Added to the Church

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
Of course, Rome was not in a position to do anything, it's Christian community were in hiding, not even with a bishop yet, while it had to exert influence even to the local churches that strayed from the gospel message. So you are "preaching to the choir" here, DHK!

It is one reason that the Church had to establish a strict hierarchal system, almost like in the military, that would hold all local/regional churches in check insofar as the core doctrines were concerned. Therefore, if it is total atonomy you are speaking of, no, that could not exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, local bishops had authority, mostly disciplinary in nature, yet even in history, we see them deposed for heresy as well.

So, I'm not sure where you stand here on atonomy, DHK... In my view, it obviously does not work very well, to say the least...

The church(es) could not have existed without total autonomy. Let me stress again there was no "church" universal. There were simply churches scattered throught the known world at that time. They were not invisibly connected by denominational ties called Roman Catholicism, and it is ridiculous to think so, and impossible to prove through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture anywhere that one church had authority over another.

Perhaps a geography lesson would be in order. Rome was (and is) in Italy; Corinth in Greece; Jerusalem in Israel; and then to throw into that mix we had Thomas go to India. These places were not that close to each other. In Acts 8:1-4, it describes a great persecution in Jerusalem, and the believers in Jerusalem were scattered everywhere preaching the word. Acts 8 speaks of the persecution in Jerusalem. You don't have Christians hiding out in the Catacombs as a result of the Christians being persecuted in Jerusalem prior to 50 A.D.

Later in the mid-sixties Peter wrote his first epistle. It was centered around the theme of suffering in the midst of persecution. It was during the time of the great persecution of Nero. Here is who Peter writes to:

1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--By the mid-sixties the gospel had spread much farther than Jerusalem. BTW, these "strangers" are identified as "elect" in the next verse; so he is addressing believers that are undergoing intense persecution.
Persecution was widespread at this time. That is ture. But not everyone across the Roman kingdom ended up in Rome.
Believers in Rome did hide out in the Catacombs.
There is no record that Rome (the church) had any authority over Corinth or any other church. When Paul writes his letters he always sends greetings from the other churches, a sign that they were on the same level--as equals. There is never any hint that one church had more authority than another.

Every church that Paul started was granted or assumed to have its own autonomy. How could it be otherwise. Most churches were too remote to be connected to a hiearchy or any kind of system of churches. They didn't have internet or phone lines. The mail system was a bit slow and unreliable as well; although they did have one. Not all of Paul's epistles were lost.

To comprehed the autonomoy of the local church better, skip over 1700 years, and ask yourself how much authority and power did the pope have in the sending of the first modern missionary to India--William Carey. The answer--ZILCH!!
Yet Carey successfully started a church and a Bible college and through his work many churches were started.

Now, assuming there was a pope in place in Rome (which there really wasn't) when Thomas went to India (same scenario 1700 years earlier), what authority did supposed "pope" have over Thomas to go to India and start churches? Who were those churches to submit to? Rome? Did Carey's churches submit to Rome?? Did Thomas's churches submit to Rome??
Every church, whether it was started by Paul, or by Thomas, or by William Carey was independent and autonomous. William Carey was the first one to bring Christianity to India in modern times. Carey was a Baptist. You can be sure his churches were not Catholic and not loyal to the pope.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
(Putnam)

Finally, if the Church did fall into error as you say here, then Christ failed to fulfil
l His promise, that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (church)."
(Matthew 16:18)

(Singer)

Churches fall into error and correct their errors only to do so again and that
includes the Catholic Church. None is perfect. Of course the gates of hell will
not prevail against the church (the body of believers of all time). There will
always be believers which proves that hell will not prevail.

Either way, my mind remains unaffected by the claims of Catholicism.

"Whosoever believes in me shall never die" appears to have no tricky
and hidden truths that might reveal a certain church. If it did, I guess
I'd have to vote for the "Way" that we saw mentioned here.

Of course that would include the "error" of what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist, baptism, confessions to a priest, etc. all errors for the first 1500 years of church history, wallowing in such error all this time, Singer?

Finally, please document the "Way" for me, all throughout history, it's existence, doctrines and teachings. Show me her artifacts and writings, Singer.

There are none. There was only one church for the first 1500 years of the history of the church, and I see no evidence of the "Way" being that church...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
Of course, Rome was not in a position to do anything, it's Christian community were in hiding, not even with a bishop yet, while it had to exert influence even to the local churches that strayed from the gospel message. So you are "preaching to the choir" here, DHK!

