Hello all:
My wife, son, and I went to Central Oregon over the weekend to visit my parents. We went to church with my parents on Sunday night, and listened to the second of a series of classes on Church History that one of the preachers is teaching.
The series was called, “Studying the History of the New Testament Church.”
It was a decent lesson for the most part, sparse with information, but that is to be expected when you only have 45 minutes to cover the ante-nicene period of Church History.
Things that struck me however: Ignatius of Antioch was mentioned as one of the most prominent martyrs of the period. What the lesson leaves out is that Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch when he was executed. The teacher asserted that the apostasy took place during the nicene period, however, Ignatius being the “Bishop” of Antioch over a group of elders points to the fact that already there had been changes to the leadership structure of the church. I assume the teacher left this out because it weakens his point about the apostasy.
One of the other things that struck me was that he talked about the New Testament Pattern. He related this to the idea of a dress pattern, and stated that if the dress didn’t come out exactly like it was in the pattern, that the pattern wasn’t followed. After reading Bobby Valentine’s post on Patternism I had a hard time agreeing with him on his statement.
The final thing that was stated that bugged me a bit was the comment that there were always those out there somewhere doing things just the way we do them today. While I think God’s will was always accomplished no matter what the church and people did wrong, I don’t think there was a group of people that existed the whole time that things the way we do them. The Orthodox kept up Baptism by immersion and, and some Orthodox kept up a capella singing… but otherwise I’d say alot changed…
On the positive side, there was talk about several martyrs, as well as a quote from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which was a pleasant surprise. There was good information about the period that was in the lesson that was helpful. I was happy to see that they had so many people there who wanted to learn about church history. Its just too bad its not coming from a more neutral angle.
-Clarke
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
August 25th, 2006 at 21:13
That doesn’t sound as much like a history lesson as it does propaganda.
August 26th, 2006 at 9:25
Sound teaching on church history is hard to come by these days. You will almost never hear it in todays community churches. Funny though, its thru studying the early church fathers and early church history that led me out of the CoC and into the Roman Catholic Church. There were other factors, but, none-the-less, early church history played a big factor. Sad thing is, being a Christian for a number of years, I had never studied the history of Christianity. I will not make that same mistake with my children.
Blessings
JP
August 28th, 2006 at 6:59
Many of Paul’s writings address apostacy, so it was happening very early on in the churches.
I’ve heard from preachers before, that the creation of bishops and the unification of churches under a man-made hierarchy as the “First Apostacy”, but they don’t address the issues that Paul faced.
It probably comes down to what is the target of restoration. Is the target the early church, or the new testament church? The early church, like many churches today, were wrought with many problems.
Today we have the example of the New Testament Church, the hindsight of the early churches, and the full revelation of the NT scriptures. But somehow we still don’t have it perfect.
Restoration is an ongoing goal, not a completed one.
August 28th, 2006 at 18:08
“I’ve heard from preachers before, that the creation of bishops and the unification of churches under a man-made hierarchy as the “First Apostacy?”
Not true, bishops have always existed in the early church (the apostles were the first). That is a sad study of church history by those preachers. The church always had monarchial bishops. Examples.
Ignatius = Bishop of Antioch
Onesimus = Bishop of Ephesus (possibly Paul’s disciple mentioned in Philemon)
Polycarp = Bishop of Smyrna (a disciple of the Apostle John)
August 28th, 2006 at 18:10
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_V
August 29th, 2006 at 3:56
I thought you might find this quote about Ignatius from J. W. McGarvey interesting (regarding the single bishop elevated above the elders):
The first innovation on this apostolic order of church government, which is traceable in history, consisted not in the displacement of the eldership, or in a change of its character and functions, but in subordinating it to the resident evangelist, making him the chief ruler, and ascribing to him alone the title sepikopos, “bishop,” which had hitherto belonged [203] to every elder. The certain existence of this order is first found in the writings of Irenæus, who wrote in the last quarter of the second century; unless we admit the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, which were written, if genuine, in the first or second decade of that century. If three of the fourteen of these epistles are genuine, as is supposed by many eminent Protestant scholars, Ignatius may be regarded as the first advocate of this innovation, if not the originator of it. He presses the subject of obedience to the bishop with vehemence, often dragging it in without regard to the connection of thought, and thus he betrays the untempered zeal of a convert to an innovation. Doubtless the eleven epistles, ascribed to him, which are undoubtedly spurious, and which abound still more in allusions to this subject, were written in great part for the purpose of emphasizing an order of government which, at the time of their date, had become common, but which still seemed to need the support of authoritative names. As such names were not found among the apostles, or among men like Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Justin Martyr, all of whose writings indicate the continuance of the apostolic order, Ignatius was seized upon as the single man of the first half of the second century whose authority could be plausibly claimed for separating the bishopric from the eldership.
