Why do we do things not written in the Bible?

Jan001 said:

Thank you for your kind words. I do enjoy our conversations.

Click to expand...

Same here.

Jan001 said:

I don't see that there is a conflict with James' and Paul's teachings.

James was writing about the spirit of the Law of Moses, which is also the royal law of Christ (law of liberty). James was not talking about the letter of the Law of Moses. James 2:8-13

As you can see from the following, James is warning his flock that salvation is not a once-and-done thing. It is an ongoing daily process until death. Luke 9:23

James 1:12-15
Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth (spiritual) death.

We must continue to be saved until death to be approved to receive the crown of eternal life.

James 1:21-25
Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.

James further warns:

26 If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

James 2:26
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James teaches that the works we do (good or evil) show whether we have a faith that is saving us or a dead faith that is not saving us.

Click to expand...

Thanks for offering your opinion on James. I do disagree on a few points but I’ll move on to Paul. Paul, in contrast to James, was free to teach that the law is no longer binding on the Christian and now faith has arrived so we are no longer under the guardianship of the law. But Paul was not free of criticism by the converted Jews either as he battled how to convince cultural Jews that they were not to follow the law anymore but, unlike James, he was not in danger of being killed for teaching against the law. The other major difference is that Paul instigated the council of Jerusalem and had the benefit of the council decisions during the writing of his epistles while James wrote his epistle before the council. This allowed Paul to write freely in his epistles about the direction of the churches.

With that in mind, Paul wrote that the law had been fulfilled and was no longer binding on the church. He wrote that works were not necessary for salvation. In fact he taught that works were credited as what is due and that works could be used to boast. He also taught how are works would be judged in heaven. Here are some of his most popular verses.

“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, the wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, And whose sins have been covered. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.” Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭4‬:‭1‬-‭12‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

In the immediate context these verses answer the question from the bottom of the previous chapter which is in response to Paul’s discussion about Justification by faith apart from the works of the law. The verses here explain why the law remains for the unbeliever. Paul explains that Abraham was saved by his faith apart of the law because Abraham was not under the law then. But Paul drops the distinction between works of the law and just works in this chapter and talks about just works. Notice that the one that does not work but believes in Him that justifies is saved by faith apart from works. This is Grace. Grace is free and no one can work for what is freely given.

“I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? Far from it! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed Your prophets, they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.” But what is the divine response to him? “I have kept for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, since otherwise grace is no longer grace.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭11‬:‭1‬-‭6‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

The context here is the future fate of the remnant of Israel which will be saved once they believe in our Lord and savior. Their salvation is the same as ours, by grace apart from works. Christ is the one who justifies and no works are necessary since it is by the free gift of grace.

“And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the boundless riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭10‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Im sure you’ve battled this one before. I posted it from verse one to include part of the immediate context. The church in Ephesus was planted by Paul where he spent about three years then later Timothy pastored the church. The composition of the church was primarily gentile and Jews. The gentiles there practiced devotion to the goddess Artemis and the church grew so successful that the silversmiths that crafter Artemis statutes rebelled and rioted because it impacted their income. In these verses Paul does not hold back. No longer is there a comprimise for the Jews but the full hope for the gentiles. First, by grace we are saved. No other option. Second, salvation is a gift of God not as a result of works so that we cant boast (The same charge that Jesus leveled against the Pharisees in Matt. 23). Third, we are created in Jesus for good works. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Now the contrast between James and Paul is explained by what each one’s teaching emphasis is. Paul teaches about justification which is the result of free grace through faith. However, the key point here is that the believer is created as a workmanship of Christ. James, on the other hand, teaches about the mature Christians during their life long process of sanctification. A mature Christian that does not produce fruit lacks the maturity of the faith. Now we have to be careful here to not judge others by what we think their works should be or exalt those that we think are doing great works. The other key is that we are supposed to do the works that were crested ahead of time for us to do.

