Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Standing Up]

Which pope Stephen?

1. Pope Stephen I (died 257), Bishop of Rome from 254–257
2. Pope-elect Stephen (died 752), elected Pope but died before being ordained
3. Pope Stephen II (died 757), pope from 752–757
4. Pope Stephen III (720–772), pope from 768–772
5. Pope Stephen IV (died 817), pope from 816–817
6. Pope Stephen V (died 891), pope from 885–891
7. Pope Stephen VI (died 897), pope from 896–897
8. Pope Stephen VII (died 931), pope from 929–931
9. Pope Stephen VIII (died 942), German, pope from 939–942
10. Pope Stephen IX (c. 1020–1058), pope from 1057–1058

Your quip just exposes your ignorance on the original issue of heretical baptism, which was the topic.

 

[Standing Up]

#1 is truly an error.

Nah, Maccabees itself disclaims any inspiration for itself. It's mere bishop opinion that it made its way into certain groups as on par with the inspired books (aka 66 book bible).

 

[Standing Up]

Then there are those who chose to cut off parts that do belong; feet and arm-pits may be a bit stinky, but they are still part of that Body called the "Church", and they still belong.

I know that you see us as those stinky armpits and feet; it may be that others see you as such too? Does that make either us or you unworthy to be considered part of that Body? Be mindful that our Lord washed the stinky, dirty feet of the Apostles, and by His blood, the rest of us stinky feet are cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Go for it that you feel RC is the armpit.

Have you some other point you'd like to make?

 

[Standing Up]

You're adding more to this verse than what it says. There is no guarantee that error will not be taught.

Exactly. The bible is full of warnings about false teachings and people. Subsequent history shows it unfolding.

 

[Isatis]

#1 is truly an error.

This begs the question: how do you define "error"?

Please agree with or refute the following arguments (shown in red below).

The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books.

The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.

Read more: What are the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books?

 

[Yab Yum]

The church became corrupt under the Catholics and the reformtion tried to bring it back to it roots.

Since humans are sinful the Church has always been corrupt. And for the same reasons, the Reformation failed. Perhaps tomorrow with Abba's help we can all succeed.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Since humans are sinful the Church has always been corrupt. And for the same reasons, the Reformation failed. Perhaps tomorrow with Abba's help we can all succeed.

Yes, all human organizations are corrupt because they are composed of humans. To conflate a human organization with the Church of Jesus Christ is a great deception.

 

[Albion]

Since humans are sinful the Church has always been corrupt. And for the same reasons, the Reformation failed. Perhaps tomorrow with Abba's help we can all succeed.

I can't agree that the Reformation failed. Like all human movements, it wasn't perfect and, with time, its importance has changed somewhat.

However, it was one of the great moments in Western history and responsible, in large part, for the religious freedom we enjoy today, democratic processes, intellectualism, and all that would make any of us prefer to live in today's world rather than in the Middle Ages.

 

[tadoflamb]

Not really, but you owe a lot of people an apology for incorrect accusations and attributing to one church the beliefs of another. I'm sure you'd be offended if I started whaling on your church and saying that it believed a lot of things it does not.

But, you have whaled on my Church saying that we believe a lot of things it does not. I've already said if I believed what you say about Catholicism to be true I wouldn't want to be Catholic either. This doesn't cause offense, what it causes is for me to disqualify you as any kind of an authority on the Church. This is something I learned long ago in GT; it's a mistake to take a protestants word on anything Catholic.

I think the problem you're experiencing comes from several different protestant phenomena. For one, there is very little in teaching or practice that is unique to protestantism that all protestants believe and practice. For another, church authority stops at denominational lines and though you loosely come under the banner of protestantism their is no mechanism or means to discipline across denominational boundaries. And finally, protestantism has failed to self-define itself. It's easy to see where it begins, but it's a little more difficult to discern where it ends. Thus, an amalgamation of belief and practices branded 'fringe' or 'cultic' inadvertently gets accredited as protestant. Again, if there really was something called the Protestant Church with an authentic authority to teach, perhaps this nebulousness of what constitutes a protestant might be eliminated. So, until the protestants themselves can come up with a working definition on what it means to be a protestant I'll continue to use mine:

If you are a properly baptized Christian and you are neither Orthodox nor Catholic, you are probably a protestant.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You're adding more to this verse than what it says. There is no guarantee that error will not be taught.



