Replies

Genealogies apply to all origins and histories whether the lineage of a person or a belief or whatever.

I'm sure you will find others here willing to engage your question, but I am not one of them.

The ill-will that pervades these threads in the form of hijacking, name-calling and general ugliness, and the responses to such that can also get out of hand, certainly are an indictment to just about everyone here at some point or another, based on Titus 3:10-11. We should all take pause, and consider whether honest presentations and honest, respectful questions about those questions can be better realized, in consideration of this very passage.

And in addition to the Scripture you offer, I offer these:

These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness [that] speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. – Proverbs 6:16-19

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. – 2 Timothy 2:23-26

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. – I John 1:5-7

To God be the glory!

Well, I’m not going to go 12 rounds with you on this, but I would like to know how you know St. Paul’s usage in Titus 3 is defined as you say it is. It is not elaborated on in the Scripture cited, so, since there is no self-referencing of the passage in Scripture itself, the definition you use must come from a different source. This makes Scripture not as “perspicuous” as the Reforemers alleged, and seems to be perilously close to creating one of the “traditions of men” that elsewhere you make a point of pushing away from. I’m not trying to argue so much as I’m trying to see the thought process here.