So works are not necessary for Grace and/or justification while works are proof of salvation therefore those with saving faith work from salvation not for salvation and those that are justified mature to saving faith and are consequently saved by the free grace of God through faith.

Jan001 said:

******

It would be fun to discuss predestination.

Click to expand...

Look forward to it. But remember that I’m not a Calvinist.

The Liturgist said:

Fortunately the majority of Roman Catholics have embraced the idea of ecumenical reconciliation with the Orthodox and also the Assyrian Church of the East, which is why Orthodox can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church and conversely Catholics can receive the sacraments in the Assyrian Church of the East, and in a few Oriental Orthodox churches, specifically, in Turkey, some Syriac Orthodox churches have been providing the Eucharist to Roman Catholics. But if we are to restore full communion, we must dispense with strident triumphalist movements on both sides; within Orthodoxy, the Old Calendarists and their fellow travelers in the canonical churches, who regard ecumenism as the most extreme of theological errors (by fallaciously conflating it with syncretism) and within Roman Catholicism, certain traditionalist movements which are fine with the loss of the beautiful Vetus Ordo liturgy but are extremely unhappy about the idea of ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox and other denominations.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the majority of Roman Catholics understand what ecumenical reconciliation looks like. Papal Sumpremecy ain't going away, the fillioque ain't going away. So while we can work together with charitable endeavors, what other eccumenical things are there?

In a theology nut shell, truth cannot coexist with error.

concretecamper said:

In a theology nut shell, truth cannot coexist with error.

Click to expand...

Which is why the great schism happened in the 12th century and the reformation happened in the 16th century.

Hentenza said:

So works are not necessary for Grace and/or justification while works are proof of salvation therefore those with saving faith work from salvation not for salvation and those that are justified mature to saving faith and are consequently saved by the free grace of God through faith.

Click to expand...

We do have different ideas about grace, faith, and good works. I believe we need all three of these, working together until death, to be approved for eternal life.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.


Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

Acts 2:47
praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Hentenza said:

Look forward to it. But remember that I’m not a Calvinist.

Click to expand...

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

How do you understand this?

Jan001 said:

We do have different ideas about grace, faith, and good works. I believe we need all three of these, working together until death, to be approved for eternal life.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.


Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.

Acts 2:47
praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Click to expand...

Dear Jan, we are talking past each other. You are not really addressing my posts but just posting verses that you think defeat the verses I posted. I’m not going down that rabbit hole. Thanks for the convo.

Hentenza said:

Which is why the great schism happened in the 12th century and the reformation happened in the 16th century.

Click to expand...

Unless you align 100% with Eastern Orthodox teaching, what a dumb comment.

concretecamper said:

Unless you align 100% with Eastern Orthodox teaching, what a dumb comment.

Click to expand...

That’s a compliment coming from you. I knew it would fly over your head.

Hentenza said:

That’s a compliment coming from you. I knew it would fly over your head.

Click to expand...

Lol, everyone wants the other guy to change, folks in the 16th century just decided to get out of it altogether and just follow Jesus and scripture.

concretecamper said:

Papal Sumpremecy ain't going away, the fillioque ain't going away.

Click to expand...

Did you know that most Eastern Catholic churches do not use the filioque? Also, many Orthodox theologians believe the filioque could be accepted, based on the views of St. Maximus the Confessor, as long as it is understood as referring to the Holy Spirit having been sent to us by the Son.