The church is not limited to only the apostles and their successors. And this verse says nothing about the churches authroity to teach on "morals". If you didn't notice, the disciples weren't making up teachings, but expounding upon what had already been taught in the scriptures.



There is no indication that this has anything to do with infallible doctrine. Jesus said this to the disciples before His death. Knowing how they'd be crushed once they saw Him die, He knew He'd have to wait till after the resurrection to teach them more. You are implying more here than what the scripture says. Nowhere does the bible speak about "public" revelation coming to an end. I do agree however that some things take longer to understand and that God will open up truths to our hearts over time, the caveat there being that those truths are opened up to us as we study and pray.



While I believe this applies to the church, i.e those who follow after Christ, this verse says nothing about it being solely for the "Church" i.e the RCC. Some things may take time to understand because they are a bit meatier, but this is no statement showing that certain doctrine will eventually be developed once the people are ready to receive it.

This reeks of the same issue as the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. I didn't say that error wouldn't be taught. I said that the Church, the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him) are protected from teaching error.

Why do you keep telling us what you think we think is the Church? You're the one who separates yourself, in name, anyway. In fact, all of us, in some way, separate ourselves from the One Church of Christ.

The fact is that the Church Christ founded is the one True Church. The Holy Spirit tries to guide it, though we usually don't listen, but the Holy Spirit does protect the Truth from our willfulness. There is no error in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which proves it. Oh, I know, you don't see it that way. But it's something that's often said by the blind..."I don't see".

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nah, Maccabees itself disclaims any inspiration for itself. It's mere bishop opinion that it made its way into certain groups as on par with the inspired books (aka 66 book bible).

Do you have any idea what makes a book "inspired" vs not?

 

[tadoflamb]

I have to apologize but I don't know what your threefold ministry is. What I do know however is that the fullness of the Catholic Church is not revealed in the new teatament. Matt-Rev simply expounds upon Gen-Mal. What is revealed about the Catholic church isn't the stuff you like to hear.

Yeah I'm not sure what these "x-fold" ministries are about so I couldn't speak to them.

Hi Stryder, Sorry for the late response. The three-fold ministry in the one of bishop/priest/deacon. The two-fold ministry is just bishop/deacon and the five-fold ministry is derived from Ephesians 4:11; apostle/prophet/evangelist/pastor/teacher. Usually, those advocating want to hold the ministry of prophet which brings me to my next protestant error and invention: prophesizing (or did I mention that already?)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi Stryder, Sorry for the late response. The three-fold ministry in the one of bishop/priest/deacon. The two-fold ministry is just bishop/deacon and the five-fold ministry is derived from Ephesians 4:11; apostle/prophet/evangelist/pastor/teacher. Usually, those advocating want to hold the ministry of prophet which brings me to my next protestant error and invention: prophesizing (or did I mention that already?)

Who then can prophesy today?

PROPHECY SHALL CEASE | Bible Articles | Ask Bible Questions

If there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease” (1 Cor 13:8).

Many religious people read in the Bible where the Holy Spirit revealed God’s will orally through prophets and think God still speaks orally to them. They assume since God once miraculously spoke through prophets, then He will always do so. They think we don’t have enough faith if we say we believe continuing revelation would cease.
Actually, we’ll show modern day prophecy seekers lack faith in God’s completed revelation by clamoring for more miraculous revelation.

A careful study of the Scripture shows that God prophetically revealed that continuing prophecy would one day cease, long before the end of time. God’s inspired revelation would be completed in the first century.

1. Old Testament Prediction of Prophecy’s Cessation.
“In that day a fountain will be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for impurity. It will come about in that day, declares the LORD of hosts…I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirit from the land.
And if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who gave birth to him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, for you have spoken falsely in the name of the LORD’; and his father and mother who gave birth to him will pierce him through when he prophesies” (Zech 13:1-3)........

The Purpose of Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled.
The apostle Paul also tells us that prophesy would cease in the first century because its purpose and completeness had been fulfilled.
“Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. ..........

http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm
THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM 70AD





.

 

[Stryder06]

Hi Stryder, Sorry for the late response. The three-fold ministry in the one of bishop/priest/deacon. The two-fold ministry is just bishop/deacon and the five-fold ministry is derived from Ephesians 4:11; apostle/prophet/evangelist/pastor/teacher. Usually, those advocating want to hold the ministry of prophet which brings me to my next protestant error and invention: prophesizing (or did I mention that already?)

