Not rejected, but not to ever be seen as equal to the Apostles, and early on in the Church bad and wrong doctrines and thsu theology crept in, just as paul warned!There was indeed saved Catholics in the Middle Ages, but the official teachings of the jesus was not poer the scriptures, and hence the need to have the reformation, to bring back and reclaim the true Gospel of Christ! Too bad Rome officially rejected that in Trent...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where in the Canon Bible does RCC get their doctrines from?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
So, you still fall short on authority in determining the canon for the OT. Now, however, you've piqued my interest. Would you say those "factual" or "historical" information or parts of the texts in the Deuterocanonical books which NT authors use are inspired? Just those parts mind you.
Let's see what else the earliest Christians said. Can you provide one iota of historical evidence (other than your insistence that the New Testament means something other than it does) that there was a Baptistic observance of the Lord's Supper?
Scripture must be read in continuity with the tradition. As a Catholic I take Jesus very literally when He says in John 6: "truly truly I tell you my flesh is real food and my blood real drink".
Yet you say it's meant symbolically, I disagree.
Now, unfortunately, we can't ask St John himself what he meant and we don't have any other writings of St John that make the issue much clearer. However, you know that we have many writings of one of St John's DISCIPLES and student: St Ignatius of Antioch. And he is VERY clear about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see quotes below). We also have another disciple of St John AND St Ignatius of Antioch, St Polycarp - and he's also very clear that it wasn't just a symbolic meal.
Should we listen to St Ignatius? Well he was actually ordained by St Peter as well.
So based on the evidence of two of St John's disciples, we can now rightly say that the tradition handed to them from Jesus to St John to the Fathers was the very real Catholic/Orthodox presence of Jesus in the Eucharist - not just a symbolic one.
See the beautiful continuity and the importance of Apostolic succession? This is what you as a Baptist can't demonstrate. Here are more early Church Fathers writings on the Eucharist, there are many many more:
Ignatius of Antioch
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
if that were true then wouldn't that mean that Jesus' promise to Peter and the other Apostles failed in that the gates of Hell triumphed over the church until the Reformation? In other words, Satan must have overthrown the church and it got "rebooted" during the Reformation. If that is so how can one trust in anything Jesus said? Just so I don't worry you; I hold as gospel everything Jesus said.
The quoted and used by like Jude in his book, as the talk between Satan and God came from one of those books! The book of Enoch
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-does-the-new-testament-cite-extrabiblical-
The link you posted does not work
And why not? The Apostles were just men as the Early Church Fathers were - they weren't God. They (the Apostles) were merely the primary disciples of Jesus, (primary meaning the first ones) and the Early Church Fathers were indeed the successors of the Apostles, who became the leaders of the newly growing Christian Church. These men (as Bishops) ordained other men, who in turn ordained others, and that is the historical reality concerning the Christian faith my friend.
The only good thing about the reformation was that it caused the Church to look inward and come to grips with some of it's obvious failings, but other than that it's theology was rock solid. The reformation turned out to be an abomination, with new sects cropping up almost immediately with competing doctrines, tearing the Body of Christ further apart.
Last edited:
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You haven't answered my question, but I think it was both the book of Enoch and the Assumption Of Moses.
The Apostles had the inspiration from/of the Holy Spirit upon them, just as the OT Prophets had, and that is something NO ECF could ever claim! Nor any since John for that matter!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit abandon the people of God? Are you suggesting that the same people who compiled the scriptures into canon were not inspired or even guided by the Holy Spirit?
They were not inspired as the Apostles were by the Holy Spirit!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
So they wouldn't have been able to compile the bible we now have. as the Apostles didn't compile the bible. And didn't Jesus promise the Holy Spirit to the people of God?
Again, the 66 books of the Canon were already accepted and fully recognized and in use by trhe Church way before the Council, as that just formally ratified it!
I see, so YOU never get any inspiration from the Holy Spirit? If not, that is too bad, as I know the Holy Spirit is still here with us, offering guidance and inspiration to all believers.
Gotta wait 2000 years later for Yeshua1 to self proclaim having the Holy Spirit and being Elect.
But instead of putting a bible together himself he has to borrow a copy from the ECFs because his "holy spirit" forgot the words.
I get illumination from Him when I read the Bible, but NEVER inspiration!
I actually received the same one Jesus used for the OT canon, and what the Church was using by middle second century!
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
The problem is you can't show me anywhere that is the case, or who said it. You can speculate about what was accepted by the Jews of Jesus' day, or you can rely on Talmud. But you can't show me that this is definitively the case. I can point to Church Councils and the history of the Church saying what was canon. I think as with my quote of Timothy Law: “Bible” implies a closed collection of authoritative scriptures whose individual forms are fixed forever. To be candid: before the Bible, there was no Bible. Before the beginning of the second century CE, there were Jewish scriptures whose forms were still in flux and many scriptures were excluded in the finalization of the Hebrew Bible. Prior to the second century there was no way of knowing which scriptural books would be included within the collection and which would be left out; nor was there any way of knowing how the final version of the individual books would appear."
Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (p. 19). Oxford University Press.
- Status