From his paper on Church Government
Anyway I feel sorry for the people who advocate patternism. They hold that belief in good conscience, and see it under attack on every side, even from within their own churches. I don’t believe they are correct in their insistence that everyone follow all the patterns that the patternist think they see. I think their belief contributes to the division in the church. But in my effort to embrace people who disagree with me, I embrace them also.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:58
I guess I get to be the dissenting voice. In Clement’s letter to the church in Corinth, the Didache and in Polycarp’s only existing epistle we find a plurality of elders, referred to as both elders and bishops in at least Clement’s letter, and deacons. No monarchical bishops. Ignatius is the odd man out. Between that and the evidence in the NT, especially because of the evidence of the NT, we can see that monarchial bishops were an unscriptural addition to the Lord’s church.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:39
Well Owen, I obviously disagree with you and your interpretation. The CoC would do well with a bishop as many CoC’ers are recognizing (at least from many Al Maxey readers)It would end or least clear up some the silly things that divide the “restoration” movement. Here is an article that I have and part of it I quoted above. http://roamincat.tripod.com/ptm/bonocure/white_bishops.html
August 30th, 2006 at 11:05
Thank you for the article. I did a brief scan and intend to read it more in depth later. I did notice that the author claims that Timothy was an elder, something that his age would surely have disqualified him from. As I said I did not review it in depth yet, but I did not notice any reference to the Didache, Clement’s reference to a plurality of bishops in Corinth nor Polycarp’s letter. They may be there but I will find out better this week. As for the CoC doing well with a bishop, 1) it sounds like some of that modernism that the writer was railing against- doing something because it would supposedly work better as opposed to wether it has been authorized or not, and 2) the monarchical bishop set-up has not stopped fighting and division among the Eastern Orthodox, the Episcopalians, the Anglican Continuum, the Old Catholics or even within the RC Church itself. As for Al Maxey and his readers, after reading some of the vitrol coming from him I am convinced that his “cure” is about as bad as the “disease”.
August 30th, 2006 at 13:46
Hello Owen,
First off, I am appreciate the dialogue brother. I am an Al Maxey fan. When I was in the CoC, it was people like him, that helped take off the legalistic spiritual blinders I had on. I did not agree with everything he said but his “grace centered” style, helped me during a rough time in my faith. As mere fallible sinful creatures, fighting will always take place. We can get deep in debate on the history of the church and especially monarchial leadership. As a catholic, I do believe Peter was the first pope (although that title, at the time, did not exist). And I do believe thats scriptural. I also believe that we all (Catholics alike) should be studying the holy scriptures with great ferver. However, I also believe there is a Truth and I believe Christ did not leave the scriptures up for private interpretation, that is what the church is for, the Magisterium specifically. As far as I can see, and the Eastern/Western church has always held (as well as Anglicans….though they are not in communion with Rome) bishops of such and the leadership that is current has always existed since the beginning part of the church. Here are a couple more articles. Clarke, do you have any say in this discussion?
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9008051/apostolic-succession
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9015408/bishops
Here is a Catholic take on the Didache.
Blessings
JP
August 31st, 2006 at 7:11
Blog comments are not adequate to discuss all the points in the article JP linked. I’ll just make a few high level comments though there is a lot more that could be said.
First, he begins with a plethora of ad hominem arguments. Those don’t prove or disprove anything. They merely substitute emotion and suspicion for reason, and make logical conclusions more difficult to reach.
Then he argues from the letters of Ignatius, which most scholars agree are an unreliable source (as the McGarvey quote posted above points out). Someone else modified (or wrote in entirity) at least most of those letters long after the time of Ignatius. Quite possibly all the references to a singular bishop were added no earlier than the end of the second century.
