The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

[fhansen]

Good for God. . .he knows who are the elect.

Of course; He foreknows who will persevere.

 

[fhansen]

So you choose which commandments of the tablet of 10 to follow then because, for one, you or your church do not keep the 4th commandment. I warned you to be careful of your answer but you were not.

It’s not me choosing; the whole church, while holding that the ten commandments must be obeyed did it that way-and continued to down through the centuries. Because that’s what they received from the beginning. A couple of brother Christians put it this way.

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. St Justin 90-165 AD

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death St Ignatius of Antioch 50-100 AD

They had the Torah and knew it well, along with the new testament writings that were available before the canon was determined. And in addition to that, they had nearness to the fact, the historical events, themselves; St Ignatius was a disciple of John, for one.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No where are we told to go outside the Bible for our doctrine. Especially going against the Testimony of God Exo 31:18

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there[a] is no light in them.

This teaching that man transferred the Sabbath to Sunday in fact fulfills this prophecy.

Dan 7:25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High,
Shall persecute[j] the saints of the Most High,
And shall intend to change times and law.

The Sabbath is the only law that is both a time (every seventh day Exo20:10) and law- (4th commandment Exo 20:8-11) and was changed by clear history outside the Bible.

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; —she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
—Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism; New York in 1857, page 174

Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
—Rev. Peter Geiermann C.SS.R., The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50

The battle of the end time is all over worship see Rev 13 and Rev 14.

We are told in the last days to get back to worship the God of Creation

Rev 18: 4 And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.

Rev 14:7 saying with a loud voice, “Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water.” Exo 20:11 (4th commandment) Gen 2:1-3

I believe this is a test of our loyalty, just as Adam and Eve were tested- was it just a tree or the voice of obedience of who they would listen to behind the command, just as the Israelites were tested on the Sabbath Exo 16:26-28 Eze 20:13 before Mt Sinai before entering their promised land. Our worship comes down to who do we obey. It’s more than just Sunday or Sabbath, it’s whose voice are we listening to behind where it comes from. God or man. God wrote and spoke the Ten Commandments. Man cannot edit God's Testimony. The Sabbath is an expression of His character- the Creator Exo 20:11 the only God who can create heaven and earth and the Sanctifier Eze 20:12 the only God who can sanctify us or a day. Eze 20:12 Gen 2:1-3 which we can’t do ourselves Isa66:17

 

[fhansen]

Scripture was never intended to serve as some sort of exhaustive, systematic catechism even though many attempt to use it that way. But we cannot conflict with it. And it tells us:

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21:25

This change, this new way to value and observe the commandment, didn’t happen in a vacuum, as if the whole church world, and not only Catholics by any means, just suddenly, duh, forgot about that one while continuing to uphold the necessity of obeying the commandments. This is simply the way Christian’s did it. And still do it.

 

[Mercy Shown]

The Hebrew word for "LAW" is "תּוֹרָה", "towrah". This means that you just said;

"Not sure what you mean here, but animal sacrifices for sin go way back before God's Law became God's Law."

That doesn't make much sense.

The Torah or Pentateuch consists of the first 5 books of the bible. It is often referred to as the Book of the Law.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Nevertheless, there was No Commandment of God for man to kill animals "because of their transgressions". This command wasn't "ADDED" to God's LAWS until 430 years after Abraham, at least this is what Paul and the Holy Prophets teach.



4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying "of his gifts": and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Yes, it wasn't an offering Commanded by God "because of their Transgressions", which is the entire premise of your reply. It was a free will offering to God out of respect and honor towards God.

This assumes facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence of this? How does killing a lamb respect and honor God? Are you suggesting that God is honored by killing an innocent creature and burning its carcass on an altar? If so, do you kill and burn a lamb on an altar to honor God? Of course not. Why? Because the lamb that takes away the sins of the world has fulfilled that function. The offering was a sin offering.

Prov. 3: 9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.

That is exactly what Cain was doing. He was a farmer, so he brought his first fruits. Why wasn't God pleased with that?

