Where is this taught in the bible?

[steve_b]

No, he called it a book of straw **in comparision **to John’s work and that of Paul, regarding the message of the Gospel.
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”

He further praises the book for its promulgation of God’s law;
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle…

1. 
   *]James wasn’t rejected by the ancients as if to suggest NO ONE accepted the book. That’s an over reach
   *]*Speaking of St John’s, writings, Luther got Revelation wrong. Luther said, “*I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. *First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” (Like a man in his mental state knows? ) *
   
   He further says, adding to your quote above
   
   “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?”
   
   By Luther inserting words to fit his agenda into his translation, he created contradiction between James and Paul that is not there. He just keeps compounding his errors and his sin.
   J:
   

   As for faith being never alone in scripture, it can never be alone in the life of a Christian, either, which is the true message of James, and Galatians 5.
   
   Jon

   So we agree that sola fide is not taught in the bible?.

 

[fbl9]

Hi John good to see yuh again.
Glad you are posting on this thread makes for a more inetresting read.

 

[Janet1983]

According to Catholic teaching, the Pope and the Nicene creed there is but One Church, Therefore if falls to reason that if you are christian you are a member of that church. Now the question then comes into play just how fully you wish to be in communion with that Church.

I have heard such reasoning before. Considering my person, my parents made that decision for me on the 8th of April 1984 when they decided to have me baptized in St. Peter and Paul, a Catholic Church in the center of the city on which outskirts I was raised.

And I will not discuss your sarcastic remarks on being a heretic or schimatic. I will leave that for you to decide.

I was not trying to be sarcastic. If it seems as if I was, I am very sorry. Sarcasm is not something I have found to be very effective nor necessary. I consider it harmful.

Just one note a person that may be involed in a community that teaches a herecy is not themself nessesarilly a heretic. Same goe for schimatics.

I was aware of that. Since the Reformation dates back nearly 500 years someone who is raised in a Lutheran church is not a schismatic nor a heretic, even though his church once was. He himself doesn’t know any different.

 

[Janet1983]

In addition to my previous response to you, I don’t think you read very far in Luther’s Werks. Luther admits he added sola where it wasn’t in the original text. And we know what that caused. But we can also see that Luther didn’t care. No body was going to tell him ANYTHING.

Note: The software at Catholic Answers automatically deletes certain offensive words by inserting (***) for the deleted word. It doesn’t catch all the derivitives however.

Luther writes (emphasis mine)

*Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a **great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. **Martin Luther will have it so *and he says that a papist and an *** *are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione *voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For *we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. *Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul *brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these **asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I **am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are **dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They *write books? So do I.

[snip]

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not **give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about **that word “sola” than simply "Luther will have it so, and he says **that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of *people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen **idiots among them who have never learned their own art of *sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. *They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only **transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and **understanding in the world as well. An *** *truly does not have to *sing much as he is already known for his ears. *

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word **“sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but **“solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked **at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, **and I want to use both “solum” and “sola”.(and he is to be trusted to add to scripture?) I have continually tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened **that I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single word **for three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then. **I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translating **Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now **that it has been translated into German and completed, all can *read and criticize it (except of course the Church ) One can now read three or four pages without stumbling one time - without realizing just what rocks and **hindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over a **smoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before we *removed those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely. (and we can see what a balanced individual Luther is ) *The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants the *task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. ( he didn’t like the message so he changes it to be more satisfactory to HIM? Oh really!!!) There is no such *thing as earning the world’s thanks. Even God cannot each thanks, **not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death of **his Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil’s name, as *it will not be anything else."

Wow!!!

You are aware of the fact that the English language and the German language are not at all the same? In the Original Luther does not call the Pope the 3-letter word you read. He calls him a donkey (quite literally). What this means is not what it would mean in English. Calling somebody a donkey is calling him extremely “stubborn” and (depending on the context) a little slow in understanding. It is not at all as bad a word as it is in English.

 

[joe370]

The bible has no life and therefor is unable to to teach.

Exactly…

 

[joe370]

Janet1983…

Based on my last thread regarding the non-Catholic consensus of what sola scriptura is, and is not, I have concluded that the bible, as per sola scriptura advocates, is the Christians only source of divine authority via private interpretation, and that all Christians, as per the practice of sola scriptura, must defer to the authority of the bible alone via private interpretation (with the exception of one SS advocate) - as opposed to deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church or any other Protestant Church for that matter. I am told that All have the right to read the bible (with which I agree, to a point…) - as it has been written, and discern truth for themselves: no church Bishop or Pastor (regardless of church affiliation) - is needed to further expound that which has been expounded to each and every Christian via private interpretation, as he or she is moved by the holy spirit.

