Whats wrong with this statement?

The Church of Rome departed from the faith (if one needs an exact date) with the Edict of Milan.

http://www.hist.edu/313milan.html

By then the tares had grown up anyway and already infiltrated the Church of Rome.

By the year 800 or so their fate was sealed when the "first blood" of Christians was shed by the Church of Rome leadership via the rise of "The Holy Roman Empire" and the 1000 year Reign of Terror (Crusades, Spanish/Latin Inquisitions, Massacres of dissenters - St. Bartholemew Day, Waldensians - Piedmont massacres).

It's not just doctrinal.

"By their fruits...".

HankD

 

HankD,

Yes, there are stains on the history of the church. The men of the church are not always holy, and with the guidence of Christ, we can judge them accordingly (i.e. by their fruits) this does not mean the church herself, the body of Christ, the spirit of the kingdom to come here today, is evil, or wrong etc. I cannot remember (I get the two confused) if it is the logical fallicy of composition, or division...but one of them.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

billwald
"I wouldn't have any problem worshipping with an Orthodox Church."
"
You do realize that the gap beteween Eastern-Orthodox doctrine and Reformed doctrine is considerably larger than the gap between RC doctrine and Reformed doctrine?

Hank
"The Church of Rome departed from the faith (if one needs an exact date) with the Edict of Milan."
"
If you date the departure at that moment, the whole of Eastern-and Oriental-Orthodoxy departed from the faith at the same moment. meaning that basically the whole of Christianity went of in the wrong direction dramatically for over a thousand years. Not saying that you are wrong, just pointing out the consequences of the position.

 

No. That is not tradition and the church did not determine anything. Tradition is the accumulation of doctrines and practices through the history of the RCC (simply put). The canonization of Scripture is not tradition in the least.

No. All doctrine is contained in SCripture. Men might write about doctrine or about Scripture, but their writings are true only inasmuch and as far as they accurately comment on Scripture. They have no trut in and of themselves.

God's revelation has not evolved over time. God's revelation was revealed (hence the term revelation). It did not evolve. Our understanding of that revelation has increased but the doctrine or revelation has not. To compare that to the RCC is completely unjustified. It is a dissimilar analogy.

No (again ... getting a little pattern here). The church is not the change as God directs. God revelation to the church is settled, not changing. The church of today has the same revelation as the church of 100AD. We are to live by that revelation, not look for some changing revelation or direction on matters of doctrine and polity.

 

NO, not really ... and very simplistic. The church was founded on the truth, even though the truth had not yet been completely revealed nor inscripturated. The fact that something had not yet been written down does not mean that it wasn't known or acted upon. For instance, consider 2 PEter where PEter endeavors to remind people of his previous teaching, specifically saying that he was writing it down so they would remember what had already been taught; or 2 Thess 2 where Paul says you know what I have taught you. Even though it was not yet written, it was still truth that the church was founded on.

Herein, we must understand Scripture. Scripture is not the authority because it is written down; and we cannot assume that there was no authority or foundation from its content before it was written. To the contrary, the truth was the authority before it was written down. IT is what the church was based on. How did the church know which books to recognize as the canon? In part, because of hte truth on which they were founded. The truth written down was the same truth that they were had been taught for years.

So the truth does predate the church and the church is built on the truth. The church also defends and propogates the truth.

 

You can look this up in any Christian apologetic book. Your argument is called a logical fallacy. It is one that the atheist tries to use to disprove the truth of Christianity. They ask the question: "Is God powerful enough to life a rock so heavy that he cannot lift?" You are asking the same illogical question in different words. "Is God small enough that he can contain himself in a wafer he did not create?"
The answer lies in the definition of terms, and in the nature of God. First: the definition of terms. One cannot contain God. He is infinite. Second you have defined God by your own limitations. It is like saying can God create a four-sided triangle? If you have already defined a triangle as having only three sides of course he cannot do it. God can only do those things that are possible to do that are within his nature to do, and that are not contrary to his nature. God will not be limited to a wafer in spite of Roman Catholic theology. We do not define theology by history. We define theology according to the Word of God itself. As I gave you Scripture before, I give you the same again:

"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:20)
--Accordingly there is no light in the Catholic Church because they have not the Word of God as their foundation. They do not interpret their theology according to the law and and to the testimony (the Word of God), but according to their own traditions.