There was no Commandment from God that they should kill goats, "because of their Transgressions". The AI teaching here doesn't mention that Cain gave a free will offering to God, same as Abel, but it wasn't the best of his increase. I think you have missed the entire point of the Scripture in your attempt to defend and justify the religious philosophy that God's entire Law wasn't "ADDED" until AFTER Transgressions.

Just because those exact words are not written out, it should be obvious to you as to the function of these sacrifices. If they are as you claim, then why do you not carry out such sacrifices to honor God today?

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Rom. 12: 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that "ye present your bodies" a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Isn't this the real difference between Cain and Abel?

What? How does this refer to Cain bringing his first fruits to the altar.

Yes, a free will offering to God for His Mercy and promises. And to Ratify a covenant God made with Noah, just as Moses in the Ex. 24 verse you referenced that I posted for our discussion and in the hope that you might answer questions asked of you, concerning the teaching you are furthering. There is no mention of a Commandment of God to kill animals, "because of his transgressions". You are making my point for me.

There absolutely is. Animal sacrifice is always what pointed to Christ on the cross. John did not say, "Behold the Avocado that takes away the sins of the world." He said "Lamb."

I think you should read the entire story. And yes, it wasn't about killing animals for the remission of Abraham's sin.


Yes, it was not about Abraham sacrificing Isaac "because of his transgressions". The command by God to kill animals "because of transgressions" was not "ADDED" to God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments Abraham obeyed, until 430 years after Abraham.

Again, you are making the point Paul was making. The "LAW" that was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions", wasn't added until after the Golden Calf.

This is rabbit hole theology. We are in biblical wonderland here. Jacob sacrificing Isaac tells the story of God having His own son killed for our sins. "God will provide a lamb." What do you think that means?

Yes, God's Laws existed which defined sin, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) lived by them, and free will offerings to God were offered as expressions of Love and respect for their King. But Israel lost sight of them, and sent Moses to show them once again.

This is incredibly bazaar. You are saying that in order to

But the "LAW" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices "because of transgressions", (Sin) wasn't "ADDED until after Israel broke God's Covenant, and Moses went up the 2nd Time to secure another Covenant.

This is the "LAW" Paul was speaking to, that the required Jews to come to "them" for atonement, and not to Jesus. Paul is telling them that the very reason this "ADDED" Law was given, was to lead them to their True High Priest, the Lamb of God.

The deceiver would have you and I believe that "ALL" of God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, holiness, judgments etc.,, given to Moses, were not given until after Transgressions. But this deception is stupid, given that their is NO Transgression, without LAW.



Remember, we are arguing about what "LAW" was ADDED "because of Transgressions" that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians.

A Law that was to Lead them to their Prophesied, True High Priest. A "Law" that wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

This World's religious system, and by extension you, because you promote the same philosophy, is that this "LAW" was the entire Law of God, made known to the world through Moses, His Chosen Servant, through the Law and Prophets. And you specifically stated the LAW can not be "parsed", meaning that if I Love the Lord my God with all my heart, I must also kill a goat "because of my transgressions" or I am not obeying God. I tried to show you how the "Priesthood", unlike God's Judgments and Commandments, was temporary from it's conception. And was Prophesied to end. While God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, clean, holy and just, are eternal.

Now lets get out of the rabbit hole and go over some examples.

️ Step 2: Biblical Examples Before the Mosaic Law​

1. Genesis 3:21 – The first shedding of blood​

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

While not explicitly called a “sacrifice,” this verse implies that animals were slain to cover human shame. The skins would have required the death of an animal — the first recorded death after sin entered the world.
Spiritual meaning: Bloodshed provided covering (Heb. kaphar = atone). This sets the pattern that forgiveness and cleansing from sin require substitutionary death.

---

2. Genesis 4:3–5 – Cain and Abel​

“Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.”

The “firstlings” and “fat portions” indicate a blood sacrifice, unlike Cain’s produce offering.
Hebrews 11:4 interprets this scene:

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.”

Why was Abel’s sacrifice “more excellent”? Because it was an atoning offering — an act of faith that looked forward to the covering of sin through blood (cf. Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission”).

