Brenda Has More Error Than Usually - I Still Think It Worthwhile Arguing

The Dangerous Example Of Harlot Christianity (Letters to 7 Churches)
Brenda Weltner | 24.X.2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8XBdiNVEQ4

0:34 The explanation is very much less symbolic.

A priest (or deacon) named Nicolaus had a wife, and was very tolerant when other guys slept with her. And those who slept with her called themselves his fanclub. Nicolaitans.

Obviously, being forgiven an adultery by the wronged party is not a good reason to continue in adultery.

Brenda Weltner

That's the common teaching...but 'Jezebel, Balaam and the Nicolaitans' are all symbolic...they're not intended to be taken literally...just as the 7 churches are not meant to be taken literally, as referring to the actual seven churches that existed in Asia Minor during John's lifetime.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner But first and foremost they actually do refer to the seven actual churches.

Albert Williams

@Brenda Weltner why aren't the 7 churches to be taken literally?

Brenda Weltner

The whole book is symbolic. Even though Revelation is telling a real story about things that will happen before Christ's return, there is almost nothing in Revelation that isn't to be regarded as symbolic.

Albert Williams

@Brenda Weltner How do we know this is mostly symbolic ?

Brenda Weltner

Christ is represented as a Lamb who has 7 eyes and 7 horns. Satan has 7 heads and 10 horns. A woman rides a 7 headed Beast...but we are told she also sits on many waters. Christ has a sword coming out of His mouth. These are all things are symbolic. And I could list many, many more. All you have to do is read through the book and you'll recognize that it's not 'normal'! Fortunately, some of the symbols have been interpreted for us ("The 7 lamp stands are the 7 churches...the Dragon is Satan, etc) Other symbols are decoded by what their names mean ("Smyrna", "Nicolaitans", Philadelphia, etc), and some are stories or passages referenced in the Old Testament writings. We can apply what we read in the OT to what is being described in Revelation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner One of the symbols that has been interpreted for us is actually the seven angels - this means the bishops of these Churches in Asia Minor in AD 90.

That's the exact reason why I also know the Churches themselves are not symbolic.

Or one of them. Two more:

Jews persecuting Christians of Jewish origin would still have been ongoing then.

Pergamon has two candidates for the "seat of Satan" - the Zeus altar (which was taken to Berlin, and part time after WW-II to Leningrad) and the temple to Serapis, who is a syncretistic god.

Brenda Weltner

The 'angels' are bishops? Where do you find that in the Bible?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner I find that in tradition.

You know, the tradition given by the context to the seven churches that received the text.

Where do you find in the Bible that all truth concerning the Bible is found in the Bible? You don't.

2:46 If you think the "teaching of the Nicolaitans" or "doctrine of the Nicolaites" is about clericalism, why not read previous verse?

[14] But I have against thee a few things: because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat, and to commit fornication: [15] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaites.

The doctrine is the same.

Brenda Weltner

I'll be talking about the doctrine of Balaam in another video...

Jo Leggett

@Brenda Weltner - I love the fact that you kept replying to Hans-Georg, as I learned quite a bit from that dialogue. You have a lot of patience!!

Brenda Weltner

One of my goals is to help others who read the comments to understand opposing views from a biblical standpoint. I'm glad you benefited from the dialogue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner Noble goal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jo Leggett Yeah, right, in the presence of ladies I'll pass on who's the patient one.

Jeff Davis

I enjoy your teaching videos. I'm glad to have found your channel. I'm re reading pagan christianity and am re startled as to how nicky the church has grown. Wheat and tates for sure. My first decade following the Lord Jesus was first century communal style christianity. It worked by the grace of God but..
Of late my fellowship is small group house church. Best when the Lord leads . Ms. Brenda you and your group are a blessing so " Keep on keeping on" no matter what those creepy nicky's are saying. We here in western n.c. are praying for y'all in Idaho. God Bless. Jesus is still saving souls.

Brenda Weltner

God bless you, Jeff! And your brethren in NC!