It is one reason that the Church had to establish a strict hierarchal system, almost like in the military, that would hold all local/regional churches in check insofar as the core doctrines were concerned. Therefore, if it is total atonomy you are speaking of, no, that could not exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, local bishops had authority, mostly disciplinary in nature, yet even in history, we see them deposed for heresy as well.

So, I'm not sure where you stand here on atonomy, DHK... In my view, it obviously does not work very well, to say the least...

The church(es) could not have existed without total autonomy. Let me stress again there was no "church" universal. There were simply churches scattered throught the known world at that time. They were not invisibly connected by denominational ties called Roman Catholicism, and it is ridiculous to think so, and impossible to prove through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture anywhere that one church had authority over another.</font>[/QUOTE]DHK, the title "Roman Catholic," let alone "Catholic" did not exist at that time! And yes, there were many churches scattered about as you say. But they were cohesive in their doctrines and their teachings simply because they were founded by the apostles in their evangelization per Matthew 28:19. One church was not pitted against another as we see today.

There is a city block in my town where there is a different church on every corner. They all teach a different gospel: one believes in the Eucharist, the others do not, it only being symbolic, one teaches that baptism saves, the others think it is only symbolic. One of then does not baptize at all! That is not like how it was in the early little churches throughout the known Christian world, DHK. They were all a part of THE CHURCH as established by Christ.

Perhaps a geography lesson would be in order. Rome was (and is) in Italy; Corinth in Greece; Jerusalem in Israel; and then to throw into that mix we had Thomas go to India. These places were not that close to each other. In Acts 8:1-4, it describes a great persecution in Jerusalem, and the believers in Jerusalem were scattered everywhere preaching the word. Acts 8 speaks of the persecution in Jerusalem. You don't have Christians hiding out in the Catacombs as a result of the Christians being persecuted in Jerusalem prior to 50 A.D.

Later in the mid-sixties Peter wrote his first epistle. It was centered around the theme of suffering in the midst of persecution. It was during the time of the great persecution of Nero. Here is who Peter writes to:

1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
--By the mid-sixties the gospel had spread much farther than Jerusalem. BTW, these "strangers" are identified as "elect" in the next verse; so he is addressing believers that are undergoing intense persecution.
Persecution was widespread at this time. That is ture. But not everyone across the Roman kingdom ended up in Rome.
Believers in Rome did hide out in the Catacombs.
There is no record that Rome (the church) had any authority over Corinth or any other church. When Paul writes his letters he always sends greetings from the other churches, a sign that they were on the same level--as equals. There is never any hint that one church had more authority than another.]

Thank you for the geography lesson, DHK, but there is at least one outstanding document extant that heralds the authority of the Bishop of Rome over the entire church.

Here is a small quote from it:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in GILES,1-2

This comes from the following link:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

Which includes other documentation that indicates the primacy of Rome over the entire Church ("Rome" meaning the "Chair of Peter" at Rome.)

This is in direct opposition to your claim that the churches are entirely autonomous, they were not as we see the second sucessor Peter writing to the Corinthians to correct them! Where were the bishops in Corinth? If all bishops are of equal power (which they are, but collectively under the obedience of the Bishop of Rome)why is Clement intervening here?

Every church that Paul started was granted or assumed to have its own autonomy.

What do you mean by "autonomy"? Each bishop has an authority that can be seen as "autonomous," such as in the ordaining of priests, and the applicartion of discipline within that local church, but even then, there is indications that even here, for example, the unjust excommunicaion of a person could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome!

But to have actual churches who speak of different doctrines and teachings, is that your idea of "autonomy," DHK? If so, look what it has brought us!

How could it be otherwise. Most churches were too remote to be connected to a hiearchy or any kind of system of churches. They didn't have internet or phone lines. The mail system was a bit slow and unreliable as well; although they did have one. Not all of Paul's epistles were lost.

Interestingly, I have read accounts that some churches were cut off for centuries, yet remained intact in their doctrines in faith. I think it was the Church in India, Founded by Thomas, that had this experience. Talk about the influence of the holy Spirit....

To comprehed the autonomoy of the local church better, skip over 1700 years, and ask yourself how much authority and power did the pope have in the sending of the first modern missionary to India--William Carey. The answer--ZILCH!!