Then the writer attempts to demonstrate that the idea of a singular bishop over the elders can be found in the scriptures themselves. The problem is that the scriptures do not describe that kind of organization. Reading between the lines is not an adequate way to answer this question. We have clear examples and teachings of appointing a plurality of elders in each church, including qualifications. But we have no example, no teaching, and no qualifications for appointing a singular bishop over the elders. The idea for that comes from somewhere other than the Bible.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:45
Hello Alan,
Thanks for your participation in this discussion. We approach Christianity in two different ways, hence, different understanding of current doctrine and history. First, those articles were not necessarily to debate but more of an FYI of where I am at. I understand that you hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, scripture alone as rule of faith. I disagree with this and do not find that stance scriptural, for the years that christianity first spread, it was the verbal teachings of the apostles/bishops that carried the faith, sacred tradition is what brought forth the holy bible. So I do not necessarily make the distinction that if its not in the bible than we should not practice it. We must look at other sources. Early Christianity (whether you believe to be right or wrong) had a hiarchy as such for the leadership of the Lords church. As a Catholic who trusts the Lords church, and believes to be infallible in teachings on doctrine and morals, I believe the office of bishops and the pope to be scriptural and consistant with the apostles teachings and church history, as I also believe its the churches job (since they formed the canon of scripture) to interpret scripture not every Tom, Dick and Harry who approaches scripture with their own prejudice and holding contradicting interpretations. My 2 cents.
Blessings.
JP
August 31st, 2006 at 10:16
JP,
Just a couple of comments about your objections to the “Bible alone” approach. I don’t know any serious student of the Bible who believes in what you term sola scriptura to believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry’s interpretation to be valid. They would agree that there is one correct interpretation, just that not everyone has reached that conclusion. As for the approach you judge to be the best, that itself does not ensure uniformity of belief. All of those groups that I mentioned in my previous comment would agree with your approach but do not necessarily reach the same conclusions. A prime example of such would be the role the pope plays and the limits of his authority.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:48
Owen,
Its the notion of sola scriptura that is responsible for the over 20,000 denominations out there. All claiming truth. How can you have any comfortability in your doctrinal stances. You said “They would agree that there is one correct interpretation, just that not everyone has reached that conclusion” The Lord said the truth would be known, that is what His church is for. You can not reach that conclusion when you are the one interpreting it. We are mere sinful men. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches on doctrine, they are the voice. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church regardless of how man sinful men and women (including priests, bishops and popes) make up the church
August 31st, 2006 at 12:05
Hi JP,
I’ll respond to the rest of the post later but wanted to address the 20,000 number. My html is probably messed up but please check out this site: http://www.sxws.com/charis/apol44.htm concerning the source of that number. Not trying to single you out but this happens to be a pet peeve of mine.
August 31st, 2006 at 13:07
Hello Owen,
Even while a protestant, I recognized that many denominations. Here is a small list from yahoo.com not including the many variation and splinter groups amongst these (First here is an article by Dave Armstrong, Catholic Apologist)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/09/33000-protestant-denominations.html
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Denominations_and_Sects/
Till next time…..
August 31st, 2006 at 13:12
….by the way, that article you cited in your previous post has lost some credibility with me.
“2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism”
Yes, there are spinters within the RCC, (liberal, traditionalists etc) but there is only 1 church teaching coming from the teaching authority, so if they are not insync with doctrines taught from the Magisterium, then they are not insync with the Catholic Church. People of all walks go there own way at times. If you refer to the Holy Scriptures and the Catechism…you will see what the Catholic Church teaches.
September 1st, 2006 at 10:09
Hi JP,
I appreciate your level-headed approach to discussions like this.
You are exactly right in identifying sola scriptura as the root of our differences. As a seeker of truth, I know of no other reliable source of God’s message. I cannot accept the Catholic church as a reliable source because it has clearly been wrong in some very public and obvious ways in the past (and has acknowledged as much). Not only that, but I see contradictions between the practice of the Catholic church and the scriptures (ex: the mode of baptism; church governance; celibacy of the priesthood; crusades; inquisitions; indulgences; fish on Friday; veneration of saints–particularly Mary; etc…. I don’t think you can find those things among the original traditions passed down from the apostles.)
An honest seeker of truth has to decide which sources to trust. How can a person distinguish truth from falsehood without a standard? The scriptures claim to be that standard, and they live up to the claim. The Catholic church also claims to be that standard, but fails to live up to it in my estimation. So my standard is the Bible alone.
