Invalidating God's word

[RandyPNW]

We are in full agreement that God doesn't have to use material things to effect changes, but wouldn't you agree that He can?

100%!

So is baptism a special case because the change in question is spiritual?

I see how that is consistent with your position, but I see no indication in the New Testament that baptism is only something for the 1st century, or that it's optional. Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples of all nations and baptize them. Peter said that to be saved you have to repent and be baptized. And other early Christian writings, like the Didache and Justin Martyr's First Apology, say that baptism was a requirement for being in the Church.

Yes, this is why it isn't a huge matter for me. It's just a discussion. The issue seems to challenge a pet belief of mine in Salvation by faith alone, and not by any works, including the work of Baptism. But I think we probably agree on Salvation by faith, and view Baptism as not a work to get Saved but a work in the process of accepting Salvation?

I am still confused as to whether you mean water baptism as in only the physical part of baptism or as in baptism as a whole.

You're confused probably because I've been wondering myself. I've never been really clear on the "Baptism of the Spirit." I'm not sure John the Baptist was intending to separate the Gift of the Spirit on Pentecost from Christian Baptism by water?? I would think that John was adding to the Water Baptism something about the Spirit being given by Christ to enhance his own Baptism?

But I perhaps am a little too negative towards Water Baptism in my concern that Salvation be separate from the work of getting Water Baptized. Since I'm not totally clear, I don't expect you to be clear about what I believe. It is what it is.

If you mean the former, then again, I don't think you can break the mystery down into components and analyze each one; it's more than the sum of its parts. If you mean the latter, then we do see Peter speaking to that effect, telling people to be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38) and that "baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21).

Yes, the latter makes sense when Peter said, "Baptism now saves you." But I question whether Peter is talking about what Baptism should be interpreted to mean generally, in its apparent symbolism, rather than it being necessary to "get saved?" My understanding is that a person gets saved 1st, and then gets Baptized in water. Don't you?

It's like comparing, analogically, the 2 events, Noah's Flood and Christian Baptism. Both are saved by water, Noah by the waters of the Flood and Christians by the waters of Baptism. It is the medium of water that saves, without explaining whether it is symbolic or not.

The distinction in the analogy of the carpenter is between matter and energy instead of material and spiritual.

I do understand your arguments--not bad arguments in my judgment. I just look at it as I explained, and you don't. That's okay.

But God doesn't have to use physical items to effect physical changes any more than to effect spiritual changes.

Right, God can choose to use something physical to effect a spiritual change, if He wanted. It just doesn't seem logical to me. Furthermore, we do not at least this much, that it is God's word that is the agency behind our regeneration. That is plainly said in Scriptures. The role "water" plays depends on how we look at it. Thanks.

 

[CoreyD]

I actually don't think it is necessary to get Water Baptized. It is just asked of people in the 1st century who were turning from pagan lifestyles to follow Christ.

Do you believe Matthew 28:19, 20, was for people in the 1st century, or beyond, and how far beyond?
What are your thoughts on this post?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The issue seems to challenge a pet belief of mine in Salvation by faith alone, and not by any works, including the work of Baptism.

Classifying baptism as a human work isn't found in Scripture. And it is beyond common sense for others to think this.

 

[Guojing]

Classifying baptism as a human work isn't found in Scripture. And it is beyond common sense for others to think this.

So, by that reasoning, would you also regard physical circumcision similarly as not a work as well?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

So, by that reasoning, would you also regard physical circumcision similarly as not a work as well?

Asked and answered. Post #84. (Same questions over and over and over and over and over again).

 

[Guojing]

Asked and answered. Post #84. (Same questions over and over and over and over and over again).

There is a point since you made a claim that "it is beyond common sense for others to think" otherwise.

Even to an adult, you would say the same thing?

So, during the OT times, if I am a gentile who wanted to be part of Israel's covenant, where physical circumcision was required, you would tell me straight in my face that it is not a work I must do, merely because "I cannot circumcise myself"?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Even to an adult, you would say the same thing?

So, during the OT times, if I am a gentile who wanted to be part of Israel's covenant, where physical circumcision was required, you would tell me straight in my face that it is not a work I must do, merely because "I cannot circumcise myself"?

