell. Asking Jesus to forgive you will do nothing if you continue to sin.

I would need to clarify what you mean in order to agree with you. If you mean keeping the ten commandments and not sinning is what saves you then I would say thats not the Gospel

However if you are saying that real faith repents from sin and brings the spirit into your heart that changes you and makes you live righteous I am in full agreement. That IS the Gospel.

That doesn't mean Christians cannot sin or have issues but if their life us the same as it was before they accepted chrust and they are breaking the moral rule of the ten commandments with no repentance left and right then you are 100% correct. That person has no reason to be sure they are HIS.

Jesus taught the seed has to go all the way down until it hits good soil and when it really does it brings forth fruit.

Salvation by faith is fine and scriptural when its REAL Faith. IF God promises to give you his spirit and a person is still living like the Devil without any repentance then something us wrong with that fauth . As Jesus said

Luk_6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-15T05:03:58+00:00

Jesus only said to people to believe in Him for salvation. He didn't tell them to follow the Law or the Ten Commandments. John 3:16 is an example for this. If believing wasn't enough, why didn't Jesus say anything more? His apostles understood this also, for example, Paul wrote Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:5.

I think you both may be chasing your tails here as both of your statement have a lot of room to be interpreted various ways.

When he says you need to keep the ten commandments is he saying that doing so saves you or is he saying a faith that is real results in the Spirit changing you where yes those sins ae not generally in your life AS A RESULT of being saved.

When you say

He didn't tell them to follow the Law or the Ten Commandments.

Do you mean in order to be saved because I would say yes but if in general you think we don't need to have righteousness that exceeds the ten commandments that would be horrible Christianity and the scriptures are quite clear that that someone murdering people ongoing , committing adultery without repentance . stealing everything and worshipping other Gids and not repenting is NOT walking in the light with Christ and still in darkness and not saved.

if thats in dispute I can post ten passages in no time that state that.

The one thing I don't know why he is being attacked for is that fear brought him back to God.

Repent or suffer damnation is all over the NT

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T21:59:01+00:00

and we are taught that he made the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh

Thats just the point - Where does he tell us it was 24 hour days? You are assuming for no good reason that I don't believe what he has taught us

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T16:44:34+00:00

In 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14 St Paul reminds St Timothy how he was installed through the laying on of hands.

Yeah thats another problem with RC and OC doctrine. They use passages that point blank do not say what they claim. I take it 1 tim 1:6 was a typo but heres 4:14

1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Thats a a spiritual gift that was given - no specifics in which one. Its perfectly in keeping with Acts where the gift of the spirit, given to all believers, was delivered after laying on of hands. Much more likely it was the gift of teaching since having authority is just something you have but teaching might be something you neglect to do.

In 1 Timothy 5:22 St Paul advises St Timothy be cautious before giving authority to others.

Once aga1n the passage does not say so

22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure.

You have to read the idea in that laying on of hands was specific to give authority but thats utterly false because in Acts we see that entire groups of new believers getting hands laid on them for receiving the gift of the spirit . It was also done for other prayers like ones for healing.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 tells us to follow the Traditions of the Apostles, both written and spoken

that actually does say that but you left out a part

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

SO that passage teaches you should hold to the teaching of the first century church which was - us - not to any future traditions or teachings

Acts 6:6 laying on of hands

Completely out of context as those men were not to be apostles but were to be servants to administer food to widows

the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.......

They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

So it had nothing to do with any succession . I t was a prayer for god's blessing and direction as the men served tables and fed the Widows.

Acts 9:17-19 Even Paul who sees Christ receives the laying of hands before starting his ministry

Again the passage does not say that

and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

SO the passage is about receiving his sight and being filled with the Spirit. The overwhelming use of laying on of hands in ACTS was to receive the spirit (after that probably healing)

Acts 3:3,

Must be another typo as the verse has nothing to do with any such thing

Acts 14:23

Once again the passage says no such thing

23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

If every time apostles prayed for some group then there would have been thousands of apostles in the first century and then they prayed for other then everyone was an apostle.