Once a person has accepted the scriptures as their standard, the only way to persuade them of any doctrinal point is to show them that it comes from a proper understanding of scripture. I cannot accept the extra-biblical edicts of the Catholic church as the Word of God, unless and until I am shown that they are, from scripture alone.
September 1st, 2006 at 11:10
Hello Alan,
If I may ask you a question, Being that it is illogical to accept the New Testament as divinely inspired and at the same time reject the authority of the Church that selected it and if you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, what makes you believe in the authority of the Scriptures?
I am, by the way, enjoying these discussions.
In other places on the web, fruitful/respectful discussions are few and far between.
Blessings
September 1st, 2006 at 13:13
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp
I hate to be posting articles like this but I am a lousy typer and think faster then I type
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp
September 1st, 2006 at 13:14
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp
I hate to be posting articles like this but I am a lousy typer and think faster then I type
September 1st, 2006 at 13:54
I don’t buy into the “verbal teachings of the apostles/bishops that carried the faith” argument.
Paul wrote to correct many of the false doctrines being spread in the individual churches. The need for the scriptures was very evident in the New Testament church.
When conflicts arise between the writings of men who do not claim the same divine inspiration as the apostles, and what the inspired writings say, which do you choose?
September 1st, 2006 at 16:03
Son of Adam,
Hello, you said ““verbal teachings of the apostles/bishops that carried the faith” argument”. How do you think the early church taught on matters of faith and doctrine. They did not have the bible as we have it today, conveniently together as such. That is how the early church carried its message….verbally
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:43
The early church did not meet the standard of the new testament church. Hence the need for restoration.
We can look at the examples of the early church, with the full revelation of scripture we do have, and identify the apostacies found there.
The inpired scriptures trump the teachings of man.
We know from things such as the Muratorian Fragment that as early as the 2nd century the early churches had pretty much the same scriptures we use today.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:38
The early church did not meet the standard of the new testament church. Hence the need for restoration.
I disagree with this. The Restoration Movement was too restore the rampant Protestant churches that were popping up all over the place. The Catholic Church, itself, did not need restoring.
I believe the original intent of the Restoration plea was to “go back to the bible” since, at the time, which still exist, too many denominations. Sadly, the movement did not restore enough in my opinion…back to the Lords Church, the Catholic Church
September 5th, 2006 at 10:40
Hi JP
Sorry for the delayed response….
You wrote:
The scriptures are internally consistent and in many ways externally verifiable. Fulfillment of prophecy is strong evidence. Many books have been written on evidences for accepting the scriptures as the word of God. The Catholic church did not decide what books make up the New Testament. Rather, these books had already been established as scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by the miracles of the first century messengers.
I’ll return the question to you: Given that you view the teachings of the Catholic church to be equal in authority to the inspired scriptures, how do you reconcile that with the errors of the church over the centuries? And what standard do you use to demonstrate that the church is not committing further errors today?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:46
Hey Alan, good question, currently I am busy with Daddy duty, I will try my best to answer this by tonight….or tomorrow at the latest
September 5th, 2006 at 10:50
JP
One more thing… It seems to me that your position is a tautology. The Catholic church says they have that authority, but I see no way to verify their claim without first accepting their authority. If it is true then it is true. But how do you ever persuade someone to step into that loop? In other words it appears to me to be bankrupt of any rationale that can persuade an outsider.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:48
Hello all:
I apologize for not being active in the conversation that my post started.
JP asked if I had anything to say, and I do, but mostly I have questions.
JP: When the heck did you become a Catholic?? If I’m remembering correctly, I thought you were a borderline Calvinist…? Am I confusing you with someone else?
As far as the church government discussion, I see nothing in scripture that is consistant with a bishop being over a group of elders.
Furthermore, I see no support in scripture for priests. The catholic enyclopedia says that elders are priests. Scripture sets out qualifications for elders, and Catholic Priests certainly don’t meet those qualifications.
Now, with those things said, I think there are some things we can learn from the Catholic Church. I listen to Catholic Radio Northwest quite often because I find some of their question and answer sessions enlightening. For instance, I think we are wrong in rejecting almost wholesale the entire apocrypha. But, I also hear many things where I think they are quite wrong, as well. Mode of Baptism is a big one for me, as well as church government.