The passage in Acts 17 calls what you believe a superstition. It fits exactly what you believe. Just as Paul called the belief of the Athenians superstitious, he calls your beliefs superstitious. There is little difference.
DHK

 

I understand. It is a date of convenience, a marker. the church of Rome in scriptural terms slipped slowly away from her mooring like a boat which had pulled anchor (all except many of those in Europe who were on the receiving end of her sword, pyre and garrot).

HankD

 

DHK,

You are comparing apples and oranges. The problem of the stone (the logical problem posed by many atheists) and the question of the possiblity of actual presense in communion could not be more alike. The first one is dealing with limitations of God, the latter with God's word and promise.

The answer to the problem of the stone is easy. God cannot logically contradict himself. Because he presummably placed the laws of logic in place, then he cannot contradict them. Now, if he is all powerful/knowing/loving etc. Then he would be able to logically lift any rock he created. Thus, a rock which he cannot lift is not possible to even exist as it would be a logical contradiction within God himself.

Now, concerning the Host...we are dealing with sacramentology. I do not think any Christian would dispute God works within the world in mysterious ways. This is one way in which we derive from scripture. It is not a question of logic, but of faith. Do you see the difference? I am going to assume you do not because you will not want to, which I have already said, we will not be able to remedy. You are right though, it is called the Logical fallicy of non-contradiction, first proposed by the ancient Greeks and widely accepted by the time Plato wrote the Republic.

Pastor Larry,

You get to tell us, the Catholics, what we call tradition? Any other words you care to tell a several hundred (if not 2000) year old institution, because they would be greatful for your help I am sure.
As for scripture containing all doctrine, that is what we are talking about, so it is foolhardy for you to simply put it forth. This is the logical fallicy of "Begging the question," when you give forth a point in an argument and assume the argument is true ipso facto.

As for the evolution of God's revelation. I believe in the simplicity doctrine of God. God is immutable, but we are not. We constantly change and thus our perception of the immutable everlasting God changes. Praise him for his steady hand that he remains sturdy! Because we have changed our position in relation to God (i.e. new technologies, new philosophies, etc.) our churches must adapt accordingly.

This can be said of the changes of the church.

Just as int he Bible, any changes we perceive in God are just perceptions. God does not change, but we do, and when we do our "view" changes as it were.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

NO, I am telling how the RCC uses "tradition."

When the Bible says that Scripture equips us for "every good work," then it means just that. We do not need anything else. Everything we need doctrinally is contained in Scripture. I didn't assume the argument; Scripture teaches the fact.

That's much better. Our perception of God changes, but the doctrine has not evolved in the least. It is still the same as it always has been.

I disagree. We might change the forms (language, technology, etc.); we must not change the doctrine. Which is another indictment of the RCC. Their doctrine has changed over the years, so much so that the RCC of today can be pitted against the RCC of yesteryear. Yet the Bible does not change.

 

Pastor Larry,

We find ourselves agreeing on some facts here, but not all.

When the RCC uses the term tradition, it is the history of doctrines and practices laid down by the church, through the writings and teachings of holy men, with the guidence of the holy spirit. Your definition was not narrow enough. It is not just any practice of her history, but that which is led by the Holy Spirit.

You said,

"When the Bible says that Scripture equips us for "every good work," then it means just that. We do not need anything else. Everything we need doctrinally is contained in Scripture. I didn't assume the argument; Scripture teaches the fact."

This is an interpretation of scripture that I (and most Christians throughout history) do not hold to. But, when you say "Scripture teaches the fact," and that point (the point of whether or not scripture does in fact teach us that) is what is up for discussion. When you bring out a contested point into a discussion about the point and use it as a basis for your argument, you are question begging. I hold that you still are doing so.