Dialogue started by other's comment:

Deborah Howlett

Ephesians 4:11-13

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

These people are for ministering to and with the body, and edifying the body, NOT to be RULING OVER God’s people. We have the Holy Spirit who Jesus sent to lead us in ALL truth and righteousness. The pyramidical, Nicolaitan, Babylonian, system has taught God’s people to be slaves to it. They have taught the people of God to come under it’s authority and to abide by all their doctrines and precepts or they will be ostracized/excommunicated. Like what you said Brenda about how hitler used the word to cause the churches to comply with his insane doctrine/dictates.

Brenda Weltner

Thank you for sharing the biblical perspective of true, spiritual leadership. God bless you!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"and to abide by all their doctrines and precepts or they will be ostracized/excommunicated."

If you mean ostracism for believing Christ performed miracles within Low Church Anglicanism, you have a point.

But I suspect you mean excommunication for heresy in the Catholic Church. It is actually based on something.
Matthew 18:17
1 Timothy 3:15

Deborah Howlett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I believe those are offenses between brothers and sisters in the Lord. If you have an offense, you go directly to that person. If he will not hear you you are to get another witness or two, and if he will still not hear and there be no resolution , you are to take it before the whole body. Then if he will not hear, he is basically cast out as a heathen.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Deborah Howlett The casting out is excommunication.

Offenses between persons are an example, St. Paul told the bishop of Corinth to excommunicate one man for his bad choice of relations.

And in 1 Timothy 3:15 you see that the Church has power over more than just interpersonal relations, namely doctrine too.

5:11 You are forgetting that the Israelites in the time of Balaam and Balac had a pyramidal, top down, structure, with Moses and a few more at the head - and that this one was not from Balaam or Balac. On the contrary, it was from God.

In the Gospels, you see Jesus actually replicating this structure, with 72 among the rest and 12 among the 72 and Peter among the 12.

Brenda Weltner

Moses did not rule the way the world does. He was the meekest man on earth. He allowed God...who dwelt in the midst of the congregation...to decide and judge the Israelites. When Moses got a 'big head' and struck the rock 2 times, God did let him enter the promised land. Moses had a commission...a stewardship...from God. He was not 'king' and he was not the leader. Christ (as the Angel of the Lord in the Pillar of fire) was the Leader, who lived and moved in the midst of the camp.
Jesus never replicated the structure you are describing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner "Moses did not rule the way the world does"

Does Catholicism?

"He was the meekest man on earth."

Indeed. It seems to have shown in his disability to discern what Aaron and Miriam were saying behind his back, so God had to point it out for him.

There is another passage where Moses is called humble or meek, and there also it's a handicap : he tells God he's unable to speak up before the pharao.

But is there anything in your knowledge of Church history saying Popes would not have been personally humble and meek, barring this situation of social handicap? One of them actually was that - Pope St. Celestine V. That's why he abdicated.

Jesus replicated the structure of 12 princes of the 12 tribes, we find in Numbers. I recall we find 72 lower princes a bit further on.

Brenda Weltner

Catholicism rules exactly the way the world does, in fact, the Catholic church codified much of it! The power that the catholic Church holds over governments, society and its members is shocking. ALL members of the Body of Christ are priests, and no one person (Pope) should ever exercise control or spiritual authority over the rest of the members.

Emily Baird

@Brenda Weltner
“The truth doesn’t have to be defended.” “The truth stands on its own.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner "Catholicism rules exactly the way the world does"

If the only test is having some kind of government, that's not a big deal.

"in fact, the Catholic church codified much of it!"

Sure, things like Magna Charta - which a Pope relieved John Lackland from as it was signed under duress. But no doubt some cleric penned it too.

Nevertheless, there is a big difference between codifying what a government can do as a Christian government (yes, Matthew 28:16-20 means those are on Christ's order) and to watch helplessly as governments do the opposite of what they were made for.

"The power that the catholic Church holds over governments, society and its members is shocking."

I don't think so. I think Christ wanted it - if you think about the fact that "all nations" needs to include their governments sooner or later.

"ALL members of the Body of Christ are priests,"

In some sense, yes, but that of the baptised and not ordained is a passive priesthood. That of the ordained is an active one.

"and no one person (Pope) should ever exercise control or spiritual authority over the rest of the members."

That's not what I read in John 21, cited verses.

5:52 I think you should revise Church history a bit.

Bishops in the first millennium were elected by the people. Among Latin Catholics and among those of the Eastern Rite, whether they later became Uniates or Orthodox.

The Orthodox elect bishops like that to this day.

For instance, St. Ambrose was elected, from not yet even baptised, to bishop of Milan, because a child said "Ambrose" and everyone started repeating that.

It was abolished in the Latin rite because secular rulers found laymen easier to influence than clergy, and therefore the electors of bishops first became restricted to clergy surviving the former bishop, and after that to Papal nomination. But while it was abolished, there is no actual doctrine in Catholicism against reviving it, and if I am right on who was last Pope, he got elected purely by laymen. Five votes against one were voting for him in 1990, and he died August 2nd, this year.

Brenda Weltner

The very act of 'electing' a leader/pope speaks volumes! Christ is Head of the church at all times, chosen by God and not 'elected' and never replaced.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner He named Peter his vicar:

Mt 16:19 by giving him the keys (or promising to do so at a later date), confer here:
And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
[Isaias (Isaiah) 22:22]

John 21:15-17 By naming him shepherd of His flock, confer here:
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
[John 10:11]

Brenda Weltner

The 'rock' that Christ was going to build His church upon...was not the man Peter...but Peter's proclamation/confession that Jesus was/is the Christ, the Son of God. The 'keys of the Kingdom' are not the same as the 'Key of David' (Isaiah 22). Christ is the One who has the Key of David...who shuts and no one opens, and opens and no one shuts...not Peter. ("These are the words of the One who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What He opens no one can shut, and what He shuts no one can open." Revelation 3:7)

Emily Baird

I appreciate his questions because your answers, Brenda, comes from the Word.

Shari Partusch Owen

Sir I am a former Catholic your knowledge of Catholicism is notable. You seem to have taken on the role of defending the Catholic Church. Jesus died for the salvation of all that would believe on Him, not for the salvation of any domination. Depend on and defend Christ’s sacrifice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shari Partusch Owen "Jesus died for the salvation of all that would believe on Him,"

And - see Matthew 28:16-20 - believe in and obey all that he has ordained. That means Catholicism.

@Shari Partusch Owen "I am a former Catholic"

What made you leave?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner "The 'rock' that Christ was going to build His church upon...was not the man Peter...but Peter's proclamation/confession that Jesus was/is the Christ, the Son of God."

I'm aware of this reading of verse 18, that's why I referred to verse 19.

"Christ is the One who has the Key of David...who shuts and no one opens, and opens and no one shuts"

And as the Kingdom of Heaven is around Heavenly Jerusalem, it is the Kingdom of David.

So Christ gave Peter His own key.

6:14 How much is Frank Viola dependent on Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons?

I think I'll have to check him out. Viola, that is, not Hislop.

Brenda Weltner

...I doubt Viola references 'The Two Babylons' at all. But do check out his book!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner I actually checked out his site and found his email and asked him the question.

12:47 If someone believes he is "Christ's sword" on "Nicolaitan" or "Babylonian" Christianity, he may very well be the persecutor of Catholicism who is described in Apocalypse 13. Or the two persecutors of it.

23:12 Salvation of an individual believer actually can be lost, prior to death.

All texts that OSAS is based on mean something else.

Brenda Weltner

If a gift can be taken away...for whatever reason...it is no longer a gift, but a reward. The Inheritance, which is not salvation, CAN be taken away. Almost every passage people use to justify the idea that one can lose their salvation is actually referring to the loss of 'position' in the family of God...the loss of the right to rule (crown), loss of inheritance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner If a gift can be taken away...for whatever reason...it is no longer a gift, but a reward.

What if a thing is both a gift (compared to preceding behaviour) and a reward (as to keeping it in relation to behaviour after receiving it)?

"Almost every passage people use to justify the idea that ..."

an individual cannot lose his salvation is actually referring to the Church as a whole.