So while Genesis doesn’t label Abel’s act a “sin offering,” the New Testament identifies it as a righteous, faith-based, blood sacrifice — a prototype of substitutionary atonement.

---

3. Genesis 8:20–21 – Noah after the Flood​

“Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour…”

The phrase “sweet savour” (Heb. reyaḥ niḥoach) later appears repeatedly in Leviticus to describe sacrifices that make atonement (Lev. 1:9, 3:5, 4:31).
God’s response to Noah’s offering — “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake” — mirrors the appeasement and reconciliation language of atonement.

Noah’s act has atoning overtones: the world had just been judged for sin, and Noah offers sacrifice representing cleansing and restored favor.

---

4. Genesis 22:13 – Abraham and Isaac​

“And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.”

The substitutionary nature is unmistakable — the ram dies “in the place of” Isaac.
That is the exact logic of a sin offering: one life given to spare another.
Later Scripture confirms the typology:

• John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”
• Romans 8:32: “He did not spare His own Son.”

So while this sacrifice is called a burnt offering, its theological meaning is substitutionary atonement — precisely what a sin offering represents.

---

5. Job 1:5 and 42:8 – Job’s priestly offerings​

“Job… offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned…”
“My servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept… and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering.”

These clearly function as sin offerings — the intent is explicitly to make intercession for sin.
Job lived in the patriarchal period before Moses, showing that substitutionary sacrifice for sin was already known.

 

[Hentenza]

It’s not me choosing; the whole church, while holding that the ten commandments must be obeyed did it that way-and continued to down through the centuries. Because that’s what they received from the beginning. A couple of brother Christians put it this way.

We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead. St Justin 90-165 AD

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death St Ignatius of Antioch 50-100 AD

They had the Torah and knew it well, along with the new testament writings that were available before the canon was determined. And in addition to that, they had nearness to the fact, the historical events, themselves; St Ignatius was a disciple of John, for one.

Your church argues the same as my argument except their addition of works for salvation. We don’t keep the commandments because they are in tablets of stone but because these commandments are written in our hearts and we walk in the Spirit not in the law.

The folks that we are arguing with here sre SDA who believe that the 4th commandment is a moral commandment and all that does not worship on Saturday are sinning so consequently, unless we repent, we live in sin. I don’t think your church believes or promotes that, right?

 

[Hentenza]

Scripture was never intended to serve as some sort of exhaustive, systematic catechism even though many attempt to use it that way. But we cannot conflict with it. And it tells us:

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” John 21:25

This change, this new way to value and observe the commandment, didn’t happen in a vacuum, as if the whole church world, and not only Catholics by any means, just suddenly, duh, forgot about that one while continuing to uphold the necessity of obeying the commandments. This is simply the way Christian’s did it. And still do it.

The Holy Scriptures are the ONLY God inspired writings. None of the ECF writings are God inspired so what the ECFs teach MUST conform with scripture. The litmus test is the scriptures not the ECF writings.

 

[fhansen]

The Holy Scriptures are the ONLY God inspired writings. None of the ECF writings are God inspired so what the ECFs teach MUST conform with scripture. The litmus test is the scriptures not the ECF writings.

No one says they're inspired as Scripture is. It's just that we have a bunch of people here, going by the bible alone, disagreeing with each other over whether following the ten commandments is even necessary at all to begin with, with some also disregarding history's understanding of an instance where the Spirit of the law continued to be fulfiled but in a new way, not by the Letter but based on what they had received and experienced, made possible by the new freedom they now understood. This does not conflict with Scripture as Scripture, itself, tells us not all things were recorded.

 

[Hentenza]

No one says they're inspired as Scripture is. It's just that we have a bunch of people here, going by the bible alone, disagreeing with each other over whether following the ten commandments is even necessary at all to begin with, with some also disregarding history's understanding of an instance where the Spirit of the law continued to be fulfiled but in a new way, not by the Letter but dictated by what they had received and experienced. This does not conflict with Scripture as Scripture, itself, tells us not all things were recorded.