Janet, if this is true then it must be taught in the bible; where is this taught in the bible??? 2 Timothy 3 does not teach this…

 

[freerf]

I’m rather impressed by the amount of badgering the Protestants are taking on this thread. where are the mods? Lot of smart people on this thread but too few gentlemen. (That was a reference to the discussion with Brian)

 

[steve_b]

You are aware of the fact that the English language and the German language are not at all the same?

Janet, do you know how many bibles there were IN GERMAN, before Luther was even a thought?
J:

In the Original Luther does not call the Pope the 3-letter word you read. He calls him a donkey (quite literally).

I gave you my source, what is your source?
J:

What this means is not what it would mean in English. Calling somebody a donkey is calling him extremely “stubborn” and (depending on the context) a little slow in understanding. It is not at all as bad a word as it is in English.

I was thinking as I read his letter many years ago, he was giving a perfect description of himself. But aside from his ill comportment, his translation was wrong, and he created real damage.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Janet1983;7247026]I have heard such reasoning before. Considering my person, my parents made that decision for me on the 8th of April 1984 when they decided to have me baptized in St. Peter and Paul, a Catholic Church in the center of the city on which outskirts I was raised.

Congrats.

I was not trying to be sarcastic. If it seems as if I was, I am very sorry. Sarcasm is not something I have found to be very effective nor necessary. I consider it harmful.

You may not have been trying to be, but you were.

I was aware of that. Since the Reformation dates back nearly 500 years someone who is raised in a Lutheran church is not a schismatic nor a heretic, even though his church once was. He himself doesn’t know any different.

If you were aware of that and did not mean to be sarcastic as you said above. Then why did you use those words?

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;7246611]

1. 
   *]James wasn’t rejected by the ancients as if to suggest NO ONE accepted the book. That’s an over reach
   *]*Speaking of St John’s, writings, Luther got Revelation wrong. Luther said, “*I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. *First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” (Like a man in his mental state knows? ) *

1. 
   He further says, adding to your quote above
   

   “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?”
   
   By Luther inserting words to fit his agenda into his translation, he created contradiction between James and Paul that is not there. He just keeps compounding his errors and his sin.

   Luther’s questions about the Antilegomena books is as old as Eusebius. And he took pretty much the same approach, as your quote recognizes.
   
   Eusebius
   

   "Among the disputed writings, των αντιλεγομένων], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the **so-called epistle of James **and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; **and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. **And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books

   So we agree that sola fide is not taught in the bible?.

   No, I would say the characterization of sola fide by many - particularly some modern Protestants, particularly those who reject the importance of good works - is not found in scripture.
   
   Luther, from his preface to Galatians 5:6
   

   Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

   Jon

 

[steve_b]

No, I would say the characterization of sola fide by many - particularly some modern Protestants, particularly those who reject the importance of good works - is not found in scripture.

As you know, “by faith alone” IS appropriately found in scripture, it’s just that NOT is in front of it… [Ja 2:24]
J:

Luther, from his preface to Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

IOW, Luther confuses good works and works of the law. Circumcision is a work of the law, it’s NOT a good work. Since Luther recognizes faith is NOT alone

• he created an ugly storm that was totally unnecessary by adding alone inappropriately.
• No one was having trouble with Paul and his teaching on faith, before Luther adds alone. The trouble was AFTER Luther’s addition. .And as you point out, the error still has legs among Protestants today, 500 years after Luther assumed room temperature. If protestants do it today, Imagine what protestants did with that 500 years ago?

 

[joe370]

Yet another reason why I came home to Rome.

It is called the CC spreading throughout the world. you certainly dont think that Church was not supposed to be in different places, do you? or do you think that the Church should be in one place only and people from all over the world had to travel to go to Mass there? why is so hard for you people to get this? why is so hard for you people to understand that the Church must be built everywhere? so the people can learn about the Catholic Faith. the Church although in different place, she still the same Church. when I entered into my parish, I am not entered just in the one building the parish, I am going into the One Holy Catholic Church. it is not so with protestants community. due to the mindset of protestantism, it is hard for you guys to see that there is only One Church and not many. the Church in Brasil, the Church in america, the Church in russian, the Church in Rome. they are but One Church and not many.

 

[JonNC]

As you know, “by faith alone” IS appropriately found in scripture, it’s just that NOT is in front of it… [Ja 2:24]

IOW, Luther confuses good works and works of the law. Circumcision is a work of the law, it’s NOT a good work. Since Luther recognizes faith is NOT alone

• he created an ugly storm that was totally unnecessary by adding alone inappropriately.
• No one was having trouble with Paul and his teaching on faith, before Luther adds alone. The trouble was AFTER Luther’s addition. .And as you point out, the error still has legs among Protestants today, 500 years after Luther assumed room temperature. If protestants do it today, Imagine what protestants did with that 500 years ago?