How do you or this William Cary know this? How do we know that St. Thomas simply went there (India) with the simple nod of the head of agreement from Peter and the rest of the apostles? We simply do not know. In those times, I am sure that Peter was given a great deal of respect and deference, even while the exercise of an infant papacy was yet to develop.

Yet Carey successfully started a church and a Bible college and through his work many churches were started.

What church is this?

Now, assuming there was a pope in place in Rome (which there really wasn't) when Thomas went to India (same scenario 1700 years earlier), what authority did supposed "pope" have over Thomas to go to India and start churches?

First of all, there was most probably no authority in Rome at all! After all, when Thomas went to Peter to discuss what he wanted to do, where was Peter? Not in Rome! (Yet....)

Who were those churches to submit to? Rome?

No, but if there was an issue to be resolved, where do you think a messenger from those churches would go to? I bet he would head for the Jerusalem area looking for Peter!

Did Carey's churches submit to Rome??

No more then the Church of England today submits to Rome! And I cannot imagine the Southern Baptist Convention doing that either!

Did Thomas's churches submit to Rome??

DHK, get ahold of yourself; in those times, Rome was still a pagan city with scarsely a Christian community at all!

Every church, whether it was started by Paul, or by Thomas, or by William Carey was independent and autonomous. William Carey was the first one to bring Christianity to India in modern times. Carey was a Baptist. You can be sure his churches were not Catholic and not loyal to the pope.

Oh, so that is the William Carey you are talking about! Why did he have to do this when Christianity had already come to India?

Autonomy, in the sense you are speaking, has it's "fruits" all around me here in Pensacola, FL, DHK. I see Churches standing side by side each in their autonomy, teaching and preaching a different gospel message.

On the other hand, I see churches, all under the authority of a local bishop, lock-step in their doctrines, teachings, and if error comes to the fore, the bishop can step in.

And the Bishop himself is subject to the authority of the Holy See, and must go once a year to make an accounting.

And that is why the Catholic Church is one, even while she may have her problems in her fallible and sinful clergy at times, she remains one in her teachings, doctrines and her faith in the Christ who founded her.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Glory to God on high,
and on earth peace
to men of good will.
We praise you.
We bless you,
We adore you,
We glorify you,
We give you thanks
for your great glory;
Oh Lord God, Heavenly King,
God the Father Almighty!
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son;
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of
The Father;
Who takes away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us:
Who takes away the sins of the world.
receive our prayer;
Who sits at the right hand of the
Father, have mercy on us
For you alone are holy,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone, O Jesus Christ,
are most high,
Together with the Holy Spirit, in the
glory of God the Father.
Amen.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
DHK, the title "Roman Catholic," let alone "Catholic" did not exist at that time! And yes, there were many churches scattered about as you say. But they were cohesive in their doctrines and their teachings simply because they were founded by the apostles in their evangelization per Matthew 28:19. One church was not pitted against another as we see today.

They were cohesive in their doctrine to some extent, to the extent that they had sola scriptura, or the Bible as their final authority. As I mentioned the churches were were scattered over a large territory and the apostles could not be ministering to all of these churches. They appointed pastors for that work.
Apollos was left in Corinth.
Timothy was left in Ephesus.
Titus was left in Crete.
There was a church in Aquilla and Priscilla's house where the church at Rome probably started. Paul's time there was spent in jail. And Peter only spent a few months there before he was martyred. It is only unsubstantiated tradition that he held any kind of leadership role in Rome at all, or was even in Rome.
There was a church in Philemon's house.
There was a church in the mother of John Mark's house.
There was a church started in the house of the Philippian jailor.

You think church, and you automatically think of grandiose buildings: priests, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. There's no such set up in the Bible.

All that you read about is independent autonomous churches. The only authority they could appeal to was the Bible, except on occasion when they had opportunity they could ask Paul for advice in his many travels. In 1Cor.7:1, we read how that Paul was answering a letter that the Corinthians had previously written him. It was answering many of the problems that existed in the church.
In 1Thessalonians he heard of the problem that they had. They were confused as to what would happen to the believers who had already died when the rapture took place. Paul tells them not to worry, for "the dead in Christ shall rise first..." He did from time to time give advice through the epistles that remain for us today. But the churches were not connected to each other in any way.
Other than that the Bible alone was their guide, and the Holy Spirit to give them guidance as they studied it, much like He does today.