Thank you for the explanation. I need you to explain a couple of things to me if you don't mind. How can you blame protestants for getting rid of the "priest" ministry, when that was done by Christ, and how is prophesizing a protestant error and invention?

 

[Stryder06]

This reeks of the same issue as the knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail. I didn't say that error wouldn't be taught. I said that the Church, the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him) are protected from teaching error.

Don't know a thing about Monty Python's holy grail. Sorry. But you keep saying that the Pope and bishops are protected from teaching error, but there is no scripture that makes such a promise or statement. Without scripture to back such a notion you have no ground to stand on and put your faith in man.

Why do you keep telling us what you think we think is the Church? You're the one who separates yourself, in name, anyway. In fact, all of us, in some way, separate ourselves from the One Church of Christ.

Because you have the wrong idea about what the church is. You see the church as an organization with some type of unbroken line of teachers. That isn't the church.

The fact is that the Church Christ founded is the one True Church. The Holy Spirit tries to guide it, though we usually don't listen, but the Holy Spirit does protect the Truth from our willfulness. There is no error in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which proves it. Oh, I know, you don't see it that way. But it's something that's often said by the blind..."I don't see".

I don't see it that way because your doctrines contradict the scripture for the sake of maintaing their traditions. I never said Christ didn't establish one true church. I just know that the church He established isn't what you say it is.

To the law and the testimony. If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.

You church doctrine fails that test in stride, but yet you refuse to acknowledge the text as being applicable to you. Why is that?

 

[MoreCoffee]

This begs the question: how do you define "error"?

"begs the question" is fallacy also known as "circular reasoning". Why do you think that "#1 is truly an error" begs the question?. #1 being "A bible with only 66 books."

"how do I define error?" I don't, I let dictionaries do that. "error" is such a simple word that one wonders why you'd ask me for a definition.

....

For the rest of your post, a quote from a web site, why not use the web to find your answer. Use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, or Catholic Answers. There are many web pages that answer the web page you quoted.

 

[MoreCoffee]

#37 The pulpit ought to be the focus of a church building's architecture and the table for use on communion ought to be to the side or located in a different part of the church because there is no altar in the church and no sacrifice is made in a church service.

An example of pulpit centric architecture in a "church building" is shown in this sermon
Never Make a Gospel Appeal to People's Emotions - YouTube

Pastor John Macarthur.​

The sermon raises some other errors too. Let me know if you like the sermon or if you don't.

 

[MoreCoffee]

1. A bible with only 66 books.
2. Saint Paul's letters are not inspired.
3. Sola Scriptura - In English "Scripture alone" is the theory (unsupported by sacred scripture) that "all things necessary for God's glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: to which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or apostolic tradition".
4. Prima Scriptura - A doctrine teaching that besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe, and how he or she should live; the ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from canonized scripture, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.[Editorial note: in many ways Prima Scriptura is an improvement over sola scriptura, it does, however, suffer from the core disadvantage of sola scriptura in that it is neither a teaching of scripture itself nor does it adequately deal with Apostolic Tradition and Magisterial authority.]
5. Personal interpretation of scripture as normative for individual faith content determination.
6. Arminianism.
   Arminianism is based on the theological ideas of the previously Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic supporters known as the Remonstrants. ... They asserted that:
   

   1. election (and condemnation on the day of judgment) was conditioned by the rational faith or nonfaith of man;
   2. the Atonement, while qualitatively adequate for all men, is efficacious only for the man of faith;
   3. unaided by the Holy Spirit, no person is able to respond to God’s will;
   4. grace is resistible; and
   5. believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

