Featured What the Nicene Creed is and isn’t etc..

I can accept that "catholic" means both "universal" and also that it has been applied to a large, distinct Church that was created in the 4th century with the secularization of Christianity.

The problem is that you have to weigh Scripture (which describes the Apostolic Church as small congregations, independent and differing in practice, under an "overseer" chosen by the congregation and from the congregation...something Baptists often ignore as well) against what the RCC has taught you and side against Scripture.

That is why we will not agree on this.

We have different standards.

Where I hold my Church as accountable to Scripture you hold Scripture as subordinate to what your "church" teaches.

I test what my church teaches against God's Word.

You test what your "church" teaches against what your "church" teaches.


And that is fine. It just means we will never agree.

I find discussing theology with Roman Catholics is very much like discussing theology with Mormons. The similarity is Roman Catholics and Mormons hold their "church" dogma as absolute truth and the interpreter of Scripture. The difference, of course, is that tge gospel is in Roman Catholic doctrine (Catholics can be Christian despite their doctrine, Mormons cannot).

 

No, I read your doctrine about the Early Church.

I did not respond as I wouldn't to a Mormon. It is not up to me to combat your indoctrination but to simply state the Truth. God will do with that what He may on your heart.

For the board, what is being offered as "proof" is the sentence “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.”

There are a couple of interpretations.

One is that the Christians in Rome (remember, there was no "Church" in Rome during the Apostolic period) exemplified or mirrored what it is to be faithful, following the Apostles doctrine.

Another interpretation is that the Church in Rome is primary and was founded by Peter and Paul.


The question to ask, obviously, is exactly why Catholics do not even inform others that there are debates over the interpretation of Against Heresies.

The reason is they worship at the feet of men and blindly follow their doctrine.

This does not mean that some Catholics are not saved. The gospel is there, amongst the manure (a better word than the true meaning of "filthy rags"). And it is God, not doctrine, that saves.

 

Oh....I need to add:

I agree with you that the "trail of blood" is pseudo-history. It is, in fact, pretty stupid.

But the True Church is not the type of "church" that both Catholics and Landmarkists seek. Landmarkism is just Catholicism for Baptists.

That is NOT what I was speaking of when I insisted that our theology goes beyond Luther.

 

I agree....for a Catholic

 

You obviously did not read my post.

I'll rephrase - the "Trail of Tears" is misguided hogwash.

Landmarks fall into the same category as Catholics in their misunderstanding of what constitutes a true church. In fact, the "trail of tears" was just a Landmark attempt to be "Catholic".

The true church has existed throughout Christian history. It is seen among various congregations, to include Catholic congregations.

My point is that there was never a time in history when the entire church was encompassed by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in the 4th century and, like Landmarkism, claimed a history that did not legitimately belong to it.


We see the true church in the New Testament, with congregations that differed greatly from one another. They did take an external lead in planting, but not from Rome (it was actually from Jerusalem...read Acts). And this lead was not in HOW to be but rather what was not essential.

The churches in Corinth, Jerusalem, Galatia....where ever the church existed.....differed.

In the 4th century Rome blended Chriatianity with paganism (not intentionally, but by making Christianity the religion of the Empire). Same thing has happened every time a faith is mandated (we saw this priot to the Hasmonean period with the hellinization of the Hebrew religion, in Haiti with Christianity, and even in 17th century Japan with Roman Catholic evangelism).

And this birthed the Catholic ChChurcha "church" born apostate. But the church being the church (the true church) existed within and without this stillborn entity.

I am not asking you to believe truth. I am simply reiterating my point that the Roman Catholic Church and Baptist Landmark churches have the same misunderstanding of "true church".

 

I don't need to cite sources (you have them in your history).

But prior to the Catholic Church there was the Church in Jerusalem, in Corinth, in Gaul, in Edessa. These were by no means Catholic.

Then you have the sects you refer to as "heretic". The doctrine may be unorthodox, but many of these "heresies" (I'd view many as heresys as well) do not actually negate the gospel of Jesus Christ (they were Christians).

You also have the 4th century Cathokic Church (which is a different entity than the current Catholic Church....actual doctrine has changed).


That is the problem with looking to the past.

Roman Catholic doctrine woukd be considered heresy to early Catholics.

Many Baptists who look back run into this same issue. They claim a "church like us" relationship when none exists.

 

The issue is that you consider a multitude of Christian churches, believing different doctrines, to be one and the same.

In a way, I agree and consider them to be the catholic church (not the Catholic Church and certainly not the Roman Catholic Church).

The problem is you take what began in the 4th century and look back to claim what does not belong.

There were, in fact, churches BEFORE Christianity reached Rome. And they looked to the "rock" or foundation as centered in Jerusalm.

But here there were different doctrines abs practices (Paul outlined a very small point of agreement in addition to the gospel).

Until the 3rd century these different churches often clashed. This is expected as they were working out theologians and doctrines.

All of the early church held, for example, to premillennialism....until Origen challenged the view. And this separated some (although it shouldn't have).


Prior to the 4th century the elements of Communion were viewed as to signify Jesus' Body and Blood.

But doctrines changed (taking on a form found in the mystery cults of Rome). In the 4th century Ambrose wrote - "Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood."

Chrysostom taught there was an actual change to the elements in some form, and Augustine that the elements transformed to flesh and blood.


Anyway...some of these churches that stood outside of the Catholic Church grew to accept non-Christian beliefs.

Others grew to hold doctrines that opposed the majority (heresies, unorthodox, but still Christian)....these often dealt with the nature of Communion (Ambrose would be a heretic to today's Catholic Church) and details of the Persons of the Trinity. BUT they were still churches.