Your question is in the dust bin of history. Irrelevant.

 

[Guojing]

Your question is in the dust bin of history. Irrelevant.

There is a point since you made a claim that "it is beyond common sense for others to think" otherwise.

But if you decline to answer, I can understand.

 

[Valletta]

Here is why people attack your church... and religion, for that matter.

‘It Is Not a Closet. It Is a Cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out
The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.

Yes, I understand people who read the NY Times may very well believe that sexual abuse is rampant in the Church. The truth is it is rampant outside of the Church and people should be looking to adopt the Catholic Church model that has been so successful (three cases is three too many) for their own religions:

The 2023 report, which covered allegations made between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, found that there were 1,308 allegations involving 17 current year minors. Four of the allegations were made by males and 11 by females; 2 were listed as unknown. Of the 17, only 3 were substantiated.
During this period, there were 47,987 members of the clergy.

MEDIA BLACKOUT ON CLERGY ABUSE DATA - Catholic League

Bill Donohue

www.catholicleague.org

 

[jas3]

The issue seems to challenge a pet belief of mine in Salvation by faith alone, and not by any works, including the work of Baptism. But I think we probably agree on Salvation by faith, and view Baptism as not a work to get Saved but a work in the process of accepting Salvation?

I would say that baptism is not a work at all because the effect of cleansing sin is something God does to us, not something we do apart from Him.

You're confused probably because I've been wondering myself. I've never been really clear on the "Baptism of the Spirit." I'm not sure John the Baptist was intending to separate the Gift of the Spirit on Pentecost from Christian Baptism by water?? I would think that John was adding to the Water Baptism something about the Spirit being given by Christ to enhance his own Baptism?

As I understand it, baptism in the Holy Spirit is a component of the baptism of Jesus; the baptism of Jesus Christ is a baptism of water and Spirit. Some people, mainly Pentecostals, will use the phrase "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to mean something completely different where they believe they receive spiritual gifts, but that is not how I use the term, and it is not how the term was used prior to the invention of Pentecostalism in the 20th century. So your last question is, I think, an accurate statement.

Yes, the latter makes sense when Peter said, "Baptism now saves you." But I question whether Peter is talking about what Baptism should be interpreted to mean generally, in its apparent symbolism, rather than it being necessary to "get saved?" My understanding is that a person gets saved 1st, and then gets Baptized in water. Don't you?

My understanding is that salvation is an ongoing process throughout one's life, in the sense of "he who endures to the end shall be saved." So in my understanding Peter is saying that baptism is a key part of our salvation, similar to how a parachute saves you in that it stops your freefall, but you aren't ultimately "saved" until you're safe on the ground.

Right, God can choose to use something physical to effect a spiritual change, if He wanted. It just doesn't seem logical to me. Furthermore, we do not at least this much, that it is God's word that is the agency behind our regeneration. That is plainly said in Scriptures. The role "water" plays depends on how we look at it. Thanks.

I think it's crucial to see baptism as the combined water-and-Spirit sacrament instead of its individual components, because then it becomes more apparent that it is God working our regeneration.

 

[CoreyD]

Classifying baptism as a human work isn't found in Scripture. And it is beyond common sense for others to think this.

As regards the title of this thread, and the OP, it is a perfect demonstration of invalidating God's word.

 

[RandyPNW]

Classifying baptism as a human work isn't found in Scripture. And it is beyond common sense for others to think this.

That's why I don't think Water Baptism is a "work of Salvation." This was the central argument Martin Luther wished to make, in the matter of indulgences as well as anything outside of the expression of faith for Salvation.

There is nothing we can do to get saved was his argument. I don't go as far as him because there are works we do in the process of accepting Salvation although I would agree with him that Salvation is a work only Christ could do.

The "work" we do, if you want to call it that, is repent of anything that comes exclusively from ourselves in order to live in concert with the Lord. We defer to Him in everything and choose to live in partnership with His living word within us, ie within our mind, heart, and conscience.

We accept the nature of Christ for our own nature, apart from his Deity, of course. We accept a new lifestyle that comes from him as a gift when we choose to live by him.