There is a city block in my town where there is a different church on every corner. They all teach a different gospel: one believes in the Eucharist, the others do not, it only being symbolic, one teaches that baptism saves, the others think it is only symbolic. One of then does not baptize at all! That is not like how it was in the early little churches throughout the known Christian world, DHK. They were all a part of THE CHURCH as established by Christ.

I wouldn't agree with your assessment even if I haven't been there. I have been to quite a few American cities, and I know what you are talking about. There is a different church on every corner. However there is only ONE gospel. You are right in that they all teach a different gospel; but there is only one truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father, but by me." There are cults, modernistic churches, new evangelical churches, fundamental Bible-believing churches, and of course there may be churches of other religions (like the mosques of Islam). Only a Bible-believing church, generally fundamental in nature will be preaching the gospel. You and I will disagree, no doubt, on what the gospel is. I know that by simply making the statement of my testimony that I was in the Catholic Church for 20 years and never heard the gospel once. The Catholic Church does not preach the gospel.

The answer to all the different churches lies in the Bible. Most of all your different churches result in a failure to follow the Bible, or to have the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. They fail to beieve it, and fail to obey it.

What do you mean by "autonomy"? Each bishop has an authority that can be seen as "autonomous," such as in the ordaining of priests, and the applicartion of discipline within that local church, but even then, there is indications that even here, for example, the unjust excommunicaion of a person could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome!

First of all, what you say is confused and not true. The word "bishop" in the Bible is just another word for overseer, and is another name for the office of pastor. The pastor and the bishop are the same thing. There is no such thing as a "priest," except in the sense that every believer is a priest before God. In the Old Testament there was a Levitical priesthood. That was done away with at the cross. There is no longer any priesthood, for their is only one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus. He is our mediator, not any human sinful priest. Call no man "father," for one is you Father, that is God. Otherwise there is no differentiation between elder, bishop, and pastor. They all define the same office, just different aspects of it.

It was the Corinthian church itself that disciplined (excommunicated) the unrepentant man in 1Cor.5, on the advice of Paul. It wasn't the pastor alone. It was the entire church under the leadership of the pastor. There was no appeal to any other church. There would and could never be. Action in discipline is taken according to Matthew 18. There is no appeal to anyone or any other church. What is decided is decided. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. That is the meaning of the verse.

But to have actual churches who speak of different doctrines and teachings, is that your idea of "autonomy," DHK? If so, look what it has brought us!

To have actual churches, like the one in Berea, search out the Scriptures for themselves, have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, like the other believers, and come to the same conclusion, is what God meant it to be. It has been like that throughout the ages. The dissenters formed the Catholic Church. By the time of Constantine they had made a state church, Christianized paganism, and paganized Christianity.

Interestingly, I have read accounts that some churches were cut off for centuries, yet remained intact in their doctrines in faith. I think it was the Church in India, Founded by Thomas, that had this experience. Talk about the influence of the holy Spirit....

That is exactly what I have been talking about, and precisely what you have been disagreeing with.

How do you or this William Cary know this? How do we know that St. Thomas simply went there (India) with the simple nod of the head of agreement from Peter and the rest of the apostles? We simply do not know. In those times, I am sure that Peter was given a great deal of respect and deference, even while the exercise of an infant papacy was yet to develop.

William Carey's works, biography, letters, etc. are well documented in history. There is much information on him, even in the encyclopedias.
People in India and Pakistan both have some information on Thomas.
Did Paul need Peter's permission? Actually it was Peter that was rebuked by Paul. Did James need Peter's permission? It was James that gave the final decision in Acts 15. You're blowing off steam here. Thomas himself was an apostle. All the apostles were equal. Peter had no more authority than Thomas or Bartholomew.

Yet Carey successfully started a church and a Bible college and through his work many churches were started.

What church is this?

It was the only Baptist Church in Serampore India.