Regarding Papal Supremacy, no one is suggesting removing it from the Western church, other than German bishops who wish to unilaterally celebrate homosexual marriage and have been clamoring for “synodality” which is basically a cipher for “we want to do our own thing.” But with the Eastern Orthodox, the Pope never had supremacy, as the historical record shows, the only difference being most Popes prior to the eleventh century were OK with that, so long as they were not beholden to Orthodox views (and to be fair, Constantinople on a few occasions tried to supplant Rome, and a neo-Papal Ecumenical Patriarchate would be a disaster, which is why I’m so greatly opposed to the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of North America for his tireless work in advocating for the idea of the EP as primus sine paribus and as having the unilateral power to grant, and more distressingly, rescind autocephaly (also I would be opposed to GoArch anyway since North America was historically the territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, until the death of St. Tikhon, and now should theoretically be the territory of the OCA, ROCOR and the AOCNA, all three of which are convert-friendly, multi ethnic and are legitimate successors to the Russian church, the OCA having been granted autocephaly by it, the AOCNA being here through its blessing, and ROCOR being the anti-communist White Russian and Ukrainian emigres who reconciled with the MP in 2007.

That this issue even exists is also why I’m thankful for the Oriental Orthodox, for in the OO communion, there is not even really a primus inter pares (if there were, it would theoretically be the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, but the OO communion doesn’t work that way).

ARBITER01 said:

Lol, everyone wants the other guy to change, folks in the 16th century just decided to get out of it altogether and just follow Jesus and scripture.

Click to expand...

Except apparently not, given that if that were the case, we wouldn’t see the proliferation of anti-Catholic denominations that schism’d on very minor issues.

Fortunately there are Protestants such as confessional Lutherans, traditional Anglicans and others who recognized the Scriptural doctrine of the early church.

Regarding the rest of your remark, it conveniently ignores the fact that Rome and the Orthodox have been working towards reunification and have made considerable progress, as witnessed by the many productive meetings between the Pope and various EO and OO leaders. It also ignores the serious ecumenical engagement between the larger Protestant denominations, the Orthodox and the Catholics.

Lastly it presupposes that the Orthodox and Catholics do not “just follow Jesus and Scripture” which is a trifle rich coming from someone who is composing his own personal Bible ,and who attacked @ViaCrucis for addressing a prayer to the Holy Spirit (which we must stress once more is an entirely acceptable practice, since the Holy Spirit is God, and prayers can be addressed to any of the persons of the Trinity and reach all of them, since God abides in three coequal, coeternal persons but is ever one God).

concretecamper said:

I'm not sure if the majority of Roman Catholics understand what ecumenical reconciliation looks like. Papal Sumpremecy ain't going away, the fillioque ain't going away. So while we can work together with charitable endeavors, what other ecumenical things are there?

Click to expand...

Bringing the Roman rite liturgy back in line with tradition would be a significant step, but the current handling of the SSPX situation seems to indicate Pope Leo isn't going to be the one to do that.

Bro.T said:

So this meeting, and Paul’s preaching, took place during the time that we now call Saturday night.

Click to expand...

Even if that were true, which it is not, its also a red herring, since the preaching in question still happened on the First Day according to how days were reckoned.

So that proves nothing, since what we now regard ad Saturday Night, they regarded as the eve of the First Day, and thus, the first day is the first day.

However, we know that the descent of the Holy Spirit occurred in the morning of Sunday, because, well, Scripture:

Let’s take a look at Acts chapter 2:

5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7 Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[b] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”

13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.” 14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:….

In some Bible translations, this is rendered as the third hour, which in antiquity in the Greek language, in which Acts was written, referred to the third hour from sunrise. The third hour is usually around 9 AM, hence the translation in question rendering it as such.

But let us say instead it was the third hour after sunset. Well, it would (a) still be Sunday, but (b) St. Peter’s remark would make no sense at all, since by the third hour after sunset, many people are quite drunk indeed, especially in mid May, when the Descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost happened.

jas3 said:

Bringing the Roman rite liturgy back in line with tradition would be a significant step, but the current handling of the SSPX situation seems to indicate Pope Leo isn't going to be the one to do that.

Click to expand...

Amen to that, and yes, sadly Pope Leo has given no indication of wanting to undo any of the suffering caused to traditional Catholics who were not even a part of the SSPX by Traditiones Custodes.

The Liturgist said:

Except apparently not, given that if that were the case, we wouldn’t see the proliferation of anti-Catholic denominations that schism’d on very minor issues.