Some exceptions:

• "blessed is he whose sins are forgiven" doesn't mean one cannot lose one's blessedness for future sins;
• "nothing can separate us from God's love" doesn't mean one cannot separate oneself from God's love due to temporal concerns (see the seed which is suffocated by thorns), it refers to those who make a real effort to stay faithful, or to the Church as a whole, which always contains such souls;
• "the eternal life that is within you" being the life of God remains eternal even if taken away.

31:23 Before you go in on "what does this mean for believers right now?" here are my responses on previous, your four examples:

24:46 1 Top down "control" with a clergy class - well, if it were control and not just ruling, it arguably would be wrong. The two concepts differ. But clergy above laity, that being Nicolaitan or Babylonian is already refuted.

24:55 In fact in Catholicism we do not have a clergy that knows more than every layman does. We do have a clergy that knows more than a layman is required to know. The clergy needs to, laymen are allowed to know the whole Bible. Not always on a basis of self study, especially with bad translations, though.

So, a layman is allowed to know less than a clergyman, but it doesn't follow that he does so.

However, the reason clergy need to know the whole Bible is, they are set to rule the laity.

The knowledge of the clergy is very far from being secret.

25:22 Sounds like you are describing some liberal Protestant - laity. At least among the ones I met.

You are definitely not describing Catholic hierarchy.

26:26 Very apt description of Anglican or Lutheran clergy. The one reason St Ignatius was stopped by Catholic clergy in Manresa was, he was helping the women who were his fan club to discern between venial and mortal sin, and that is for the moral theologian to do, and especially in the sacrament of Confession (yes, it's Biblical - John 20:21-23 and James 5:16).

26:57 We very certainly do admit laymen can have truth charismatically (great examples, saints Bridget of Sweden and Catherine of Siena). Which Anglicans and Lutherans do not, insofar as they say the age or miracles or even of prophecy more specifically, is ended.

However, we have clergy to discern false from real claims of prophecy (and if anyone is abusing that on my essay writing, as still needing discernment, I didn't claim to be a prophet).

27:36 If the actual Church of Christ requires me to submit to an actual judgement, I am obliged to do that.

So far I have seen quite a lot of sham demands of sham submission to things not actual judgements.

Or to rules applicable to other types of people, who are not laity, when I am.

29:09 And they couldn't bring Catholicism in control. Why? Because Bishop Clemens Count von Galen (he was count, nobility, before being a bishop) actually knew Romans 13.

See these words:

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

This means, for instance, that a Nazi telling a doctor to euthanatise or sterilise someone was not acting within God's requirements and definitions of authority.

Once when he argued against sterilisation, a Nazi told him, as celibate he should have no opinion - and he told him back "don't insult the Führer" (Hitler hadn't married Miss Braun yet).

Your observation is fairly spot on with Calvinists and Lutherans of Germany though, and especially of Evangelische Kirche in which it didn't matter whether you were Calvinist or Lutheran or somewhere between. A bit like United Church of Canada.

29:45 In fact, the priests were the spiritual leaders of Judaism, which by the Deicide of Kaiaphas had just separated from God's true Church which He rebooted as the Catholic Church.

But Tobias fearing God more than the king, carried off the bodies of them that were slain, and hid them in his house, and at midnight buried them.
[Tobias (Tobit) 2:9]

So, St. Peter and St. John were just comparing the priests to the king of the Assyrians, Sennacherib (if you read Tobit 1:18) and his successor.

30:14 It is not wrong to allow Constantine to obey the definition of Nicaea.

It would however be wrong to allow Constans to substitute his own preference for Nicaea (or demand disobedience to St. Athanasius and obedience to the intruder George).

30:50 Seems like some "Catholics" over here in Paris are already playing that game with me.

Like the ones obeying a document from 1994, which I consider as apostatic.

But it's not the government making a public pronouncement. It's police (or similarly powerful and discreet) acting as if I were some kind of dangerous terrorist who needed surveillance around the clock.

Brenda Weltner

Thank you for making my points for me.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner Well, if they are really yours, it seems it is not Catholicism you are attacking.

And if you ask me if there was anything Babylonian about the Reformation, I'd say very emphatically yes.

Calvin ows more to Cicero than any Catholic does.

Brenda Weltner

Indeed...I'm not a fan of Calvin...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brenda Weltner Thank God for that!