   ​
7. Faith alone - In Latin "sola fide" is the theory (unsupported by scripture fact) that salvation is obtained by faith alone.
8. Antinomianism.
   In Christianity, an antinomian is "one who holds that under the gospel dispensation of grace the moral law is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation". ... Antinomianism in modern times is commonly seen as the theological opposite to Legalism or Works righteousness, the notion that obedience to religious law earns salvation. This makes antinomianism an exaggeration of justification by faith alone. -- Wikipedia​
9. Total depravity - one of the five points of Calvinism (All human beings are affected by sin in every area of thought and conduct so that nothing that comes out of anyone apart from the regenerating grace of God can please God. As far as our relationships to God are concerned, we are all so ruined by sin that no one can properly understand either God or God's ways. Nor do we seek God, unless He is first at work within us to lead us to do so).
10. Unconditional election - second point of Calvinism (If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.).
11. Limited atonement - third point of Calvinism (Reformed theology stresses that Jesus actually atoned for the sins of those the Father had chosen. He actually propitiated the wrath of God toward His people by taking their judgment upon Himself, actually redeemed them, and actually reconciled those specific persons to God. A better name for "limited" atonement would be "particular" or "specific" redemption.).
12. Irresistible grace - fourth point of Calvinism (When God works in our hearts, regenerating us and creating a renewed will within, then what was undesirable before becomes highly desirable, and we run to Jesus just as previously we ran away from Him. Fallen sinners do resist God's grace, but His regenerating grace is effectual. It overcomes sin and accomplishes God's purpose).
13. Perseverance of the saints - the fifth point of Calvinism (You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.)
14. Double predestination. [In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us." -- R. C. Sproul]
15. Lapsarianism:The logical order of God's decrees in Calvinist theology is the study of the logical order (in God's mind, before Creation) of the decree to ordain or allow the fall of man and reprobation in relation to his decree to elect and save sinners. Several opposing positions have been proposed, all of which have names with the Latin root lapsus meaning fall.
    1. Supralapsaranism.
    2. Infralapsarianism/Sublapsarianism.
16. Penal substitutionary atonement - A widespread Reformed conception of the Atonement is that in Christ’s Passion and death, God the Father poured out all of His wrath for the sins of the elect, on Christ the Son. In Christ’s Passion and death, Christ bore the punishment of the Father’s wrath that the elect deserved for their sins.
17. Ordinances/Anti-sacramentalism.
18. Infant dedication (not baptism) in a worship-service. [This is a common practise in many groups but rarely has a formal doctrine accompanying it as an explanation of why it is done.]
19. It isn't baptism unless one is submerged.
20. Only people old enough to say the sinner's prayer can be baptised.
21. One is born again by saying & believing the sinner's prayer (or a near equivalent).
22. Believer's baptism as a public testimony to one's faith but not as the washing away of one's sins nor as the means by which God brings about the birth from above.
23. Covenant baptism as a sign and symbol of inclusion into the new covenant community but not as the means by which God gives sanctifying grace.
24. The Lord's supper as sign and symbol but not as the body and blood of the Lord.
25. Two greater and five lesser Sacraments
26. Dispensing with baptism and the Lord's supper altogether. [A few groups have dropped all sacraments.]
27. The rapture
    1. A pre tribulation rapture.
    2. A mid tribulation rapture.
    3. A post tribulation rapture.
28. A future seven year reign of anti-christ with three and a half years of Israelite temple worship.
29. Dispensationalism: scripture must be rightly divided by applying a scheme of dispensations to it; usually seven dispensations are taken as normative but other additional dispensations are sometimes included.
30. The sermon on the mount as "old testament teaching" that's not applicable under the new covenant.
31. Once saved always saved.
    1. Once saved always saved even when one denies the faith some time after being saved.
    2. Rededications even though once saved always saved.
32. Sermon centric worship - being an explanation of the meaning of the text of scripture or a lesson on morals or doctrine for the instruction of the congregation - is the central act of worship in the gathering of the Lord's people on the Lord's day.
33. The One True Church is made up of all true believers scattered throughout all denominations.
34. The One True Church is not a visible institution.
35. Denominationalism.
36. Rejection of the threefold office in the church. Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop are the offices identified in sacred scripture and present in the church from the beginning. Some protestant bodies reduce this to Deacon and Elder some to Deacon and Pastor and some teach Deacon, Elder, and Pastor with Pastor distinguished only by being the "teaching elder" in a congregation.
37. Rejection of clerical laity distinction in the church.
38. The pulpit ought to be the focus of a church building's architecture and the table for use on communion ought to be to the side or located in a different part of the church because there is no altar in the church and no sacrifice is made in a church service.
39. Equivocating "worship" and "worship service" - meaning that worship in a small group consisting of two or more is the same as the 'worship service' one would normally experience on a Sunday in a church [building]. [Not a formal doctrine but a widely held view of Christian worship among some of those in denominations and also some in non-denominational and other groups.]
40. Lone ranger Christianity - the belief that one need not be associated with any church or group. While this is not a denominational belief it is sufficiently widespread to make a kind of theology of its own.
41. Emerging church movement; Emerging churches are fluid, hard to define, and varied; they contrast themselves with what has gone before by using the term "inherited church." Key themes of the emerging church are couched in the language of reform, Praxis-oriented lifestyles, Post-evangelical thought, and incorporation or acknowledgement of political and Post-modern elements. ... -- from Wikipedia
42. Prosperity gospel: Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success) is a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one's material wealth. Based on non-traditional interpretations of the Bible, often with emphasis on the Book of Malachi, the doctrine views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, he will deliver his promises of security and prosperity. Confessing these promises to be true is perceived as an act of faith, which God will honour.
43. Congregations electing their ministers.
44. Seeker sensitive churches.
45. Accountability partners.
46. Altar calls.
47. Church discipline effectively nullified because of the difficulty of enforcement in a multi-denominational community. [You can't excommunicate a protestant - seems to be an observation about the effective impossibility of excommunicating or otherwise disciplining a person in one denomination if they can hop over to some other denomination and fellowship there as if nothing had happened.]
48. Temperance movement: A temperance movement is a social movement urging reduced or prohibited use of alcoholic beverages. Temperance movements typically criticize excessive alcohol use, promote complete abstinence (teetotalism), or pressure the government to enact anti-alcohol legislation or complete prohibition of alcohol. ... Alcohol is wicked, "a devil's brew".
49. Christians shall have no shellfish, crustaceans, pork, or any 'unclean meat' because they are forbidden in the Law of Moses.
50. The papacy is the antichrist.
51. A specific pope will be the antichrist.
52. Michael the Archangel and Jesus being the same person.
53. Blessed assurance - possibly a variant on the perseverance of the saints, like once saved always saved.
54. Heaven being in the Orion nebula.
55. Soul Sleep: Death is an unconscious, sleep-like state. When Jesus Christ comes again, He will resurrect the dead who believe in Him and will take them to heaven. The dead who are unbelievers will be resurrected 1000 years later.
56. For a period of a thousand years the earth will be utterly desolate and only Satan and his angels will be on earth. At the end of the thousand years the the Holy City in heaven will descend to earth. The unrighteous dead will be resurrected and with Satan and his angels, they will surround the Holy City to attack God and His people. God will destroy Satan and his followers, hence removing sin forever.
57. Trail of blood - also known as Baptist successionism. It is the theory (unsupported by fact) that Jesus Christ is the founder of the Baptist denomination (Which in fact started around 1605 AD in England).
58. The Jesuit oath - An absurd fake oath that among other things says "make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons".
59. Oneness (denying the Trinity) - some might think this is a non-christian sect's doctrine while others are inclined to believe that Oneness Pentecostalism is within the confines of Christianity.

