No Condemnation For Those In Christ, But... Sinning Believers Are Condemned Ro 14:23?

[GracePeace]

I find it amazing his nic is GracePeace. Yet he refuses to teach either grace or peace..

Like I said, you are a misnomer

Your chosen name is GracePeace. But you preach niether grace nor peace.

Impotent complaints against God's Word.

 

[GracePeace]

God did his righteousness 2000 years ago when he walked the earth, by keeping the law

Your righteousness is as filthy rags, If you stood in front of christ today based on how good or bad you are. You would be condemned where you stood.

I asked

Yeah, God did His righteousness, and God does His righteousness today : "obey, for it is God is at work in us to will and to do for His good pleasure". When God is at work in us to will and to do for His good pleasure, is that not God's righteousness?

Let's hear your gobbledygook answer.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yeah, and? The children are warned to abide in Him or else they will not have confidence (confidence is from obeying God's commands) and will shrink back in shame at His appearance.

We are discussing John 15. Jesus didn't mention children in that passage. Your objection is hard to follow and I need help to respond to it. I maintain that Jesus' statements in John 15 are conditionals that infer a positive outcome. Remember the context because knowing that Jesus is speaking directly to the eleven and given that he already said that the Father had "cleaned" them, then we understand that Jesus' conditional statements assume a positive outcome. Consider the following verse.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, [and they will] you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

The aforementioned statement is an example of a conditional statement, which expresses the relationship between two propositions: the antecedent (the "if" part) and the consequent (the "then" part). Since Jesus is addressing the Eleven, the antecedent must be true. The world hated Jesus, and it will hate the Eleven for the same reasons, as they are supernaturally endowed with perfect recollection of what Jesus said and have a Spirit-guided and authenticated mission to spread the gospel worldwide.

Consider the abide verses as the apply to the Eleven, granting that the Eleven are Spirit filled men whom the Father has already "cleansed."

A. Eleven:
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL not be thrown away.

B. The Elect:
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL not be thrown away.

C. Believers who are not counted among the elect.
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given that these individuals have not been given the Spirit of God or the spirit of Christ, their outcome is doubtful.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Positive outcome doubtful.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Positive outcome doubtful.

Bottom line: Those who will receive eternal life are those whom God has chosen, given His Spirit, and given them the spirit of Christ.

Nothing of the sort was said, rather the contingency was given "IF".

The conditional statements are contextual, as I pointed out above. Being given the Spirit of God and the spirit of Christ makes all the difference.

Nope, being in Christ is why you are given the Spirit

No. God gives an individual his Spirit because he has chosen him or her. Romans 9:11-13, and Romans 11:7

We must guard ourselves against being so focused on the free will of man that we forget about the Free Will of God.

--"because you are sons in Christ, He has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, abba, father"--it's so plain that the branch that abides in Him receives the sap that is in the Vine so that it can bear fruit.

If you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic truth, I can't help that.

I don't think I ever refused to acknowledge Paul's word in Galatians. I would like to point out that Galatians 4:6 is not a conditional. Here Paul defines what it means to be a "son" who will be given his or her inheritance. Who are the "sons"? They are those whom God has sent the Spirit into their hearts.

This is what I have been saying all along.

That has nothing to do with the fact that there is a CONTINGENCY presented--"IF you abide".

In my posts, I have maintained the distinction between a "conditional" and a "contingency." The Bible often states a conditional such as "If you do this, then I will do that." But the New Testament teaches the concept of salvation by faith and not by works. This doctrine includes the concept of "election" and the idea that God meets the conditions himself when he is saving someone. If God is saving someone, then the conditional is without contingency. That is, there is absolutely no way that the conditions won't be met since salvation is a supernatural event.

With regard to the elect, God promises "When you do this, because you will by means of my power, then I will do that."

It may not "jive" with your personal opinion about what Romans 8:1 says, but it does comport with the entirety of Scripture.