As for doctrine, yes I was referring to things from our perspective because the persepective of God is impossible for us to speak from. But, I do disagree, I think doctrine and faith does change over time as our relation to God changes. Think of it this way. We moved from the Law to Christ's fulfillment of that law. Why? Because we changed our relation to God. Why has that all-of-a-sudden stoped? Is it not going to change drastically again when the new kingdom is formed?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

I understand. It is a date of convenience, a marker. the church of Rome in scriptural terms slipped slowly away from her mooring like a boat which had pulled anchor (all except many of those in Europe who were on the receiving end of her sword, pyre and garrot).

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]It also means that the Church which determined the canon of Scripture at Carthage in 397 was in error - so, tell me how do you know that your Bible contains the right Books?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

When Jesus said, for example, "you err not knowing the Scriptures" what was he talking about? Did the Roman catholic Church decide the OT canon? </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus was of course referring to the OT, from which He then quoted. The NT did not exist. The Council of Carthage (see above) determined both the OT and NT canon - how do you determine yours, and by what right and authority?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Your error though is when you say that such practice is "led by the Spirit." You have no way of knowing that, and when the RCC has contradicted Scripture, it is prima facie evidence that it is not led by the Spirit. Tradition is not synonymous with being led by the Spirit.

These are the kinds of explanations that make me chuckle. On what basis do we say that "every good work" is somehow something less? That is what I don't understand. Technically, it is an interpretation, but not colloquially. To use a phrase I used above, it is prima facie ... it is not argued to; it is plain on its face. Only a higher authority could say that it means something else. I am not begging the question at all. I am affirming what Scripture teaches, in contradistinction to what the RCC teaches.

 

Incorrect. They did not determine the canon. They recognized what God had already determined. The canon does not depend on the church, much less on the RCC.

 

So, were they in error when they did that 'recognisong' or not? If the canon does not depend on the church, how do you know whether the Bible on your desk has the correct Books in it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Pastor Larry,

You said,

"Your error though is when you say that such practice is "led by the Spirit." You have no way of knowing that, and when the RCC has contradicted Scripture, it is prima facie evidence that it is not led by the Spirit. Tradition is not synonymous with being led by the Spirit."

How do I know the Holy Spirit leads these men? How do I know the Holy Spirit leads me? How do you know the Holy Spirit leads you? Prayer, faith, etc. The question of the contradiction of scripture is one that is up for debate, so it is not a strong argument until it has been proven, for you it has, but for practical purposes of this discussion, (me and others on this board) it has not, and so it is best if it not be used to prove that the early church fathers did, in fact, not have the Holy Spirit.

Chuckle away, I am glad I gave you a laugh. I will not open the can of worms into scriptual interpretation, because we will never come to consensus.

I think you should try to answer Matt's question. This is not the first time it has been presented here, and I think it is a good question.

Also, are you a Calvinist? In our conversations I have picked up hints of Calvinism. Just curious.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

You have just repeated your own superstition in different words. The "host" of a simple piece of bread cannot be a sacrament. A sacrament, by very definition, is that which imparts grace. Sorry--bread does not impart grrace. You can eat bread, but it won't make you any more holy. You can get wet through baptism but it won't wash away your sins. Both are superstitions. The bread will go through your digestive tract and be digested. That is all. The water will make you wet. That is all. Nether one of them can impart any grace. That is just a foolish belief that you hold.
You say that God works in mysterious ways. In many ways he does. But not in that way. You have no basis or claim to make that statement. Your statement has as much basis in fact as to say that my dog used to be a cat in its former life. God works in mysterious ways. But he does not work contrary to His Word or His nature.
DHK

 

DHK,

Where in scripture does it say your dog was a cat in his formal life? Because Jesus in the book of John tells a crowd that his body must be eaten and his blood consumed, also in the upper room. Of course you may read the Bible differently...but that poor dead horse has been beaten enough. So, please, the verse about your dog...

Pax Christi,

Stephen