 

[Isatis]

"begs the question" is fallacy also known as "circular reasoning". Why do you think that "#1 is truly an error" begs the question?. #1 being "A bible with only 66 books."

"how do I define error?" I don't, I let dictionaries do that. "error" is such a simple word that one wonders why you'd ask me for a definition.

For the rest of your post, a quote from a web site, why not use the web to find your answer. Use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, or Catholic Answers. There are many web pages that answer the web page you quoted.

I don't look up dictionaries to find out why "a Bible with only 66 books" is allegedly an "error". Nor do I intend to do a search on the Web for catholic answers.
If you don't want to answer my questions just don't do it. I believe the Bible is complete and is composed of 66 books.


"If you continue in My word . . . you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:31-32).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Don't know a thing about Monty Python's holy grail. Sorry. But you keep saying that the Pope and bishops are protected from teaching error, but there is no scripture that makes such a promise or statement. Without scripture to back such a notion you have no ground to stand on and put your faith in man.

Doesn't know about Monty Python, doesn't know about the Scripture, which has been provided...you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Christ put his faith in Peter, why shouldn't we?

Because you have the wrong idea about what the church is. You see the church as an organization with some type of unbroken line of teachers. That isn't the church.

You have no idea what my idea of what the church is is. That's a component of it, but it's so much more.

I don't see it that way because your doctrines contradict the scripture for the sake of maintaing their traditions. I never said Christ didn't establish one true church. I just know that the church He established isn't what you say it is.

In what way do our doctrines contradict Scripture?

To the law and the testimony. If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.

You church doctrine fails that test in stride, but yet you refuse to acknowledge the text as being applicable to you. Why is that?

So you say, but cannot prove.