Fortunately there are Protestants such as confessional Lutherans, traditional Anglicans and others who recognized the Scriptural doctrine of the early church.

Regarding the rest of your remark, it conveniently ignores the fact that Rome and the Orthodox have been working towards reunification and have made considerable progress, as witnessed by the many productive meetings between the Pope and various EO and OO leaders. It also ignores the serious ecumenical engagement between the larger Protestant denominations, the Orthodox and the Catholics.

Click to expand...

Oh,... I must be over the target. Two can't be a master, only one can be.

The Liturgist said:

Lastly it presupposes that the Orthodox and Catholics do not “just follow Jesus and Scripture” which is a trifle rich coming from someone who is composing his own personal Bible,

Click to expand...

Do I detect a bit of jealousy? Is that what this is?

When Jesus gives you a talent to use, whatever it may be, you don't bury it, you use it because He expects fruit from it. We will all be judged in the end for our works, I'm not about to adhere to what mankind says over what Jesus has me to do.

The Liturgist said:

and who attacked @ViaCrucis for addressing a prayer to the Holy Spirit (which we must stress once more is an entirely acceptable practice, since the Holy Spirit is God, and prayers can be addressed to any of the persons of the Trinity and reach all of them, since God abides in three coequal, coeternal persons but is ever one God).

Click to expand...

Jesus is the Mediator between GOD and man, not The Holy Spirit.

There are specific administrations for each in the GODHEAD, it is better that a person such as himself start reading his bible to understand these things instead of focusing on church teachings. Who knows, if he did he might finally start addressing his prayers to the right person and get born again.

concretecamper said:

Before you ask this question, you must first establish the fact that all Christian truths are found in the Bible. And you must establish that using just the Bible.

Click to expand...

You are starting to sound like a Lutheran

ARBITER01 said:

Do I detect a bit of jealousy? Is that what this is?

Click to expand...

Not at all, it’s genuine concern; like @ViaCrucis I remain deeply troubled by the fact that you wish to compose your own Bible for your own personal use.

ARBITER01 said:

When Jesus gives you a talent to use, whatever it may be, you don't bury it, you use it because He expects fruit from it.

Click to expand...

How is producing a variant form of the bible for your personal use only not burying your talents?

ARBITER01 said:

Jesus is the Mediator between GOD and man, not The Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Non-sequitur fallacy. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Paraclete. The Holy Spirit is God, Jesus Christ is God, the Father is God, three coequal persons, with Christ our True God also having put on our human nature in order to mediate, yes, by uniting it to His deity without change, confusion, separation or division. All three divine persons are worthy of worship, for they comprise one God, who we worship in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thus, there is no reason why prayers cannot be addressed to the Holy Spirit; which is why no Early Church Father or prominent Reformer or theologian of any major denomination I’m aware of ever said “do not pray to the Holy Spirit.”

I am particularly perplexed that a Pentecostal would not pray to the Holy Spirit. Is this widespread among Pentecostals or would you say your opposition to addressing prayer to the Holy Spirit is the result of your own study of scripture?

ARBITER01 said:

There are specific administrations for each in the GODHEAD, it is better that a person such as himself start reading his bible to understand these things instead of focusing on church teachings.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, and non-sequitur. Your argument presupposes we do not study our Bibles, when in fact we do, very carefully, particularly around the doctrine of the Trinity, which articulated from clear Scriptural truth, only the word Trinitas being extra-scriptural (having been coined by Tertullian, who is himself a warning to all of us, for he was a rising star of a theologian but due to a holier-than-thou attitude came to embrace rigorism and works righteousness in a Pelagian sense, beliving that one could not be forgiven of sin after baptism, and joined a rigorist sect, the Montanists, led by a man who claimed to be the Paraclete; because Tertullian did not adequately study the scripture that came down to us, he embraced a dangerous error, then fell into heresy and schism, which is extremely tragic, for Tertullian had he not done that would be among the most widely venerated Early Church Fathers, but since he rejected the idea of grace and forgiveness, he wound up destroying his reputation and endangering his soul, Kyrie Eleison.