These are works we do, but are inspired by his word so that we don't do exclusively what we want, but what he wants us to do in partnership with him. I think Luther was a bit inconsistent in calling all Catholic traditions "human works" done to get Saved, while at the same time supporting various sacraments as not "works to save."

So my whole argument is that there are sacraments, but they are not designed to obtain Salvation apart from Christ, but rather, to cooperate with things that acknowledge Christ as our Salvation, doing our part in accepting it through repentance, faith, and obedience.

 

[RandyPNW]

I would say that baptism is not a work at all because the effect of cleansing sin is something God does to us, not something we do apart from Him.

This failure to agree on a definition for "work" is what has caused me to disagree with so many on these matters. Words are flexible and must be accepted based on how a person is using the word. There is no one concrete definition of a word--it must be understood in context the way a person is using it.

I define "work" as anything we must do as an obligation of our employment. And so, for me, there are two applications of "work" in Scriptures--a work to save, and a work done in partnership with Christ to apply his Salvation in our life.

Only Christ can save, and only he has provided for our Salvation, making his exclusive atonement for mankind, and Man having zero to do with this accomplishment. As sinners, we cannot atone for our own sin. As non-divine, we cannot forgive others to the extent we can remove the consequences of sin from their lives via resurrection.

On the other hand, there are "works," as I define them, that we can do to obtain Christ's Salvation. We are not technically "earning our Salvation," but are rather, doing what God requires of us to receive His Son's Salvation. We must repent of our own ways, obtain a nature from Him that is consistent with His Salvation, and choose a life of obedience that is also consistent with being saved.

As I understand it, baptism in the Holy Spirit is a component of the baptism of Jesus; the baptism of Jesus Christ is a baptism of water and Spirit. Some people, mainly Pentecostals, will use the phrase "baptism in the Holy Spirit" to mean something completely different where they believe they receive spiritual gifts, but that is not how I use the term, and it is not how the term was used prior to the invention of Pentecostalism in the 20th century. So your last question is, I think, an accurate statement.

I go to a Pentecostal church, but I always freely tell my Pentecostals pastors and leaders that I do not share some of their Pentecostal theology. The Baptism of the Spirit, which is central to their sect, is laden with matters that I disagree with them about, although some aspects of it I strongly agree with.

The Scriptures strongly emphasize the fact the Spirit came at Pentecost to fulfill this promise of the Spirit Baptism--at least it seems so to me. So there appears to be a distinction between Christian Water Baptism and the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. On the other hand, Christian Water Baptism continued after Pentecost, indicating that Spirit Baptism continued to be linked to Water Baptism. Spirit Baptism, therefore, seemed to add another dimension to Water Baptism, not leaving it behind.

But I don't give Water Baptism a high level of sacramental value that you seem to give it, as if it was up there with "accept Christ as your Savior." Water Baptism is, as I've been saying, simply a confession that Christ asked his apostles to administer in the course of their accepting Christ as their Savior. Whatever value we give it, it continued to have value *after* the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost.

On the matter of the spiritual gifts, I think Pentecostals confuse this with the gift of the Spirit, although I must admit that the gift of tongues appeared to immediately follow the giving of the Spirit to the Apostles. Still, Paul de-emphasized tongues as a lesser gift, and indicated that not all should expect this experience. So it is distinct from the Spirit Baptism, as I define it.

Pentecostals also tend to see Christians as having access to *all* of the mentioned gifts of the Spirit, and I think this flies in the face of Scriptures. In reality, Paul said the Spirit gives different gifts to different people. And many of the higher gifts were demonstrated only by the leadership. Still, I do think the Spirit Baptism should result in our display of some gifts, however miraculous or non-miraculous they may be. We should accept what God gives us, and not try to enhance what we have.

My understanding is that salvation is an ongoing process throughout one's life, in the sense of "he who endures to the end shall be saved." So in my understanding Peter is saying that baptism is a key part of our salvation, similar to how a parachute saves you in that it stops your freefall, but you aren't ultimately "saved" until you're safe on the ground.

I can go with that to some degree, because Scripture seems to say that. However, I think this is just the outworking of Salvation we receive at the time we accept the offer Christ has made to all men. When we accept his conditions for living with God, then we are saved--not saved only after we die.

