“My theology flows from the word of God itself and nothing else. I don't need to read "church fathers" I have concordances among concordances Vines, Strongs, Greek and Hebrew bibles, commentaries from 1700+ Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Jim Sheerer, Ellicott's, blah...blah...blah. I can also read word for word the preserved and inspired word of God as I have done all my years and see the truth.”
I have read concordances which contain analysis - so that is what I was referring to. Commentaries from 1700+ are anachronistic heresy if they are protestant since their first principle is to protest the Church which literally put the bible together as one book and wrote the entire new testament.
The commentaries are the problem. They are heretical.
Read commentary from the early church to correct your error. Even Calvin recognizes the importance of church fathers.
Why do you think you know better than Ignatius who was ordained by John?
You reject the pope but anoint yourself. Incredible!
“My theology flows from the word of God itself and nothing else. I don't need to read "church fathers" I have concordances among concordances Vines, Strongs, Greek and Hebrew bibles, commentaries from 1700+ Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Jim Sheerer, Ellicott's, blah...blah...blah. I can also read word for word the preserved and inspired word of God as I have done all my years and see the truth.”
I have read concordances which contain analysis - so that is what I was referring to. Commentaries from 1700+ are anachronistic heresy if they are protestant since their first principle is to protest the Church which literally put the bible together as one book and wrote the entire new testament.
The commentaries are the problem. They are heretical.
Read commentary from the early church to correct your error. Even Calvin recognizes the importance of church fathers.
Why do you think you know better than Ignatius who was ordained by John?
You reject the pope but anoint yourself. Incredible!