Carey was born in a small thatched cottage in Paulerspury, a typical Northamptonshire village in England, August 17, 1761, of a weaver's family. When about eighteen he left the Church of England to "follow Christ" and to "...go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." At first he joined the Congregational church at Hackleton where he was an apprentice shoemaker. It was there he married in 1781. And it was in Hackleton he began making five-mile walks to Olney in his quest for more spiritual truth. Olney was a stronghold of the Particular Baptists, the group that Carey cast his lot with after his baptism, October 5, 1783. Two years later he moved to Moulton to become a schoolmaster -- and a year later he became pastor of the small Baptist congregation there.
The more he read and studied, the more convinced he was "the peoples of the world need Christ." He read, he made notes, he made a great leather globe of the world and, one day, in the quietness of his cobbler's shop -- not in some enthusiastic missionary conference -- Carey heard the call: "If it be the duty of all men to believe the Gospel ... then it be the duty of those who are entrusted with the Gospel to endeavor to make it known among all nations." And Carey sobbed out, "Here am I; send me!"

To surrender was one thing -- to get to the field was quite another problem. There were no missionary societies and there was no real missionary interest. When Carey propounded this subject for discussion at a ministers' meeting, "Whether the command given to the apostles to teach all nations was not obligatory on all succeeding ministers to the end of the world, seeing that the accompanying promise was of equal extent," Dr. Ryland shouted, "Young man, sit down: when God pleases to covert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine." Andrew Fuller added his feelings as resembling the unbelieving captain of Israel, who said, "If the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be!"

Thus Carey wrote his famed Enquiry Into the Obligations of the Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. In this masterpiece on missions Carey answered arguments, surveyed the history of missions from apostolic times, surveyed the entire known world as to countries, size, population and religions, and dealt with the practical application of how to reach the world for Christ!

And he prayed. And he pled. And he plodded. And he persisted. And he preached -- especially his epoch-producing message, "EXPECT GREAT THINGS FROM GOD. ATTEMPT GREAT THINGS FOR GOD." The result of that message preached at Nottingham, May 30, 1792 -- and all the other missionary ministries of Carey -- produced the particular Baptist Missionary Society, formed that Fall at Kettering on October 2, 1792. A subscription was started and, ironically, Carey could not contribute any money toward it except the pledge of the profit from his book, The Enquiry.
It was in 1793 that Carey went to India. At first his wife was reluctant to go -- so Carey set off to go nevertheless, but after two returns from the docks to persuade her again, Dorothy and his children accompanied him. They arrived with a Dr. Thomas at the mouth of the Hooghly in India in November, 1793. There were years of discouragement (no Indian convert for seven years), debt, disease, deterioration of his wife's mind, death, but by the grace of God -- and by the power of the Word -- Carey continued and conquered for Christ!
When he died at 73 (1834), he had seen the Scriptures translated and printed into forty languages, he had been a college professor, and had founded a college at Serampore. He had seen India open its doors to missionaries, he had seen the edict passed prohibiting sati (burning widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands), and he had seen converts for Christ.

William Carey
DHK

 

[Singer]

Bill Putnam,

Sorry to say, but DHK is cutting you to shreds.....the scales are not tipping
in your favor.

The content of your debates have cause me to wonder what the early Catholic
church relied on if it wasn't sola scriptura. Of course they didn't have the New
Testament OR the historical writings and all the decrees awarded over the
last 1500 years that your present day Catholics rely on. Imagine that, Bill........
(The early Catholics could not make the same claims as you do now.....that is;
IF your Catholic Church existed since Pentacost as you say).

What would they have bragged about? They had no pope, no Vatican, no infant
baptism, no rulings on baptismal regeneration, didn't pray to Mary (because she
was among them), etc.

They must have looked and acted like a bunch of Protestants (gulp)....As Bill Putnam
would say.

 

[gb93433]

The "Way" was a name given to them by those on the outside. Much as the name Baptist is a name given to those who believed in believers baptism by immersion. At first they were ridiculed and called Anabaptists (Rebaptizers).

During his entire life Jesus never started a single church. It was the apostles who did this. They were men who knew Jesus.

An excellent book printed in the late 1800's is "Fifty Years in The Church Of Rome by Charles Chiniquy. It is online now at http://www.teamlife.no/fifty_years_in_rome_text.html It is loaded with all kinds of facts about what the RCC believes. It also shows what happened when Charles Chiniquy (a RCC priest) received Christ as his savior and lord. He finally realized that what he was preaching was not what the Bible taught. He also saw conflict among the early church fathers concerning the doctrine of the RCC.