Even if you interpret the scriptures as not all being recorded it still does not prove that what you bring to the plate to “simplify” or “clarify” interpretation is true because it is still not inspired. Only the scriptures are absolute truth.

 

[Colo Millz]

Even if you interpret the scriptures as not all being recorded it still does not prove that what you bring to the plate to “simplify” or “clarify” interpretation is true because it is still not inspired. Only the scriptures are absolute truth.

Then we shouldn't sing hymns or preach either?

Maybe we should all just sit around reading scripture - and not speaking to each other? (That would be "interpretation").

 

[Hentenza]

Then we shouldn't sing hymns or preach either?

Maybe we should all just sit around reading scripture - and not speaking to each other? (That would be "interpretation").

Don’t know where you got that from my post.

The fallacy of fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Colo Millz]

Don’t know where you got that from my post.

It certainly wasn't in your post but it logically follows.

If only scripture is absolute truth, why bother with anything else?

Why bother with preaching, for example? That's just "interpretation" and might be flawed.

 

[Hentenza]

It certainly wasn't in your post but it logically follows.

If only scripture is absolute truth, why bother with anything else?

Why bother with preaching, for example? That's just "interpretation" and might be flawed.

You are guilty of the fallacy of fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

The answer is simple, do the rest in light of scripture.

 

[Colo Millz]

You are guilty of the fallacy of fallacious reductio ad absurdum.

The answer is simple, do the rest in light of scripture.

Like the ECFs.

They are at least as reliable as your average Sunday sermon, I'd say, and we should pay attention to them to the same degree.

 

[Hentenza]

Like the ECFs.

They are at least as reliable as your average Sunday sermon, I'd say, and we should pay attention to them to the same degree.

No issues there. I do cringe though when people use commentators to prove doctrinal issues though.

 

[Colo Millz]

No issues there. I do cringe though when people use commentators to prove doctrinal issues though.

Why?

What's the difference between reading a commentator and listening to a sermon?

I confess I also cringe when listening to sermons, I am a fan of the three minute homily.

 

[fhansen]

Even if you interpret the scriptures as not all being recorded it still does not prove that what you bring to the plate to “simplify” or “clarify” interpretation is true because it is still not inspired. Only the scriptures are absolute truth.

No, you're assuming that all revelation had to be recorded in written form.

Then we're faced with a situation here where the whole church, the early church, believed and practiced in a particular way, and then did so for the centuries following. Then a group comes along, some 1850 years after the fact, and says,, 'We got it right. The church had it wrong all this time, even though the group was nowhere near at the time that it all transpired. The church wears parts of revelation in its life, it's lived experience..

 

[Clare73]

Of course; He foreknows who will persevere.

They being the ones he has enabled to persevere, nothing being able to separate the sovereignly (Jn 3:3-8) born again from God's love (Jn 6:39, Ro 8:38-39).

 

[Studyman]

This assumes facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence of this? How does killing a lamb respect and honor God? Are you suggesting that God is honored by killing an innocent creature and burning its carcass on an altar? If so, do you kill and burn a lamb on an altar to honor God? Of course not. Why? Because the lamb that takes away the sins of the world has fulfilled that function. The offering was a sin offering.

So Then, if your adopted religious philosophy you are promoting to me is correct, and God commanded men to kill animals for their sins in the very beginning. That would mean that the "LAW" Paul said was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham, wasn't the "Mosaic Law" that you teach to the world "cannot be divided/parsed". And it wasn't the LAW against murder, because Cain was punished for murder, and the Mosaic Law said, "Thou shall not kill", and it is your preaching that the "Mosaic Law cannot be divided/parsed". It wasn't the Law about adultery, because Abimelech was concerned about God being angry with him concerning adultery, and the Mosaic Law said, "though shall not commit adultery" and the Mosaic Law cannot be parsed/divided, according to the religious philosophy you are promoting. It wasn't the LAW about what is Food and what is not food according to God's Instruction on how to be Holy, because Noah lived under that "LAW" and you have said that the Mosaic Law cannot be parsed, if one part of it becomes obsolete, then the whole Law becomes obsolete. And clearly this LAW existed even before Abraham, and therefore cannot be part of the "LAW" that was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.