But if we are truly saved, we will show this through the course of our lives, proving who we are in the choices we make, in the things we do out of obedience to the word of God. This may include Water Baptism. And they may include using spiritual tools to parachute down to safety.

I think it's crucial to see baptism as the combined water-and-Spirit sacrament instead of its individual components, because then it becomes more apparent that it is God working our regeneration.

We just have to come up with a formula that works for us. Thanks for sharing your own view. There may be some agreement and some disagreement, but the important thing is we agree on *who* our Savior is. And we agree on some of the things we should do if we wish to express ourselves as believers.

 

[CoreyD]

Yes, I understand people who read the NY Times may very well believe that sexual abuse is rampant in the Church. The truth is it is rampant outside of the Church and people should be looking to adopt the Catholic Church model that has been so successful (three cases is three too many) for their own religions:

The 2023 report, which covered allegations made between July 1, 2022 and June 30, 2023, found that there were 1,308 allegations involving 17 current year minors. Four of the allegations were made by males and 11 by females; 2 were listed as unknown. Of the 17, only 3 were substantiated.
During this period, there were 47,987 members of the clergy.

MEDIA BLACKOUT ON CLERGY ABUSE DATA - Catholic League

Bill Donohue

www.catholicleague.org

Thank you for responding to the post. I was hoping to hear from @The Liturgist who seemed so concerned about this issue, but there seems to be a blackout there.
Hopefully it is only temporary.

The New York Times was not discussing sexual abuse.
The focus was on Roman Catholic priests, who are homosexual, which is said to be rampant among the clergy.
The crisis over sexuality in the Catholic Church goes beyond abuse. It goes to the heart of the priesthood, into a closet that is trapping thousands of men.

The report you linked here does not cover cases that go as far back as11th century.
Your source says...
The fact that more females than males are making these allegations suggests that the crackdown on homosexuals in the priesthood has worked.
Which is an admittance that "homosexuals in the priesthood", being a problem, is a fact.

'Denigration of my humanity': Gay priests reflect on pope's use of homophobic slur

After the news that the pope reportedly used a slur to refer to gay men, Fr. Bryan Massingale and Fr. Greg Greiten described their thoughts and emotions about it — and about the gifts and pain of being openly gay priests.

www.ncronline.org

There is research that indicates around 30-40% of U.S. clergy are gay. Some say it's a much higher percentage, with the majority choosing not to share their sexual orientation publicly.

Greiten came out to parishioners in 2017 during a homily, saying at the time he no longer wanted to live "in the shadow of secrecy."

...there are plenty of gay men in the priesthood, and plenty of LGBTQ+ Catholics who want to be fully part of the life and sacraments of the church.

My point though, in using this information, is really to highlight the fact that when one asks the question of why there is so much immorality in the churches, and why churches are promoting it, we have to answer the question, in all fairness, by considering the facts, and not ignoring them where they apply to us, or religious groups we favor or adhere to.

If we are honest, we will acknowledge these facts... unless we love the darkness instead of the light. John 3:19

What are the facts.

• We know that Jesus and his apostles never promoted, nor condoned immorality, in any form... not even homosexuality. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Romans 1:24-27
• We know that men were prophesied to infiltrate the congregation, and rise up and "distort the truth". Acts 20:30
• We know at least some of the teachings that would b promoted, by such men - one of these being : forbidding to marry. 1 Timothy 4:1-3

It is important then to consider when this was fulfilled, so that we can accurately answer the question, and understand what are the implications.

Mark 7:6-8
6 Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.
7 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’
8 Having neglected / disregarded the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."​

The teaching of celibacy does forbid marriage, and is a man made tradition that invalidates the word of God.
Vows of celibacy are generally required for monks and nuns in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and other religions, but often not for other clergy.
Clerical celibacy - Wikipedia
Within the Catholic Church, clerical celibacy is mandated for all clergy in the Latin Church except in the permanent diaconate. Exceptions are sometimes admitted for ordination to transitional diaconate and priesthood on a case-by-case basis for married clergymen of other churches or communities who become Catholics, but ordination of married men to the episcopacy is excluded

The word celibacy can mean either the state of being unmarried or sexual abstinence, especially because of religious vows, from sexual intercourse.