Imagine, also, the abuses of the time - perhaps not even Catholic teaching - that led to what Luther did? Tetzel, et al. We can’t look at the Reformation without understanding what brought it about. There were many who were misrepresenting Paul’s teaching on faith.
Your statement that Luther added “allein” inappropriately is your opinion, and that’s fine.
He saw it as necessary for translation into German, and stated so.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Imagine, also, the abuses of the time - perhaps not even Catholic teaching - that led to what Luther did? Tetzel, et al. We can’t look at the Reformation without understanding what brought it about. There were many who were misrepresenting Paul’s teaching on faith.

Luther et al, had opportunities to debate the issues. As you know, Protestants didn’t budge and neither did the CC after much debate. And look at the divisions that happened as a result of the Protestant revolt. When one leaves the Church like that, it didn’t stop. It was like division AND misrepresentation on steroids. All these people serving God THEIR way?

As you know, there are passages from Paul strongly condemning division and the ones who do it. That’s because faith is also a test of perseverence. IOW Can one remain in the Church. That’s why he taught, those who divide, and remain divided, won’t inherit heaven. That should scare the tar out of anyone leaving the Catholic Church
J:

Your statement that Luther added “allein” inappropriately is your opinion, and that’s fine.
He saw it as necessary for translation into German, and stated so.

Jon

As you know, it’s not opinion. Luther knew by adding alone, where he knew it wasn’t therre in the original texts, caused problems among Germans also. But Luther said he would have it his way.

Have you ever seen the following?

St Francis de Sales wrote against Calvinists. Kinda like Eck debating Luther only different . Francis came after Luther by several decades, and hit the usual hot topics. You can read his approach online. goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html It’s a quick read.

here’s a sample of his writing

"The Holy Scripture is called the Book of the Old and of the New Testament. When a notary has drawn a contract or other deed, when a testament is confirmed by the death of the testator, there must not be added, withdrawn, or altered, one single word under penalty of falsification. Are not the Holy Scriptures the true testament of the eternal God, drawn by the notaries deputed for this purpose, duly sealed and signed with his blood, confirmed by death? Being such, how can we alter even the smallest point without impiety? “A testament,” says the great Ulpian, “is a just expression of our will as to what we would have done after our death.” Our Lord by the Holy Scriptures shows us what we must believe, hope for, love, and do, and this by a true expression of His will; if we add, take away, or change, it will no longer be the true expression of God’s will. For Our Lord having duly expressed in Scripture His will, if we add anything of our own we shall make the statement go beyond the will of our testator, if we take anything away we shall make it fall short, if we make changes in it we shall set it awry, and it will no longer correspond to the will of the author, nor be a correct statement. When two things exactly correspond, he who changes the one destroys the equality and the correspondence between them. If it be a true statement, whatever right have we to alter it? Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, yea, the mere little points and accents of His Holy words. How jealous then is he of their integrity, and what punishment shall they not deserve who violate this integrity! Brethren, says S. Paul, (Gal. Iii 15, 16) (I speak after the manenr of man), yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it. And to show how important it is to learn the Scripture in its exactness he gives an example. To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He says not and to his seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy seed, who is Christ. See, I beg you, how the change from singular to plural would have spoilt the mysterious meaning of this word. "

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;7255729]Luther et al, had opportunities to debate the issues. As you know, Protestants didn’t budge and neither did the CC after much debate. And look at the divisions that happened as a result of the Protestant revolt. When one leaves the Church like that, it didn’t stop. It was like division AND misrepresentation on steroids. All these people serving God THEIR way?

Are you of the opinion that “recant” was an invitation to debate? Or that the invitation to Rome was anything more than a death sentence?

As you know, there are passages from Paul strongly condemning division and the ones who do it. That’s because faith is also a test of perseverence. IOW Can one remain in the Church. That’s why he taught, those who divide, and remain divided, won’t inherit heaven. That should scare the tar out of anyone leaving the Catholic Church

So, how do you respond to the Orthodox who claim that about Rome?

As you know, it’s not opinion. Luther knew by adding alone, where he knew it wasn’t therre in the original texts, caused problems among Germans also. But Luther said he would have it his way.

It wasn’t in the original text because the original text wasn’t German. Luther’s was a translation, not a transliteration.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Are you of the opinion that “recant” was an invitation to debate? Or that the invitation to Rome was anything more than a death sentence?

Oh c’mon Jon.
J:

So, how do you respond to the Orthodox who claim that about Rome?

This is not a mystery. If one wants to do it the way Jesus commanded, everyone remains one behind Peter and remains in union with him.
J:

It wasn’t in the original text because the original text wasn’t German. Luther’s was a translation, not a transliteration.

Jon

Look up the history of the bible in German.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;7255831]Oh c’mon Jon.

Steve, you know as well as I do the threat to Luther’s life was real. You know that at Worms there was to be no debate. It is safe to say both sides were stubborn, to the detriment of the whole Church.