You forget, I have never denied that individuals fall away. But the fact that some individuals fall away doesn't disprove the concept of election or that Romans 8 isn't without contingency.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Romans 7 shows Paul was a "slave" to sin--had no choice.
Romans 8 speaks of Paul's saved state--still the contingency "IF you walk according to the flesh you will die" is given.

While it is true that someone will die if they walk according to the Spirit. But those mentioned in Romans 8:1 will never wal according to the Spirit as Paul asserts in verse 9.

1 Corinthians 10 shows that the Jews' salvation from slavery was about Christianity--just as they sinned after they were freed, we are warned not to sin, or we will fall under wrath and not inherit the promise, just as they sinned and fell under wrath and forfeited the promise.

Sorry, I still don't see where 1 Corinthians 10 makes your point.

"This body of death" refers to "brought forth fruit to death" (Ro 7:5).

No. Romans 7:5 is part of his first argument, not part of his second argument.

The question, "Who will deliver me from this body of death" was already answered, "Thank God through Christ".

Paul expresses gratitude for his future freedom, which he refers to as "glorification". At the time of writing, he had not yet been glorified.

The body of sin and death has been brought to nothing (Ro 6:6).

Romans 6:6 belongs in another argument.

No, God's Law is God's Law, Sin's Law is "another law in my members waging war against the Law of my mind".

You are conflating ideas in a manner that Paul didn't intend.

We were set free from bondage by the blood of "Christ our Passover Lamb" just as the Jews were set free from the house of bondage via the Passover.

No. We are currently set free of the consequences of sin, i.e. death. We are waiting to be set free from the inevitiblity of sin and the destructive nature of sin. This is yet to be realized.

Ro 7:1+ says the Jewish believers were obligated to serve by Torah as long as they lived.

Yes. Okay, Paul also argues in Romans 10, that Moses taught Israel to live by faith.

 

[GracePeace]

We are discussing John 15. Jesus didn't mention children in that passage.

The "remain in him by keeping His commands" is a general rule for all branches that issue from the Vine; among those branches that issue from the Vine, some are "children", some are "young men", some are "fathers".
Not difficult.

Your objection is hard to follow and I need help to respond to it. I maintain that Jesus' statements in John 15 are conditionals that infer a positive outcome.

A disciple, a branch, being thrown in the fire for not bearing fruit for not abiding is "positive"?

Remember the context because knowing that Jesus is speaking directly to the eleven and given that he already said that the Father had "cleaned" them, then we understand that Jesus' conditional statements assume a positive outcome. Consider the following verse.

John 15:18 “If the world hates you, [and they will] you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.

The aforementioned statement is an example of a conditional statement, which expresses the relationship between two propositions: the antecedent (the "if" part) and the consequent (the "then" part). Since Jesus is addressing the Eleven, the antecedent must be true. The world hated Jesus, and it will hate the Eleven for the same reasons, as they are supernaturally endowed with perfect recollection of what Jesus said and have a Spirit-guided and authenticated mission to spread the gospel worldwide.

So what? There's still the "IF you don't abide, you won't bear fruit, and God will cut you off and you'll dry up and be thrown in the fire."

Consider the abide verses as the apply to the Eleven, granting that the Eleven are Spirit filled men whom the Father has already "cleansed."

A. Eleven:
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Eleven, we know that they WILL not be thrown away.

B. The Elect:
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL abide without exception.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Given the Spiritual status of the Elect, we know that they WILL not be thrown away.

C. Believers who are not counted among the elect.
Abide in Me, and I in you.
Given that these individuals have not been given the Spirit of God or the spirit of Christ, their outcome is doubtful.

As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
Same as above. Positive outcome doubtful.

If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up . . .
Same as above. Positive outcome doubtful.

Bottom line: Those who will receive eternal life are those whom God has chosen, given His Spirit, and given them the spirit of Christ.

Eternal life is "in the Son" (1 Jn 5:11), but not all "remain in Him"--hence the "no condemnation" for those "in Christ", yet the one who does not walk in faith "is condemned", because he's not remaining in Him by keeping His command.