Infant baptism is also a tradition that invalidates God's word.
The baptism as taught by Jesus and his apostles were demonstrated as being buried in water, and coming up, out of the water.
The Greek word baptizó means to dip, sink.

Babies are not baptized when one sprinkles, or pours water on its forehead.
These man made traditions invalidate God's word.

So, when considering this issue of homosexuality, or even immorality in the churches, it would be good to ask the question, why does it happen.
Is it not because men determine what is or is not God's word, and make their own precepts, thus disregarding the commandments of God?

There are so many things that the churches of today refuse to do, which God commanded, and instead, they do what they want to do, and claim it is for Jesus.
Where do we find "March for Jesus" in the Bible?

When the word of God, is watered down, adulterated, and even disregarded, it opens the door for people to do all kinds of wrong things, because the word of God hold no weight.
The voice of the people are louder. People make a mockery of God's word, and any and everybody is a Christian.

So, we get things kike this...

The Liber Gomorrhianus ('Book of Gomorrah') is a book authored and published by the Benedictine monk Peter Damian during the Gregorian Reformation circa AD 1051. It is a treatise regarding various vices of the clergy, and the consequent need for reform.​

​

Bishops and priests were involved in every kind of immorality, publicly living with concubines or illicit wives, or furtively engaging in homosexual practices, following an example set by the scandalous Pope Benedict IX. "For Damian, the issue of homosexuality within the clergy is deeply related to the dignity of the priesthood." ...​

​

He was especially indignant about priests having sexual relationships with adolescent boys. He singles out superiors who, due to excessive and misplaced piety, have been lax in their duty to uphold church discipline. He opposes the ordination of those who engage in homosexual sex and wants those already ordained dismissed from Holy Orders. Those who misuse the sacraments to defile boys are treated with particular contempt.​

The promotions of Gay Pride Parades and support of Gay marriages, is the result - the effects - of the rebellion - the man of lawlessness - the corruption from within, by those who assumed leadership in the Church.

What we are actually seeing, is the fulfillment of the apostles' (the true Church) words.

2 Peter 2:1-3
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be false teachers among you also, who will stealthily introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master having bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
2 Many will follow in their depravity, and because of them the way of truth will be defamed.
3 In their greed, these false teachers will exploit you with deceptive words. The longstanding verdict against them remains in force, and their destruction does not sleep.​

How true and accurate the word of God is.
It is never wrong. Everything it says is true, and comes to past.
We can trust it, and should... rather than be led astray by the ministers of Satan, of whom there are many. 2 Corinthians 11:15

We should also get out of Babylon the Great, where these abominations exist, and these doctrines of men, because if we remain, our worship means nothing to God They worship Me in vain, and we will receive a portion of those plagues, God is going to met out to that harlot.
It's not going to be pretty.

Revelation 17:16
The scarlet beast and his ten horns all hate the prostitute. They will strip her naked, eat her flesh, and burn her remains with fire.​

 

[Valletta]

Thank you for responding to the post. I was hoping to hear from @The Liturgist who seemed so concerned about this issue, but there seems to be a blackout there.

Realize the NY Times has their own anti-Judeo-Christian agenda, you would do well not to accept all information from that publication as fact. Take the time to check information for yourself. Homosexuality is not just a problem within Christianity, it goes back before Jesus was born. Most of the abuse within the Catholic Church took place between 1965 and 1985. In looking back it should not have been a surprise that Satan would attack the priesthood. No priests, no Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Still Satan deceives the world, there is virtually nothing in the major media about the high percentage of sexual molestation by homosexuals. So much of the rest of society, from public schools to sports organizations to other religions are not taking the steps taken by the Church. As I said, there were three substantiated cases of abuse out of 47,987 members of the Catholic clergy for 2023. I emphatically urge you and all concerned to take the steps the Catholic Church has in your religion and in any organizations you are associated with.

 

[CoreyD]

Realize the NY Times has their own anti-Judeo-Christian agenda, you would do well not to accept all information from that publication as fact. Take the time to check information for yourself.

Thank you.
So the U.S. News & World Report, Time, CBS News, New York Intelligencer, Fordham University Books Source...
All these have their own anti-Judeo-Christian agenda as well?
Should I discard these, or do I have permission to accept them?