So if it wasn't any of these "Mosaic Laws", your term not mine, that Paul is speaking about, because he said this Law the Pharisees were promoting to the Galatians was a Law "ADDED "because of transgressions", and was "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham.

So even you are right, and Jeremiah was lying in Jer. 7:22-23, about God Commanding the fathers to kill animals for their sins, which the Bible clearly doesn't teach, before Mt. Sinai. Then Paul couldn't be talking about the "Mosaic Law", which you preach can not be "parsed", because the Law Paul is speaking to wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.

However, if a man is supposed to Love God with all their heart, and place nothing before Him, not their most precious possessions like money, or the best of their flock, or the best of their increase, or their favorite religion, or their pride, or their wickedness or their side chick, and so one, then Cain and Abel would be the perfect example of offerings that were acceptable to God, and offerings that were not.

Cain didn't have a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle. He grew crops. Is it then your religion that because Cain didn't have a goat to offer God for his sins, he was rejected? Banished?

But what if the Bible is right, and it's this world's internet and religious system that is wrong. What if the Bible is right concerning the issue between Cain and Abel, and their honor and respect for God? What if the Spirit of Christ on Jeremiah is true, and it's the religions of this world that are promoting doctrines, philosophies and traditions of men?

Heb. 11: 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying "of his gifts": and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Where is your teaching that Cain and Abel were sacrificing for their sins? The Hebrews Author and I must be wrong on this topic, but the internet is right?

Jude 1: 10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. 11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Where is there a mention of Cain sacrificing for his sin? But it surely speaks to a man who withholds the best of his increase for himself.

1 John 3: 12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

Still, nothing about killing goats for the remission of sins. And finally, what did God actually say to Cain after his offering was not accepted?

Gen. 4: 6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Again, where is the command from god to kill animals for remission of their sins?

It doesn't exist in Scriptures, only in this world's religious philosophies.

But with men, as it is clearly shown that religion is very precious, and Pride as well. So much so that they cannot be corrected, even by the Word of God.

As Jesus Himself teaches:

Luke 16: 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

I am not going to argue with this world's internet that men copy and paste from. You have free will to do so. But If Solomon couldn't resist the influences of this evil world, who am I to believe I can fill my mind with the same "course of this world" and not be corrupted by it?

The philosophy that God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac to atone for Abraham's Sin is absurd. The Scriptures say no such thing.

Jesus tells us the point of this story, if men would only believe Him.

Matt. 10: 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter "more than me" is not worthy of me.

Gen. 22: 10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for "now I know" that thou fearest God, seeing thou "hast not withheld" thy son, thine only son "from me".

What this world's religious system won't teach you, is that True Faith is Loving and Trusting God, and to be willing to offer to God our most precious treasure.

Rom. 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

For some men, it is their religion. For others, it is their pride. For Abraham it was his "Only Son" who God had already promised would become a great nation. It was a test of Abraham's Faith/Love for God, as the Scriptures teach, "To prove him, whether he would walk in God's Law or not". The temporary "LAW" commanding men to kill goats "because of transgressions", wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years later.

As it is also written, "To Obey is better than Sacrifice".

You disagree, you are free to do so.

 

[Hentenza]

No, you're assuming that all revelation had to be recorded in written form.

Then we're faced with a situation here where the whole church, the early church, believed and practiced in a particular way, and then did so for the centuries following. Then a group comes along, some 1850 years after the fact, and says,, 'We got it right. The church had it wrong all this time, even though the group was nowhere near at the time that it all transpired. The church wears parts of revelation in its life, it's lived experience..

Your arrogance is showing and you had to take it there. Fine. That’s the BIG problem of equaling Holy Scriptures to the traditions of your church. And you know what Jesus said about “for the sake of your traditions” right? The group had to come along in the 16th century to protest your church’s doctrine errors and other problems. Most of the errors persist to this day.