The conditional statements are contextual, as I pointed out above. Being given the Spirit of God and the spirit of Christ makes all the difference.

Are you saying you think someone can have the Spirit of Christ and still be condemned?

No. God gives an individual his Spirit because he has chosen him or her. Romans 9:11-13, and Romans 11:7

These two things are not mutually exclusive, so what you're saying is not a valid objection.

We must guard ourselves against being so focused on the free will of man that we forget about the Free Will of God.

I'm busy guarding myself against false incoherent teaching.

I don't think I ever refused to acknowledge Paul's word in Galatians. I would like to point out that Galatians 4:6 is not a conditional. Here Paul defines what it means to be a "son" who will be given his or her inheritance. Who are the "sons"? They are those whom God has sent the Spirit into their hearts.

Still, they "deserted God" and were "severed from Christ" by "going after another Gospel" (Gal 1:6) that "does not come from [God]" (Gal 5:8)--if they don't return to the truth of the Gospel, they will remain that way, and not inherit. The life is in the Son--the same one Paul says "will avail you nothing" if you seek justification by the Law, which was what they were doing.

In my posts, I have maintained the distinction between a "conditional" and a "contingency." The Bible often states a conditional such as "If you do this, then I will do that." But the New Testament teaches the concept of salvation by faith and not by works.

Works pertains to "a righteousness of my own", but "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith", so, when someone walks in faith, that is God's righteousness, not "a righteousness of their own", thus not "works", but, as Paul says, "each man has his own gift" (the manner of walking is each man's "gift", thus his "grace", thus not "works").

This doctrine includes the concept of "election" and the idea that God meets the conditions himself when he is saving someone. If God is saving someone, then the conditional is without contingency. That is, there is absolutely no way that the conditions won't be met since salvation is a supernatural event.

Of course there are conditions--

1 Corinthians 1
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

The ones He saves must be humble--He doesn't save where His saving acts will be ascribed to another (Judges 7:2+).

You forget, I have never denied that individuals fall away. But the fact that some individuals fall away doesn't disprove the concept of election or that Romans 8 isn't without contingency.

1. Yeah, individuals like the Galatians who were "deserting God" and "severed from Christ" after having heard the Gospel and received the Spirit. Individuals that don't walk in faith and are condemned (Ro 14:23), or like the Jewish Christians, who were "storing up wrath" for their hypocrisy (behavior after salvation affects justification) (Ro 2).
2. LOL You really import a lot into Romans 8:1 that isn't there--duration of abiding, as if they can't fall away--so much that contradicts immediately following verses, and that contradict the later teachings, like how the one who doesn't walk in faith is condemned. I wouldn't want to live in such confusion as you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

You explicitly denied they were believers.

Again, I think you misunderstood what I said.

I don't know why you are confused.

At the start of our conversation, I may not have fully grasped your definition of 'believers.' It's possible that we were talking about different things.

I have always maintained the distinction that Jesus did, as witnessed in his Parable of the Sower. That parable depicts three distinct outcomes for those who believe. Only one individual perseveres in belief.

 

[GracePeace]

While it is true that someone will die if they walk according to the Spirit. But those mentioned in Romans 8:1 will never wal according to the Spirit as Paul asserts in verse 9.

He doesn't assert that; rather, he reveals your incoherence, because he says "IF", just as in 2 Co 13:5, where "unless you fail the test [of faith]".

Sorry, I still don't see where 1 Corinthians 10 makes your point.

Yup, "not seeing" is your specialty.

No. Romans 7:5 is part of his first argument, not part of his second argument.

No, what follows is a precise breakdown of "when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, aroused by the Law".

Paul expresses gratitude for his future freedom, which he refers to as "glorification". At the time of writing, he had not yet been glorified.

Nope, Christ already brought the body of sin to nothing (Ro 6:6).

Romans 6:6 belongs in another argument.

You are conflating ideas in a manner that Paul didn't intend.

Nope, he intended it. The body of sin and death was brought to nothing--that's why he thanks God that it is through Christ he was
"set free", whereas he had been "captive".

No. We are currently set free of the consequences of sin, i.e. death. We are waiting to be set free from the inevitiblity of sin and the destructive nature of sin. This is yet to be realized.

No, the body of sin and death held his mind and spirit captive, and he thanks God that because he died with Christ and is placed into the body of Christ he is "set free", which is why, whereas he could not do the good he wanted, the Law of God, now he fulfills it (Ro 8:4).

Yes. Okay, Paul also argues in Romans 10, that Moses taught Israel to live by faith.

Romans 7:1 says they were obligated to serve by Torah as long as they lived, but they're dead with Christ, so they're free from that obligation--this is a rejoinder to Ro 6:14, where he says they're not longer under Law but under the Spirit of Grace.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. The rules are intended as guardians, instructing us in God's wisdom. God does not wish that we keep the rules without thought. The rules are given that we might learn wisdom and God's perspective.

What do you mean that God does not wish that we keep the rules without thought?
When God gave the 10 commandments to Moses is wasn't for the consideration of the Israelites...
God meant for them to KEEP the commandments He had just revealed to Moses.

We might gain wisdom from them and we might not.
Maybe we never commit adultery and don't even know why....
but if we follow God's command it will save us much harm.

Suppose a father tells his children not to swing a baseball in the house. When the children are young, they aren't ready to understand the possible consequences of their actions. Therefore, it is sufficient for the father to provide rules to guide them until they are old enough to comprehend the principle behind the rule.

As the children grow, they start to form an understanding of their father's "worldview" through the rules he sets. They begin to grasp the potential consequences if, for example, a baseball bat accidentally hits another child or a valuable item. They are learning to respect their father's values and wisdom, and they can freely ask or contemplate the question: "What is the principle our father wants us to learn?" When the children are old enough, they will learn to live by the principles, even making rules of their own based on the principles that they learned from their father.

In a scenario where a fire breaks out in a house, blocking the usual exits, one of the children takes action to save the others. Despite breaking the rule about swinging a baseball bat in the house, the child smashes a window to ensure the others' safety. This decision to prioritize saving lives over following a rule was influenced by the child's father who instilled the principle that life is valuable and worth saving. In this situation, the child's disobedience to the rule ultimately led to saving others.

I didn't read the above because I dislike comparing God to humans.

I'll just say this:
When a father tells his 2 year old son to stay ON THE CURB and not go INTO THE STREET...
the son does not understand why.

It's just imperative that the son OBEY THE FATHER.

God wishes for us to meditate on the rules, ascertain why they were given and what Godly principles lay behind the rules, living by his wisdom.

Great.
If a person can do this.

But whether they are able to discern or not....

The commands/rules must still be followed and the person will be all the better for it...
even if they don't understand why.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yeah, someone who remains "in Christ" continues to be eligible to receive the Spirit that is only "in His Son" (1 Jn 5:11)--but Scripture, again, has the condition that people "remain" in Him. If the Bible taught that it happened without exception, automatically, the teaching and command to "remain" would not have been issued. There would be no issue to address if it happened automatically.

I see it differently. The person who remains is the person who has been given the Spirit. Remaining in Christ is a miracle of God.

 

[GracePeace]

Again, I think you misunderstood what I said.

I didn't--you tried denying that "remain in Him" applied to "true believers" by disqualifying the "little children" as "not true believers". No, in reality, the command to "remain in Him" applies to believers--and we know we remain by keeping His commands (John 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24).

At the start of our conversation, I may not have fully grasped your definition of 'believers.' It's possible that we were talking about different things.

I have always maintained the distinction that Jesus did, as witnessed in his Parable of the Sower. That parable depicts three distinct outcomes for those who believe. Only one individual perseveres in belief.

The soil conditions are not fixed, they're just descriptions of different conditions human hearts can be in at different times. Hearts can change.

 

[GracePeace]

I see it differently. The person who remains is the person who has been given the Spirit. Remaining in Christ is a miracle of God.

Nope, the person who remains qualifies to receive the Spirit, because the Spirit is "in His Son" (1 Jn 5:11)--as it says, the branches that abide in Him continue to receive the "sap" that is only in the Vine.

 

[GracePeace]

Sorry, I still don't see where 1 Corinthians 10 makes your point.

Just as they were saved from physical slavery by the Passover, but, still, they sinned after having been saved, instead of doing God's will, so they fell under God's wrath and forfeited the promise, so, also, the one who is saved from spiritual slavery by "Christ our Passover Lamb", today, must, thereafter, do God's will, or else face the same consequences--unlike the believer in Ro 14:23, who is "condemned" for sinning, and the Jewish believers, who were "storing up wrath" for their hypocrisy (Ro 2).

 

[GracePeace]

I asked

Let's hear your gobbledygook answer.

@Eternally Grateful I am waiting to hear your gobbledygook.

 

[CadyandZoe]

"Interesting" : no one in the early church held to what you hold to.
No one "understood" Scripture as you do.
Your "understanding" came with Luther and Calvin.
The early church read the Scriptures similar to how I do.
So, the early church, taught by the apostles, got it wrong, but Luther and Calvin and you got it right?

As stated, I'm not saying I defer to the early church in all things (error crept in even in the days of the Apostles, so, as time progressed, more error could creep in--errors like "faith alone", that came in the 1500s), but if I held to a view like "eternal security", or like "Monergism", I would feel pretty uncomfortable discussing the views of the early church like you.

Guilt by association isn't a valid rebuttal. :)
I simply don't agree with the major premise, which states that the ECFs were close to the apostles and were taught by them directly. The churches of Asia were earlier than the ECF's and yet they needed to be corrected by the Apostles.

The apostles taught the early church both proximately and personally, yet they later wrote them to correct their errors. Therefore, if the churches of Asia, who were sooner in time and more proximate than the ECFs, got things wrong, then there is no basis on which to assume that they are infallible or even correct some of the time.

In my experience, Patristics gets us nowhere.

 

[CadyandZoe]

He doesn't assert that

Yes he does. He explicitly says that those who have been given the Spirit of God are not walking in the flesh.

; rather, he reveals your incoherence, because he says "IF", just as in 2 Co 13:5, where "unless you fail the test [of faith]".

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Yup, "not seeing" is your specialty.

The natural assumption here is the logic of posting a message on a Christian message board. Those who post want to be understood and those who don't understand politely ask for clarification. If you didnt' want to be understood, why did you mention 1 Corinthians 10?

No, what follows is a precise breakdown of "when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, aroused by the Law".

As I said, you are conflating two different arguments, which is not the means to understanding.

Nope, Christ already brought the body of sin to nothing (Ro 6:6).

Nope, he intended it. The body of sin and death was brought to nothing--that's why he thanks God that it is through Christ he was
"set free", whereas he had been "captive".

No, the body of sin and death held his mind and spirit captive, and he thanks God that because he died with Christ and is placed into the body of Christ he is "set free", which is why, whereas he could not do the good he wanted, the Law of God, now he fulfills it (Ro 8:4).

Romans 7:1 says they were obligated to serve by Torah as long as they lived, but they're dead with Christ, so they're free from that obligation--this is a rejoinder to Ro 6:14, where he says they're not longer under Law but under the Spirit of Grace.

I am unable to follow or respond to posts such as these because you are misconstruing what Paul intended to say.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What do you mean that God does not wish that we keep the rules without thought?

God didn't give rules for their own sake. The rules are intended to teach wisdom. If we simply keep the rules without thinking about what we are doing, we are wasting our time, and possibly fooling ourselves.

When God gave the 10 commandments to Moses is wasn't for the consideration of the Israelites...
God meant for them to KEEP the commandments He had just revealed to Moses.