Homosexuality is not just a problem within Christianity, it goes back before Jesus was born.

Did you take the time to read my post? I have to ask, because my post does not take issue with homosexuality in general.
If you did not take the time to read the post, may I suggest you do, if you are responding to me.

Most of the abuse within the Catholic Church took place between 1965 and 1985.

Again, the focus of my post does not address sexual abuse.

In looking back it should not have been a surprise that Satan would attack the priesthood. No priests, no Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. Still Satan deceives the world, there is virtually nothing in the major media about the high percentage of sexual molestation by homosexuals. So much of the rest of society, from public schools to sports organizations to other religions are not taking the steps taken by the Church. As I said, there were three substantiated cases of abuse out of 47,987 members of the Catholic clergy for 2023. I emphatically urge you and all concerned to take the steps the Catholic Church has in your religion and in any organizations you are associated with.

I think it's important to listen before responding to someone. You would agree, wouldn't you?
It appears you did not read my post, and so your response is not to anything I said.
I actually told you the issue is not sexual abuse, but it looks like you did not read it.
Did you read only the first two lines?

A conversation is impossible if one person does not listen to the other.
We know how those go, when one person talks, but does not listen.
This is a problem many teenagers have, and it does not impact well on their social life.

May I suggest that if taking the time to read the post, is to much for you, you refrain from responding, because if you miss the bulk of what I say, you likely missed all that I am saying.
Taking out sentences, parts of a speech, will most often lead to misunderstanding what was said.

You would notice that your post did not address anything I said.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At Mark 7:7, 8, we read, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

In your experience, do you find many who identify as Christian, making their own commands and invalidating the commands in God's word the Bible?
I have.

To give an example, the word of God says, at Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Yet, I was told by someone who says they have holy spirit, that baptism is not necessary for salvation.

Have you heard this before, and what has your experience been. Do you find this kind of thing common - invalidating God's word, not baptism, or you don't experience it so much?

... ultimately, whether we perceive that some other person claiming to be a Christian qualifies to be a Christian or not is dependent upon which form of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis we each decide to subscribe to and apply.

It's not enough to simply claim that the Bible is clear in all of its statements and content and then go on to use our individual extrapolations as the guiding measure for deciding who is "in or out."

So, some measure of charity is also needed when any of us applies what we think we read in the Bible ... to other people.

 

[CoreyD]

... ultimately, whether we perceive that some other person claiming to be a Christian qualifies to be a Christian or not is dependent upon which form of Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis we each decide to subscribe to and apply.

It's not enough to simply claim that the Bible is clear in all of its statements and content and then go on to use our individual extrapolations as the guiding measure for deciding who is "in or out."

So, some measure of charity is also needed when any of us applies what we think we read in the Bible ... to other people.

Is there something you are not clear about?
Is there a scripture I quoted, which you think is misapplied?
Please clarify.

 

[Danthemailman]

Where does it say that baptism is a "Means of Grace"?

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Hmm.. what happened to baptism?

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is a great question.
I like the fact that you are willing to reason on it. I don't see that very often. It's an indication you are open-minded.

Is there any reason I should believe that those who heard and knew the apostolic preaching and teaching all abided by and accepted the teachings of the apostles?

I have quite a number of reasons for believing that they did not stand fast in the teachings of the apostles.

1. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15 - written around 50 A.D. - has warnings such as... we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed... And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed...
2. Jesus' words (?70-80 A.D.?) to the seven churches that describes the state at the time - Revelation 2:1-3:21, which contains expressions such as... you have left your first love; you dwell, where Satan’s throne is; you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam; you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate; you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols; you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead; you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked...
3. Around the same time Jesus gave the Revelation to John, there were men such as Papias, Polycarp, and others, considered bishops in the Smyrna congregation. Papias describes his way of gathering information in his preface: I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice. Papias, then, inquired of travelers passing through Hierapolis what the surviving disciples of Jesus and the elders—those who had personally known the Twelve Apostles—were saying.
4. The Eschatological on Papias shows that there was a lot of misinterpretations, and misunderstandings, as early as the late 70s A.D. In part, we read... Eusebius concludes from the writings of Papias that he was a chiliast, understanding the Millennium as a literal period in which Christ will reign on Earth, and chastises Papias for his literal interpretation of figurative passages, writing that Papias "appears to have been of very limited understanding", and felt that his misunderstanding misled Irenaeus and others. Irenaeus indeed quotes the fourth book of Papias for an otherwise-unknown saying of Jesus, recounted by John the Evangelist, which Eusebius doubtless has in mind: The Lord used to teach about those times and say: "The days will come when vines will grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand grapes, and each grape when crushed will yield twenty-five measures of wine. And when one of the saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out, "I am better, take me, bless the Lord through me."...
5. Human nature, as is evident by the fact that we have so many branches of Christianity (over 45,000 and growing), and these branches did not recently start growing. Neither did they spring from one root.

As you can see, it's easy to understand Jesus parable of the weeds and wheat. Matthew 13:24-30
The Christian congregation was allowed to become overrun with Satan's ministers. 2 Corinthians 11:15
I have every reason to believe the man of lawlessness - the rebellious apostates, infiltrated the congregation after the apostles were all gone, and as Paul said, "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock." Acts 20:29

I also have good evidence from the history of the dominant church at the time, that the clergy of that time "opposed and exalted himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he set himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God." 2 Thessalonians 2:4


I like your reasoning. Very good.

However, there are a few things about our God we do well to remember.

• God removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding;. Daniel 2:21
• The corrupt priests in Israel - all gone (Jeremiah 23:1, 2)... and what does God say he will do... Then I Myself will gather the remnant of My flock from all the lands to which I have banished them, and I will return them to their pasture, where they will be fruitful and multiply. I will raise up shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or dismayed, nor will any go missing, declares the LORD. Jeremiah 23:3, 4
• Isaiah 50:2 Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver? Behold, by my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a desert; their fish stink for lack of water and die of thirst

It's important too, we understand why the Christian congregation was formed.

• Acts 1:4-8; Acts 2:1-4 The gospel needed to be preached to every nation.
• 1 Corinthians 12:1-30; 2 Corinthians 11:2 The gathering of the body of Christ was to be complete, and ready for the marriage to the lamb.

Neither of these purposes were yet realized, and since God's hand is not short...

We can illustrate it this way.
Suppose you wrote an important book to benefit everyone, which an enemy tries to destroy, by ripping the leaves out, tearing them, and throwing them from a cliff overlooking the ocean. Oh no. Your work is lost.
That's how it appears.
You may be delighted to hear someone talking about a portion of the book you wrote. Then you hear another portion being discussed. Another... and yet, another.
What happened is that fragments of your book were found by various persons, and what you wrote spread, in portions - not complete.
What if you filled in the gaps for those who were interested enough, not only to read those portions, but also share them.

This illustrates what happened with the remnants of truth in the Christian congregation.
They spread. They were picked up. They were built upon with the help of God's spirit.
Recall, that it is God who chooses, as he knows the heart.

The scriptures bears out this illustration for us in the case of God's people - ancient and modern.
Isaiah 10:21, 22; Isaiah 11:11, 12, 16; Jeremiah 23:3, 4; Micah 2:12; Micah 4:1-6

God collects his people into his pen.
This has been "God's MO" throughout generations. God has not changed.
The problem - which isn't really a problem if one are humble, is identifying the pen where Jesus has gathered / collected his sheep.
If a person is a sheep God will gather that person. -
Haggai 2:7


John 6:44


John 10:14, 27



God is the restorer oh his things. Not man.
God restored Israel. God restored the temple after allowing Babylon to sack it.
The restored temple was more magnificent than the previous. It was a beauty.
The Christian congregation that God restores today, must be a beauty. Finding gems are hard.
It requires diligent persistence in searching.


I hear this expression "Christian Church". Is that one particular denomination, or all the denominations combined?

To answer your question though... You should believe what the Bible teaches. Then you will know the truth.
If you know the congregation of God, then stick to it.
If you aren't sure, then search for it.
The Bible is your guide, and prayer is your S.O.S signal

The scriptures say that some will fall away not the entire church.