-Clarke
September 5th, 2006 at 12:18
My daughter gives me no time to type here but I do not want to leave you hanging Clarke, yes its the same JP, I’d be glad to share my story when time permits.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:18
He actually used the dress analogy? He has obviously never went shopping with his wife to learn such a valuable lesson
Many times in our movement church history has been used very selectively. Ignatius was not only a martyr but he certainly claims to have the gift of prophecy as he identifies himself repeatedly as the “God-inspired man.” But most scholars agree that the monoepiscopacy was not well developed until sometime after Ignatius.
We need to recognize the essential unity of the second century church but also its great diversity. It might help us in our own fragmentation.
Thanks for visiting my blog.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Stoned-Campbell Disciple
September 12th, 2006 at 10:04
Sorry gentlemen for the long delay. Trying to manage working full-time, being (at the same time) a stay at home full-time Dad, its been difficult finding time to come on here to respond to your many questions. I will do my best but I can say with full assurance, I will not be able to do the Catholic Church service as, I believe to be, a lousy apologetic. However let me start with a letter I responded to from a Protestant (Calvinist) friend of mine:
“Even so, as I stated before, my biggest beef with Roman Catholicism is that she teaches a false gospel. Paul anathematizes the type of gospel Rome preaches in Galatians, Romans, Ephesians and elsewhere. Peter also stands against the cooperative gospel (faith + works). My concern for you, John, and for all Catholics, is that you have been led astray by a man-made gospel that cannot save”
I believe Protestants of all walks believe the same thing they just word it much differently, as scripture states, what is faith without works? Nothing, its dead. Faith is much more then mere mental acknowledgement of truthful facts/claims, without works, that is all faith is. Please do not be concerned, Christ Jesus saves, not the Church, nor the pope, nor my works. The Catholic Church is not that of a man-made gospel.
In regards to Tradition, I believe you to be wrong on this, as it was Tradition that brought forth the Sacred Scriptures. The Gospels and the letters were never meant to replace the unwritten prayers, disciplines, practices and institutions established by the apostles and early church elders. The Scriptures and those traditions were seen as forming a single, indivisible inheritance passed down (literally) from the lips of Jesus Christ to the apostles and from their lips and pens to the Church for all time and ages. It makes sense that Paul used his letters to clear up misunderstandings and to reinforce his preaching. Paul never intended to write a detailed manual of church practices or to codify (correct word?) what he had taught them in person. If you look at Thessalonians, he states “Stand firm and hold fst to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” When Paul was asked to clear up a dispute about the Lords Supper in Corinth he didn’t repeat what he had told them in person about how to celebrate the Eucharist. He only reminded them that the tradition he passed on was exactly what the apostles had received from Christ Jesus: ” I received from the Lord what I also handed to you”. Sacred Tradition does not contradict Sacred Scripture, the two are entwined. The Catholic Church holds not belief contrary to Scripture. With this Jon, the gospels were not intended to be read as an authorized autobiography of Jesus Christ. John admitted that his gospel contained just a fraction of what Jesus had said and done. Its obvious from even the casual reading of scripture that writers of scripture did not sit down together and try to get their stories straight so there would be no apparent discreps. in their report. The Gospels are loving remininscences(sp?), selective rememberances, partial glimpses seen from various angles. They are stories told from different perspectives to different audiences with different concerns
As what St. Papias (a bishop to what is not Turkey) around the year 125 (speaking of the Gospel of Mark…..but could be said of all the gospels. “He……adapted his teaching to the neads of his hearers….but with no intention of givinga connected account of the Lords discourses…..He was careful of one thing-not to omit any of things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely”.
I have this article before me, does not say who the author is, but I quote ” If I had to believe the Catholic Church is not Christian, then I would have to give up on Christ altogether, for He promised to protect His Church until the end. If he lets it teach something unchristian, or lets it teach a false way to salvation for nearly 15 centries, then Christ has failed and Christ is to be rejected”
May I pose 2 questions?
1))If you have faith, but not have works, can your faith save you?
2) Being that it is illogical to accept the New Testament as divinely inspired and at the same time reject the authority of the Church that selected it and if you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, what makes you believe in the authority of the Scriptures?
We are saved by our faith Jon, but not by faith alone. I believe scripture (and church history) is quite clear on this.