Of course, but consider that God commanded Israel to obey God with all their heart, soul, mind and Spirit. How does one do that without meditating on them, valuing them, and integrating them into our innermost being?

We might gain wisdom from them and we might not.

True.

Maybe we never commit adultery and don't even know why....
but if we follow God's command it will save us much harm.

But God also invites us to extrapolate the principle from the commandment and apply the principle to our lives also.

I didn't read the above because I dislike comparing God to humans.

Well, the Bible is filled with anthropomorphisms, so it didn't bother me. :)

I'll just say this:
When a father tells his 2 year old son to stay ON THE CURB and not go INTO THE STREET...
the son does not understand why.

It's just imperative that the son OBEY THE FATHER.

I agree. But does the father want his son to remain a 2-year old his entire life? I think the father wants his child to learn why avoiding the curb is both necessary and when it isn't.

The commands/rules must still be followed and the person will be all the better for it...
even if they don't understand why.

I agree, but I still maintain the distinction between those who live by the rules and those who live by the principles. The difference is striking when seen in practice. :)

 

[CadyandZoe]

I didn't--you tried denying that "remain in Him" applied to "true believers" by disqualifying the "little children" as "not true believers". No, in reality, the command to "remain in Him" applies to believers--and we know we remain by keeping His commands (John 15; 1 Jn 3:23,24).

The soil conditions are not fixed, they're just descriptions of different conditions human hearts can be in at different times. Hearts can change.

No. That is not the best explanation for the parable because the soils represent the hearts and the soils don't change.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Just as they were saved from physical slavery by the Passover, but, still, they sinned after having been saved, instead of doing God's will, so they fell under God's wrath and forfeited the promise, so, also, the one who is saved from spiritual slavery by "Christ our Passover Lamb", today, must, thereafter, do God's will, or else face the same consequences--unlike the believer in Ro 14:23, who is "condemned" for sinning, and the Jewish believers, who were "storing up wrath" for their hypocrisy (Ro 2).

You seem to be using "saved" with two different meanings. Israel was delivered from slavery. They weren't spiritually saved.

 

[GodsGrace]

I see it differently. The person who remains is the person who has been given the Spirit. Remaining in Christ is a miracle of God.

Proven once again!

Persons that believe in cheap grace and easy believism, just like you do, are always believers in OSAS.

Never have understood why.
Maybe they know they sin.
Maybe they'd like to sin.
Certainly I can't know.

I DO know that OSAS is nowhere to be found in the NT and those that believe as you do should adjust their belief system to be in accordance with the NT.

The NT demands that we obey God.

For the very reason that @GracePeace stated to you:
IF we remained in Christ AUTOMATICALLY....Paul and the other writers, including Jesus Himself, would not have found it necessary to exhort us to good behavior.

Matthew 5:16
16In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Romans 13:14
14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Matthew 7:21
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[GracePeace]

Guilt by association isn't a valid rebuttal. :)
I simply don't agree with the major premise, which states that the ECFs were close to the apostles and were taught by them directly. The churches of Asia were earlier than the ECF's and yet they needed to be corrected by the Apostles.

No, not saying you're "guilty" (I know you know God), but, if you want to use "guilt by association" to describe your inaccuracy in Scriptural interpretation, I'd say it's more like "guilt by dissociation", aside from all the Scripture that cannot be squared with your views.

If the Early Church believed what you do, it'd be everywhere in their writings. They didn't believe it. It's a Johnny Come Lately doctrine.

The apostles taught the early church both proximately and personally, yet they later wrote them to correct their errors. Therefore, if the churches of Asia, who were sooner in time and more proximate than the ECFs, got things wrong, then there is no basis on which to assume that they are infallible or even correct some of the time.

You'd think SOMEONE back then would've hung on to your doctrine if the Apostles taught it--NONE did, so, according to you, the "truth" was lost until the 1500s.

In my experience, Patristics gets us nowhere.

Yeah because your teaching was unknown to them because it was unknown to the Apostles.