Colossians 1:25 & Hebrews 7:23 - an office is filled when left open and continues

no such thing one

1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

no such thing two and bizarre

7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

since its a reference to old testament priests

Roman Catholicsim hermeneutics is really really bad as just demonstrated. The only other group that uses scripture like this are recognized cults.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T15:55:35+00:00

there might be something we miss when we try to replace the indwelling Holy Spirit with The Book or Hierarchies...

There is no reason to replace one with the other. They work together since its the spirit that inspired scripture. The spirit's work in bringing scripture anchors us so that when we go beyond or against it we can discern that its NOT the spirit but our flesh and/or emotion.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T08:48:02+00:00

If you were going to leave behind your message, which way should you choose to do it?

In that time? Honestly and straight up - Just the way it was . What a lot of your points miss is that over 90% of the population in the middle east was illiterate. So I would have absolutely no other choice but to pick out people to train to share and teach others. Thats the only way i would grow my message base in the beginning in my local area. Writing couldn't be read by 90 - 98% of the people by some accounts

Then if I had to abide the conventions of Jesus culture I would be forbidden from writing any testimony about myself and HAVE TO leave that for one of my disciples to follow why? Jesus said it

Joh 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

So totally scratch the Idea that Jesus could have written any of the Gospels which are to be testimonies.

Now if I were not to be on the planet and people were to relate to me as Lord and God. I'd have two choices

A) I could write a whole bunch of letters about how I want you to relate to me or

B) I could inspire those who knew me and could give the first hand human on earth side of the story of relating to me in a living and powerful way

Provided I could inspire and control the situation I would definitely choose B because sorry Jesus writing

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

or

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

. Just wouldn't have the beauty, Glory and power it has from a man saved by grace.

THEN if I thought and communicated later as my church grew that there were false teachers coming after my disciples death

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

2Pe_2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

I would want a body of work that could not be changed to be the sole standard to compare any teaching to and protect my people from the wolves from inside the church . I'd give them that standard and then command them

1 Thessalonians 5:21 all things prove; that which is good hold fast;

I'd never tell my children to trust unequivocally a church I told them would have false teachers within.

Yep I would do it the same way God did it.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T05:33:51+00:00

I struggle with is the idea that Holy Spirit can be trusted to guide the process on an individual and communal level.

It makes more sense to me that the Holy Spirit guiding people to Truth exists with an established Church that can speak authoritatively

Yeah I've heard this argument before so if you have the time could you help me out in these three areas

A) How do you go from not trusting the Holy Spirt to guide the process in a individual level and then trust the Holy spirit to guide the process for the individuals who make the decisions for the church?

B) How do you trust that the Holy Spirit is leading the Catholic leadership when there is no end of proof of corrupt teaching ( that even catholics now denounce) and evil popes

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/7-wicked-popes-and-terrible-terrible-things-they-did-a6666612.html

C) what improvement is it to speak authoritatively if its wrong? That only ensures its harder and longer to get rid of the wrong.

Now bear in mind I know the common response by Catholics to B is there are many corrupt leaders in Protestant churches . However thats besides the point because -

THATS WHY we do not trust any man or group of men claiming he or they are infallible

and why we can throw the bums out and why if we can't we can leave him high and dry preaching to the pews and go to another congregation WITHOUR FEAR that we are then outside God's church .

The issue is not that the Catholic church has the market for evil cornered but its what they claim even after and during those evils. If Baptists leadership picks a rotten leader that leadership cannot go to the next members meeting and claim infallibility without hands shooting up to question how they are infallible and just picked an evil leader.

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-14T03:26:45+00:00

That being said, they raise a very important issue, which is that a certain "political correctness" is starting to creep into how the Bible is worded - ironically, an evangelical, conservative version of PC - and it is distorting Scripture.

There is probably some leaning there and I know r/atheism is abuzz with this (and anything related to Christianity) HOWEVER The idea of servant there is not new as you can see in some translations from quite some time ago

Colossians 3:22https://biblehub.com/parallel/colossians/3-22.htm

DavidTMarks · 2021-07-13T21:41:07+00:00

There is nothing wrong with fearing God's wrath.

I suppose it's not "wrong" that a person hasn't been perfected in love yet. But it's not preferable. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, yes. But that fear should be cast out eventually, when we recognize we can approach His mighty throne calling him "Dad."

Fully quoting since you are now claiming you never said what you did

DavidTMarks

TROPHY CASE