An article of interest: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/featured.htm
This all does not necessarily apply to those in the CoC as they are more on par with RCC in regards to the doctine of faith alone. (to be cont.)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:11
Clarke, your view on the priesthood does not coincide with church history, here is made up conversation on this issue: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp
Alan, an article on Church Authority
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401clas.asp
Scripture alone doctrine
http://catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
September 13th, 2006 at 11:51
Regarding the article on authority: I don’t think the Catholic church limits itself to the teaching form of authority. But for the sake of discussion, the scriptures themselves teach that the scriptures alone are the standard provided by God to Christians:
In Acts 17, the Bereans were commended as noble for examining the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true. True, at that time these were mainly the old testament scriptures. But we find that both Paul and Peter placed the Christian scriptures on the same level. So the scriptures are the standard by which the veracity of the teacher (authority, church, etc) is to be evaluated. When I examine the scriptures regarding the practices and teachings of the Catholic church I run into a plethora of discrepancies (previously mentioned). So I should not accept the “teaching authority” of the Catholic church since it can be demonstrated to be in error on multiple points according to the scriptures.
Jude 3 says that the faith was “once for all” entrusted to the saints. That means that there was not a need for ongoing extension of the faith by the church.
Romans 16:25-26 tells us that God was in the process (at that time) of delivering his message “through the prophetic scriptures” so that all men might believe and obey him.
I could go on. The bottom line is that the scriptures alone must be the standard by which truth is evaluated in Christianity.
The linked article speaks of the Catholic church’s authority as a teacher, and alludes also to the church’s authority as a ruler. If the church’s authority as a teacher fails to withstand examination by the scriptures, then it necessarily follows that the authority as a ruler also fails. All authority belongs to Jesus (Matt 28:18). If what we teach or command is not consistent with scripture, we cannot be delivering that message with his authority.
September 13th, 2006 at 17:13
Hello Alan,
You stated “So I should not accept the “teaching authority” of the Catholic church since it can be demonstrated to be in error on multiple points according to the scriptures”
You’ve stated this before, could you please give me somee examples.
We must remember that the Holy Spirit guards the Truth of Catholic Church when it comes to doctrine and morals, at the same time the church is made up of people like me………..a sinner.
September 13th, 2006 at 17:23
P.S.
Nowhere in scripture does it say that the scripture alone is the rule of faith. Plus ignoring the history of our common faith brings forth circular logic. “You can not say the bible alone is the rule of faith because it says so” “The bible is the word of God because it says it in the book”. I look at those not in the Catholic Church as brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of how they may look at me, with that, I feel those not in the church are missing out on the fullness of Gods Truth. We can not ignore sacred Tradition (not man made tradition)because its thru Sacred Tradition that brought us Gods written Word.
September 14th, 2006 at 3:52
Hi JP
I’m not so much trying to persuade you as to explain my belief. I have to live by my conscience based on what I see and understand. And so do you. If there is something to be judged, God will do that.
You asked me to give some examples of discrepancies between the Catholic church’s practices and what I see in the scriptures. I listed several in a previous post. Quoting from post #18 above:
The Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth. But the scriptures clearly say that there would be an apostasy (2 Thes 2, 1 Tim 4, 2 Tim 4:3-4, 2 Pet 2, etc.) The Holy Spirit himself told us it would happen. God allowed it to happen (2 Thes 2:10-11) So we should not be surprised to find evidence that it actually happened.
September 14th, 2006 at 4:26
One more thing… I neglected to address your comment on scripture only. You apparently believe the scriptures because the Catholic church tells you to do so. In other words, you see the Bible as the word of God because the Catholic church decided it is. That places the Catholic church above the scriptures in authority.
While you place the Catholic church above the Bible, I place the Bible above the Christian church. Faith comes from the Word of God, not from the proclamations of a group of mortal sinners who call themselves the leadsers of the Catholic Church. God is his own witness regarding what is His word. That is not circular logic. God is the creator and the author and the source. I don’t need the Catholic church in that loop.
September 14th, 2006 at 5:33
I will address some of these comments later, however, I just wanted to state that I am enjoying these discussions.
God Bless
September 26th, 2006 at 13:13
Someone asked the question “What should be restored?”
One thing that has been restored rather well is division. Remember ” “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”.
Divisions are nothing new are they?
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle