At the Creation

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave comments as to the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction should be taken seriously.  There is no credible support for such an  Oath.  It is simply a part of the so-called "pious fiction" that has floated around about the Roman Catholic Church for years.  In the interests of honesty and the God we claim to represent who is honest. we should not be repeating it.  It simply lacks  historical support.

However, I will point out that Gustave has done the same in his attempts to tell us what SDA belief is and was.  He is without as much support for his representation of us as are those who present that alleged Jesuit Oath as truth.  To me, he seems to be little interested in truth as it pertains to SDAs.  Just as  he would probably say the same about some people who claim to know what the Catholic Church teaches and taught.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave asked in the quote below:

*  I will accept that as a valid question, and not a trick question.

*  Historians will argue as to the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church persecuted anyone as opposed to those people being persecuted by civil authority.  I am not wanting to get into that type of a discussion.  I am wiling to say that it was a mixture.  Some of what has been done in the name of religion has been more of civil politics than of religion.  But, I also believe that there has been a religious element.

*  I am willing to concede the point that I think Gustave is making.  Every Christian group that was persecuted in that time probably held some doctrinal belief with which SDAs would disagree.  So be it. I will suggest that civil and religious persecution of people/groups in the basis of  their doctrinal errors should not happen.  Period.

It's NOT a trick question, I'm being totally serious here. You said that the Catholic Church persecuted Christians and I'm just wanting to know which Christian groups the Catholic Church persecuted that abided by Doctrines that you agree with? 

 

[Gustave]

37 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave asked in the quote below:

*  I will accept that as a valid question, and not a trick question.

*  Historians will argue as to the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church persecuted anyone as opposed to those people being persecuted by civil authority.  I am not wanting to get into that type of a discussion.  I am wiling to say that it was a mixture.  Some of what has been done in the name of religion has been more of civil politics than of religion.  But, I also believe that there has been a religious element.

*  I am willing to concede the point that I think Gustave is making.  Every Christian group that was persecuted in that time probably held some doctrinal belief with which SDAs would disagree.  So be it. I will suggest that civil and religious persecution of people/groups in the basis of  their doctrinal errors should not happen.  Period.

 

 

 

Thanks Gregory, you're right - I was going to argue the point that it was more 'civil authority' responsible for real persecution than it was religious. I also agree with you that there has been ( and probably always will be ) a religious element.

If we go back in time we can easily see that things were generally BRUTAL by todays standards. We had folks leaving Europe ( for religious freedom ) who - right after setting up camp, started to burn alleged Witches. Going back further in time we see that the early Christian (Apostolic) Church didn't have civil power to speak of - then, as time went along Christianity became "tolerated" by the Civil Authority. Adding more time to the clock we see Christianity become dominant through the Roman Empire. As the Christian religion became mainstream obviously more people identified as being Christian - some of which were either born or moved into politics.  A  bad egg is a bad egg no matter what religion the person identifies as belonging to.

As the Christian Church got it's feet off the ground there were those who brought in "ALIEN" teachings - some of which caused enough of a problem they had to be addressed the same way the Church dealt with serious questions in Acts 15 ( a Council ). Some of the folks who started heretical sects were promulgating teachings that went against what the Civil Authority was trying to accomplish and much of what we read about that matter is attributed to just that - teachings which violated the rule of law in a civil context.

Of course I'll admit that in some cases it would appear that the civil authority had or in someway got the blessing of the Church but again, things were brutal back in those days.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

It should also be noted that Protestants persecuted people who disagreed with them. Again, politics was often mixed in with religion.

[Gregory Matthews]

This thread has digressed as bit from a discussion of the Trinity.  Some may wish to go back to its focus.  O.K., but is will continue to digress a bit.

As to persecution I have a book that deals with this in England and Scandinavia.  It was eye opening to me.  But, I cannot immediately locate it to give an exact title and reference.

However, I will suggest the following books as being of value in our discussion:

1)  Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist  Attitudes Toward Roman Catholicism: 1844 - 1965.  Andrews University Press, 1994, 374 pages.

This book is a slightly revised version of a 1993 PhD. thesis for the University of London.  Of interest is a statement on page 15 which points out the anti-catholic climate in which Adventism arose: 

"And, as is often the case, people at the time did not always recognize the borderline between religious motives and economical and political fears or ethnic xenophobia.  As the number of Catholics increased, sociological and political factors became more and more important, though the underlying Protestant view of Catholicism as a danger and falsehood, to be combatted at all cost, provided the climate in which anti-Catholicism in its more secular forme could prosper."  [NOTE English spelling.]  

2)  Karl Keating. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The attack on "Romanism' by Bible Christians."  Ignatius Press. 1988, 360 pages.

This book present some Catholic viewpoints on some issues and it was published with both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.

3)  Albert Hyma.  Christianity and Politics.  Brent Publishing. 1960, 351 pages.

The above book has been considered a classic by both Catholic and Protestants.  As a review in the Catholic Historical Review said:

"Above all one is struck by the calm, scholarly style of the text which exhibits a commendable understanding of the Catholic position particularly in the liberalistic eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."

 

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

This thread has digressed as bit from a discussion of the Trinity.  Some may wish to go back to its focus.  O.K., but is will continue to digress a bit.

As to persecution I have a book that deals with this in England and Scandinavia.  It was eye opening to me.  But, I cannot immediately locate it to give an exact title and reference.

However, I will suggest the following books as being of value in our discussion:

1)  Reinder Bruinsma, Seventh-day Adventist  Attitudes Toward Roman Catholicism: 1844 - 1965.  Andrews University Press, 1994, 374 pages.

This book is a slightly revised version of a 1993 PhD. thesis for the University of London.  Of interest is a statement on page 15 which points out the anti-catholic climate in which Adventism arose: 

"And, as is often the case, people at the time did not always recognize the borderline between religious motives and economical and political fears or ethnic xenophobia.  As the number of Catholics increased, sociological and political factors became more and more important, though the underlying Protestant view of Catholicism as a danger and falsehood, to be combatted at all cost, provided the climate in which anti-Catholicism in its more secular forme could prosper."  [NOTE English spelling.]  

2)  Karl Keating. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The attack on "Romanism' by Bible Christians."  Ignatius Press. 1988, 360 pages.

This book present some Catholic viewpoints on some issues and it was published with both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur.

3)  Albert Hyma.  Christianity and Politics.  Brent Publishing. 1960, 351 pages.

The above book has been considered a classic by both Catholic and Protestants.  As a review in the Catholic Historical Review said:

"Above all one is struck by the calm, scholarly style of the text which exhibits a commendable understanding of the Catholic position particularly in the liberalistic eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."

 

 

I've got Karl Keating's book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, thanks for identifying the other books!

[Gustave]

Back to the Trinity topic - what point in time do the SDA's claim that the Apostolic Church departed the Deposit of Faith (thereby invalidating Church Council's subsequent to Acts 15?). I'm guessing that's what's being used as justification for rejection of what the Councils laid down - .i.e. that the Councils are not authoritative because the Church went into apostasy.

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

whats there to "understand?" If someone tortured people because of their beliefs; does that make it any better by trying to say "we did it too?" How many of us actually did do that? Unlike certain other ethnic cleansing, it seems that there are those who would like us to forget who did what to who and why. How does one produce "calm, scholarly text" about people butchering and torturing "in the name of God?" We should stop trying to rewrite history and say it like it is, including the Protestants who did their fair share of religious slaughter.

Doctrine & the understanding of it "develops" over time.

IF you had minor daughters, say around 11 - 13 would you believe it to be a righteous act to offer them up to a perverted mob for raping as opposed to offending someone you didn't know just because they were men ( as opposed to women )?

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  In reference to your question as to when SDAs claim the Apostolic Church departed the Faith:

*  I understand that you are asking what you consider to be an important question and you are NOT attempting to ask a so-called trick question.

*  Not withstanding that you consider it to be important,  I suspect that the SDAs generally reading this section would not have considered it to be important.  As such, they would likely not have previously have considered it. 

*  This would result in any response that one might make to your question as simply being an individual response that one probably decided upon at the spur of the moment.

* You might find that  some SDA author at some point in time wrote on this and gave a specific answer.  But, such would be the answer of that person.  The SDA denomination has not defined an answer to your question.

 

[Gustave]

26 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I am trying to figure out why you are bringing up stuff like this in this topic??  Right now, I have no idea what you are trying to state. Are you trying to state something about The Adventist Church or about another church, or about something else?

You have to follow along - It was in answer to what you said:

"whats there to "understand?" If someone tortured people because of their beliefs; does that make it any better by trying to say "we did it too?" How many of us actually did do that? Unlike certain other ethnic cleansing, it seems that there are those who would like us to forget who did what to who and why. How does one produce "calm, scholarly text" about people butchering and torturing "in the name of God?" We should stop trying to rewrite history and say it like it is, including the Protestants who did their fair share of religious slaughter."

ALL OF US, if we could transport ourselves far enough back into time would be guilty of committing wrongs against people. As time progresses I think it's pretty evident that people get a better understanding of what God wants of them ( think of it in the way of evolving ). 

In the case of Lot ( who is described as a righteous man in Scripture ) he had no problem tossing his daughters out for a mob to rape for two people he didn't (he didn't know) - out of embarrassment for the City he lived in. If we worship a infinitely just & holy God would have been offended at that act - thus MAN has evolved in what he understands that God expects of him. A father today would likely die trying to defend his daughters no matter the odds. Thus, God hasn't changed - man has evolved ( changed to know that isn't what God expects of him ). 

People who back in history committed bad acts against others are easy to judge "in the rear view mirror" but what would we have done had we been back there? I'm honest enough to admit I could have been one of those who had been harsh just as easily as I could have been the victim of cruelty. That's what I'm saying. 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave:  In reference to your question as to when SDAs claim the Apostolic Church departed the Faith:

*  I understand that you are asking what you consider to be an important question and you are NOT attempting to ask a so-called trick question.

*  Not withstanding that you consider it to be important,  I suspect that the SDAs generally reading this section would not have considered it to be important.  As such, they would likely not have previously have considered it. 

*  This would result in any response that one might make to your question as simply being an individual response that one probably decided upon at the spur of the moment.

* You might find that  some SDA author at some point in time wrote on this and gave a specific answer.  But, such would be the answer of that person.  The SDA denomination has not defined an answer to your question.

 

If Scripture teaches / documents New Testament Religious Authority for the Church that's passed on or down by the laying on of hands then it would seem that to be Biblically compliant an individual who rejects the first several Church Councils would have to claim apostasy prior to or subsequent to the Council of Nicaea in order to reject the Trinity Doctrine. Unless there is another Biblical reason one could give for rejecting ordained Religious Authority? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Again, you are reading your own stuff into it.

Yes, there are times when SDAs have done this to Catholics.  That does not make it right.

It is just as wrong when coming from you as when coming from us.

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

You really have gotten way off topic. I have no idea yet what you are talking about.

I gather that, clearly.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Wanderer has asked when SDAs have ever done the same to Catholics.

*  The alleged Jesuit oath is an example of a claim that is without foundation.

*  In    the 50s and 60s  the Chick tracts were  widely circulated by some Protestants.  Those tracts were largely so-called pious fiction, although I cannot call them pious.  Some SDAs circulated those tracts.  

* Vicarius Filii Dei:  There are substantial aspects  of what SDA writers have said about that Latin phrase that are subject to debate,  some of which are probably false.  As an example:  Contrary to  what has sometimes been stated, that Latin phrase can not be objectively shown to be inscribed on the  tiara of the Pope.

*  SDAs have not always been accurate in their description of Roman Catholic teaching.  This is exactly that same as  what Gustave is doing to us in what he is posting about the Trinity.  He is not wrong is everything that he states.  He is correct in his statements to the effect that early SDA leaders were not Trinitarian.   He is wrong as to how he expands that and reads into SDA writings as to what he wants to see.  In the same sense, we SDAs have done the same to Catholic teachings.

I am reminded of a previous life    in which I had access to the Franciscan magazine St. Anthony Messenger.  I read it regularly and enjoyed a regular feature in which a priest responded to questions about the faith from Catholics.  One time a woman wrote in to state that she just could not believe a specific teaching.  The priest first went on to list the historic teaching of the Church on that point, with which she could not agree.  Then he went on to state that the teaching she had mentioned was not required to be believed by the members.  There was a minority of Catholics who also did not accept that teaching and she  could be a good Catholic and not accept that teaching. 

This is probably true for all denominations.  It is clearly true for us as SDAs.  We have a core set of teachings.  But, we also have teachings that are not required for membership.  Just as Gustave has failed to recognize this, so also our members have sometimes failed to make this distinction both about SDA and Roman Catholic beliefs.

*  Sometimes we make statements about Catholics that are partially true and partially false.  As an example:  We may sometimes say that a Roman Catholic priest can no be married and remain a priest.  That may be true for most priests.  But, it is not true for all priests.  While on the teaching faculty of the Army Chaplain School I had a Roman Catholic priest as a student who was married!  I found  remarkable the number of Protestants who were dumbfounded by the fact that a Roman Catholic priest could be married.  The Pope can grant a dispensation and allow a married person to become a priest.  This student was one of 40 who had been granted such a dispensation.  I will tell you that on a world-wide basis, there are other groups of married Catholic priests with which Rome is in communion.

 

[Gustave]

Where would I find a list of required beliefs for SDA's? Does it mean that anything not in the Fundamental Beliefs is not required? 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  You have asked a great question.  I wrote an extended response to your question explaining the so-called 27/28/29 Fundamental Beliefs.  That extended statement has disappeared and evidently was not posted here.  I do not have time to re-write it.  I hope to do it later.

Briefly:   No the so-called 27/28 are not required to become and remain a member in the SDA Church.  But that requires more time than I can give to this now.

Sorry.

 

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

We should stop trying to rewrite history and say it like it is, including the Protestants who did their fair share of religious slaughter.

There has always been slaughter in the name of "God" or religion.  Some of it was done in the name of religion, when the reasons for the slaughter were for other reasons  - grabbing Naboth's vineyard, or taking over Native American lands (converting the pagans to "Christianity"), etc. etc. etc.  

When Jesus returns, he will remove His redeemed from this planet, and then allow this planet to be completely decimated.   Later, when Christ reigns in His Father's name, there will be yet another "religious war" - when the army of Gog leads the attack against the reign of Christ.  Fire from God will consume the attackers.  That appears to be THE LAST religious war.    

[8thdaypriest]

23 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Historians will argue as to the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church persecuted anyone as opposed to those people being persecuted by civil authority. 

If the civil authorities are controlled by the religious authorities, then the persecution ORIGINATED with the religious authorities.   If a Pope or bishop tells the King or Count, that he will not receive communion, that his confessions will not be heard - nor forgiveness forthcoming, that no marriage will be performed,  unless the ruler commands the persecutions,    that was - at the time - effective control.   Once the civil authorities lost faith in the "orthodox" salvation by sacrament , the Roman Church lost control.    

The "separation of church and state" is still debated in the US.   

Certainly in many Muslim countries,  civil law IS religious law - Sharia Law.  

[8thdaypriest]

19 hours ago, Gustave said:

Back to the Trinity topic - what point in time do the SDA's claim that the Apostolic Church departed the Deposit of Faith (thereby invalidating Church Council's subsequent to Acts 15?). I'm guessing that's what's being used as justification for rejection of what the Councils laid down - .i.e. that the Councils are not authoritative because the Church went into apostasy.

You are still wanting to debate history,   and SDA history,  rather than use Bible only to debate whether our God is a Trinity.   I'm not interested in debating history.  

[Gustave]

Just now, 8thdaypriest said:

You are still wanting to debate history,   and SDA history,  rather than use Bible only to debate whether our God is a Trinity.   I'm not interested in debating history.  

No, I'm presenting a Biblical fact that God had, in the New Testament, an established Religious Authority which true followers appealed to and abided by. 

[8thdaypriest]

34 minutes ago, Gustave said:

No, I'm presenting a Biblical fact that God had, in the New Testament, an established Religious Authority which true followers appealed to and abided by. 

Jesus chose 12 disciples - 10 of whom were martyred.  One betrayed Him and was replaced.   

The Catholic Church recognizes Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church was founded.  Peter would therefore be "the authority".   Protestants do not recognize Peter in such a role.   The "rock" is Jesus - His true identity as Christ and "Son of the living God". 

James presided over the "council" at Jerusalem.   

(Early in His ministry)   Luke 10:1 "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him two by two into every town and place where he himself was about to go."   They were appointed to preach the news that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand".   They were to prepare the people to listen to Christ.   

The LORD does not appear to be against leadership.   But leaders can get it wrong.   Note the disagreements between Paul and Barnabas and Peter.  James encouraged Paul to offer sacrifices at the Temple, and to pay for those of a few other men who had also taken the Nazarite vow.   

The "Christian Church" (congregation) began at Jerusalem.   Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, and by that time almost every one of the original 12 were dead.   The group of (Roman) recognized leaders, called to appear at Nicea - leaders of the larger congregations within the Eastern Empire,  did NOT constitute a group (council) appointed of God,  or recognized by Christ.   The vote of such a council was NOT the ruling of God.   And the rulings were ultimately those of the Emperor, not necessarily those of the council participants.  

The Emperor ruled that no Christian Feast or holy day, could be celebrated on the same that a Jewish Feast was celebrated. - including the Sabbath of the 7th Day   How could THAT be of God?   The Feasts of the Jews are "the LORD's Feasts".   No Emperor could rule them invalid or obsolete.   If the men who appeared at the council of Nicea were under the inspiration of God, why did they not insist that the Sabbath of the 7th Day be restored for all of Christ's church.  Answer:  They were AFRAID of the Emperor, who was a flaming anti-Semitic.  

 

[Gustave]

16 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus chose 12 disciples - 10 of whom were martyred.  One betrayed Him and was replaced.   

The Catholic Church recognizes Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church was founded.  Peter would therefore be "the authority".   Protestants do not recognize Peter in such a role.   The "rock" is Jesus - His true identity as Christ and "Son of the living God". 

James presided over the "council" at Jerusalem.   

(Early in His ministry)   Luke 10:1 "After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him two by two into every town and place where he himself was about to go."   They were appointed to preach the news that "the kingdom of heaven is at hand".   They were to prepare the people to listen to Christ.   

The LORD does not appear to be against leadership.   But leaders can get it wrong.   Note the disagreements between Paul and Barnabas and Peter.  James encouraged Paul to offer sacrifices at the Temple, and to pay for those of a few other men who had also taken the Nazarite vow.   

The "Christian Church" (congregation) began at Jerusalem.   Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, and by that time almost every one of the original 12 were dead.   The group of (Roman) recognized leaders, called to appear at Nicea - leaders of the larger congregations within the Eastern Empire,  did NOT constitute a group (council) appointed of God,  or recognized by Christ.   The vote of such a council was NOT the ruling of God.   And the rulings were ultimately those of the Emperor, not necessarily those of the council participants.  

The Emperor ruled that no Christian Feast or holy day, could be celebrated on the same that a Jewish Feast was celebrated. - including the Sabbath of the 7th Day   How could THAT be of God?   The Feasts of the Jews are "the LORD's Feasts".   No Emperor could rule them invalid or obsolete.   If the men who appeared at the council of Nicea were under the inspiration of God, why did they not insist that the Sabbath of the 7th Day be restored for all of Christ's church.  Answer:  They were AFRAID of the Emperor, who was a flaming anti-Semitic.  

 

Acts 15, 7-11: "And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us;  and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?  But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 

James 'answered' & affirmed Peter's point, he was not declaring a point.

"Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.  And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written......"

For the sake of argument even IF Peter didn't have supremacy at the Council of Jerusalem ( which absolutely isn't the case ) it's clear that what prompted the Council was what was to be understood as correct teachings moving forward and this was settled BY a Council as you can clearly see. Thus, I'm under the impression you're in agreement that at the time the events contained in the Book of Acts 'The Church' had not yet apostatized. Do I have that right? 

The Lord is definitely not against His established Leaders as the following shows. 

Luke 10,16:  “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

That's spot on to: 

John 17, 18: "As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world".

John 20,21: "Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you".

We know from John 14, 10 that what Jesus speaks is from the Authority of the Father AND this Authority Jesus gave collectively to the Apostles AND PETER independently. 

 

Paul held a "DIVINE OFFICE" 

Colossians 1, 24: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,  the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints".

2 Corinthians 1, 22: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us;  he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee."

This is why the Bible says it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth and not a private individuals own interpretation of Scripture. 

Therefore, when the Council of Jerusalem issued it's decision it was said it was ALSO the decision of God. No one would suggest that there would never again be Christians who taught error to the damnation of souls after Acts 15. Questions would continue to be put forward and heretical belief would need to be answered with guaranteed authority. 

THIS is exactly what happened when Arius started to spread his heretical beliefs through the Church - the question you have before you is when is it that you believe that the Church went into apostasy? It obviously, in your view, happened AFTER the Council of Jerusalem and Prior to Nicaea. If you reject the authority of the Bishops of Nicaea you should have something Biblical to point out whereas those Bishops fell away from the Deposit of Faith once delivered. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

If you reject the authority of the Bishops of Nicaea you should have something Biblical to point out whereas those Bishops fell away from the Deposit of Faith once delivered. 

The Bible STOPS with the deaths of Paul and John.  There is nothing more.  How could I have a Biblical something specifically about that council.   

We have the Bible, and the Bible (I believe) does NOT support the doctrine of a Trinity, of "one being" or "one substance" existing as "three divine persons" .  

Therefore the bishops who voted at the Council of Nicea, were wrong - if indeed they voted from free will, and not from FEAR of Constantine, who may have told them HOW to vote.  

NOTE:  I am not saying that Arius was 100% right. 

This is the age-old conflict.  Will individual Christians obey "authorized" or "official" councils, or will they study the Word for themselves, with the help of Christ.   This is the priesthood of all believers, vs the "authorized" - "orthodox" priesthood.  

The "church" (congregational) authorities [the Sanhedrin] of the day,  actually KILLED the Son of God.   He did not submit to their authority, and neither did His disciples after Him.  He rejected their authority, BECAUSE they had departed from the truth of God, and obedience to God.   The same principle applies to all following councils.  

[8thdaypriest]

24 minutes ago, Gustave said:

2 Corinthians 1, 22: But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us;  he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee."

2 Corinthians was addressed to "the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia:"   It was addressed to the entire body of believers - not to any specific individuals within those bodies.  

God has "commissioned" all believers as ambassadors, and calls upon all believers to study what is true, and to share their faith.      

[8thdaypriest]

29 minutes ago, Gustave said:

This is why the Bible says it is the Church that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth and not a private individuals own interpretation of Scripture. 

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths." 

HE will direct you paths.  Not - the Orthodox Church will direct your paths.