ARBITER01 said:

Who knows, if he did he might finally start addressing his prayers to the right person and get born again.

Click to expand...

This is truly shocking - in that you’re basically saying every Christian who ever prayed to the Holy Spirit, which by the way includes those responsible for the 27 book New Testament canon, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular languages in antiquity and more recently, and the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and the 150 Holy Fathers at Constantinople, and those at Ephesus, and so on, were not “born again,” despite some of them having confessed Christ.

At the same time, you appear to be advocating works righteousness to an extreme degree, by suggesting your salvation depends on you completing that Bible, which, forgive me, seems a bit Pelagian. What happened to forgiveness? What happened to salvation by grace? What happened to the Pauline epistles? Or were you planning on omitting, for example, Galatians or Ephesians or Romans or 1 Corinthians?

The Liturgist said:

Not at all, it’s genuine concern; like @ViaCrucis I remain deeply troubled by the fact that you wish to compose your own Bible for your own personal use.

How is producing a variant form of the bible for your personal use only not burying your talents?

Click to expand...

I'll keep things simple. There was already one thread cleaned up from being off topic about this.

I think you're a good person and all, but what Jesus has me do is really none of your business.

The Liturgist said:

Non-sequitur fallacy. The Holy Spirit is our Comforter and Paraclete. The Holy Spirit is God, Jesus Christ is God, the Father is God, three coequal persons, with Christ our True God also having put on our human nature in order to mediate, yes, by uniting it to His deity without change, confusion, separation or division. All three divine persons are worthy of worship, for they comprise one God, who we worship in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Thus, there is no reason why prayers cannot be addressed to the Holy Spirit; which is why no Early Church Father or prominent Reformer or theologian of any major denomination I’m aware of ever said “do not pray to the Holy Spirit.”

I am particularly perplexed that a Pentecostal would not pray to the Holy Spirit. Is this widespread among Pentecostals or would you say your opposition to addressing prayer to the Holy Spirit is the result of your own study of scripture?



False dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, and non-sequitur. Your argument presupposes we do not study our Bibles, when in fact we do, very carefully, particularly around the doctrine of the Trinity, which articulated from clear Scriptural truth, only the word Trinitas being extra-scriptural (having been coined by Tertullian, who is himself a warning to all of us, for he was a rising star of a theologian but due to a holier-than-thou attitude came to embrace rigorism and works righteousness in a Pelagian sense, beliving that one could not be forgiven of sin after baptism, and joined a rigorist sect, the Montanists, led by a man who claimed to be the Paraclete; because Tertullian did not adequately study the scripture that came down to us, he embraced a dangerous error, then fell into heresy and schism, which is extremely tragic, for Tertullian had he not done that would be among the most widely venerated Early Church Fathers, but since he rejected the idea of grace and forgiveness, he wound up destroying his reputation and endangering his soul, Kyrie Eleison.



This is truly shocking - in that you’re basically saying every Christian who ever prayed to the Holy Spirit, which by the way includes those responsible for the 27 book New Testament canon, the translation of the Bible into the vernacular languages in antiquity and more recently, and the 318 Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and the 150 Holy Fathers at Constantinople, and those at Ephesus, and so on, were not “born again,” despite some of them having confessed Christ.

At the same time, you appear to be advocating works righteousness to an extreme degree, by suggesting your salvation depends on you completing that Bible, which, forgive me, seems a bit Pelagian. What happened to forgiveness? What happened to salvation by grace? What happened to the Pauline epistles? Or were you planning on omitting, for example, Galatians or Ephesians or Romans or 1 Corinthians?

Click to expand...

Just a little bit overdramatic eh?

There's no need for me to engage in this, you'll just talk yourself right out of any position i present. You think you have it all figured out already.

Let's get back to the topic.