This is not a mystery. If one wants to do it the way Jesus commanded, everyone remains one behind Peter and remains in union with him.

Thanks, Steve. But this POV hasn’t helped reconcile the Church in a thousand years.

Look up the history of the bible in German.

And I’d encourage you to look up how many theologians before Luther spoke of faith alone in regards Romans 3:28.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Steve, you know as well as I do the threat to Luther’s life was real. You know that at Worms there was to be no debate. It is safe to say both sides were stubborn, to the detriment of the whole Church.

As you know, the debate did happen. But let’s also mention, Luther suffered from scrupulosity. Behind that is abnormal fear manufactured by the individual. IOW, Luther was not really in danger, but Eck assured him of his safety anyway.
J:

Thanks, Steve. But this POV hasn’t helped reconcile the Church in a thousand years.

There’s a passage in scripture I really like. It can be used in sooooo many different situations, and decisions.

“today I put before you life and death blessings and curses, choose life” [Dt 30]

Seems the answer is a no brainer …right? Who in their right mind would choose curses and death? Yet people do…either by omission or comission

Reunion / division is a choice. If one is seperated and knows it, and remains that way it’s a choice. If one knows they are divided and reunites, that’s a choice. As Deuteronomy indicates, one choice brings blessings and life, the other brings curses and death. But according to scripture, it’s a choice one must make.

Paul said the same thing a little differently

Those who dissent and divide, and continue to live like that won’t inherit heaven. [Gal 5:19:20]

i’m thinking, consequences are so severe, to help people make the right decision and not delay
J:

And I’d encourage you to look up how many theologians before Luther spoke of faith alone in regards Romans 3:28.

Jon

Do you have a few references?

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;7256203]
Reunion / division is a choice. If one is seperated and knows it, and remains that way it’s a choice. If one knows they are divided and reunites, that’s a choice. As Deuteronomy indicates, one choice brings blessings and life, the other brings curses and death. But according to scripture, it’s a choice one must make.

I think its a choice we all need to make - together. It will take prayer, and dialogue.
We are divided, and we must work together to reconcile.

Paul said the same thing a little differently

Those who dissent and divide, and continue to live like that won’t inherit heaven. [Gal 5:19:20]

I have often said that, even when we can’t take each other’s hand, we should both take the Holy Spirit’s hand and allow Him to guide us.

i’m thinking, consequences are so severe, to help people make the right decision and not delay

The sad thing is we as a Church appear to have chosen delay for a thousand years, and made it worse 500 years ago.

Do you have a few references?

Try here. Aftera discussion of ML’s translation letter, Swan lists a number of quotes with references.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

I hope, Steve, my dialogue with you has done more to help our agreed desire for unity than hurt it.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I think its a choice we all need to make - together. It will take prayer, and dialogue.
We are divided, and we must work together to reconcile.

I have often said that, even when we can’t take each other’s hand, we should both take the Holy Spirit’s hand and allow Him to guide us.

The sad thing is we as a Church appear to have chosen delay for a thousand years, and made it worse 500 years ago.

Try here. Aftera discussion of ML’s translation letter, Swan lists a number of quotes with references.
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

I hope, Steve, my dialogue with you has done more to help our agreed desire for unity than hurt it.

Jon

No, don’t worry, this conversation hasn’t hurt anything

Your link however, didn’t help things. If anything, It exagerated the nonsense out there. It had this internal link as it’s first reference re: Luther cogwriter.com/luther.htm the first paragraph says

Most people realize that the Living Church of God (or any of the true Churches of God) cannot be part of the Roman Catholic Church. However, some do not realize that the Living Church of God is not part of the Protestant reformation movement led by Martin Luther (our history predates Luther, and the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter, please see the History of Early Christianity).

Jon, to begin with,

1. 
   *]“Roman” as a qualifier to Catholic Church is a tip off the auithor bought the Anglican polemic nonsense of the 16th century. newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
   *]the author says (our history predates the actual Roman Catholic Church for that matter). Oh really? I’m already thinking the author is a crank
   *]Who is the author? the author writes COGwriter ( Bob Thiel, Ph.D. )COGwriter is an abbreviation for Church of God (COG) writer. The term Church of God is used here to include those Sabbatarian (sabbath-keeping) churches that are faithful to apostolic Christianity (most generally, but not exclusively, those who came out of the pre-1986 Worldwide Church of God, and hold similar beliefs). Sheesh!!! 1986???Don’t ya just love these late arrivals calling themselves the Church of God?
   
   Thiel admits leaving the Catholic Church. Now he is a fundamentalist Sabbatarian. They aren’t a church, and there’s NOTHING apostolic about them. They are just another tradition of the confused.
   
   And no, I don’t think you knew all this when you posted that link.