[ August 21, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by gb93433:
An excellent book printed in the late 1800's is "Fifty Years in The Church Of Rome by Charles Chiniquy. It is online now at http://www.teamlife.no/fifty_years_in_rome_text.html It is loaded with all kinds of facts about what the RCC believes. It also shows what happened when Charles Chiniquy (a RCC priest) received Christ as his savior and lord. He finally realized that what he was preaching was not what the Bible taught. He also saw conflict among the early church fathers concerning the doctrine of the RCC.

Oh no! A good and honest priest receives Christ and exposes the evils of the RCC! (whatever that is)

In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.

CHINIQUY DEBUNKED

MORE CHINIQUY

So, are you interested in truth or slander?

 

[Singer]

Re:

The dissenters formed the Catholic Church. By the time of Constantine
they had made a state church, Christianized paganism, and paganized Christianity.

The Catholic Church does not preach the gospel.

Peter had no more authority than Thomas or Bartholomew.

Preach it Brother DHK.

You also have meaningful input gb93.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Investigating the truth. Part of what one has to do in order to convert to the Catholic Faith is to become a detective. This is necessary because of the MASSIVE NUMBER of various opinions and theologies present in the world at this time. It is possible to find Presbyterian Web Site that swear that the first eklessia established by Jesus was distinctly Presbyterian. Of course, the Landmark Baptists will say the same thing regarding Anabaptistry. As will the SDA adherents regarding the teachings of their prophetess. It is enough to leave one's head spinning if you rely simply on the opinions and ideas of men of the twentieth century

In other words, to really find out what the truth is, the honest seeker must go back, back, back, and begin to seek out what really took place, not what is being said by those who have an agenda.

Fortunately, we still have extant the writings of those Christians who lived in the first century after the Crucifixion. By reading what they have written, by comparing notes, and comparing with Scripture, we can get a pretty good idea of how people worshipped and what the commonly held belief of that day was.

One of the first things we look for in the first and second century is the evidence of competing belief systems. In other words, if there was more than one set of ideas regarding salvation, then surely there would be a record somewhere in history of a conflict between those ideas.

One of the earliest conflicts we find is in Jerusalem barely 10 years after our Lord's death. A controversy arises between those in the Church who believe that circumcision is a necessity to enter the Church and those who do not. So important is this debate and so pointed that a council is called to settle the issue once and for all. Apparently, this issue is of no small consequence. So we see that whenever there are conflicts on major teachings which involve the salvation of the soul, the Church would meet in council to consider the claims being made and make a pronouncement on the truth.

Seeing this from the Scriptures, there is a very distinct lack of councils regarding two very pivotal issues in the Church: Baptism and the nature of the Eucharist. The Church teaches that both of these Sacraments are essential to eternal life, therefore, if another idea other than the one being most commonly believed were to arise, surely there would be a council to decide such an important issue.

Again, the honest seeker, upon looking to establish what was the consensus practice of the Church in the first and second century, finds that there is nothing spoken of by those Christians of that day regarding the need for a so-called "believer's baptism" as taught by modern Evangelicalism. What stands out rather glaringly is the fact that one after another, the Christians of that day in leadership and preaching positions, called EARLY FATHERS, refer to the act of baptism as conferring salvation. There are also instructions regarding the way that baptisms shall be done, including the applications for infants. And again, no writings exist which contradict this and no ideas exist which necessitate a council.

In like manner, the discussion of the Eucharist in historical writings finds no other ideas in consensus and certainly no councils called to examine the teachings of the few others who dissented. While there may be found a few writings which question the nature of the Eucharist, these are merely the machinations of the writer's mind, and have found so little inroad into the Church as to not even provoke a council regarding their teachings.

In other words, to be historically and intellectually honest, one must accept that there is no prima facea evidence for any other view in the first and second century other than the same teaching which is held by the Church today, some 20 centuries later. It is intellectually dishonest to insist that there are other teachings in the Church when there is no record of these teachings being taught nor record of any council to examine the teachings which dissent from traditional Church teaching. Those who insist other wise are acting as fools and if they were to attempt to prove their assertions in a court of law, would be laughed out of the courtroom for presenting circular arguments, ad hominum arguments, and generally lacking any evidential proof of the existence of their beliefs in that day.

Thus, the first thing that is noted is that there is a striking similarity between the teachings of the Church today and the teachings of the Christians 20 centuries ago. Surely there is a connection and link somewhere.

Additional historical evidence comes from the writings of those who followed Jesus and recorded in writing His words. These writings, however, are many times in parabolic form, contain many allusions to allegory and symbolizm, and cannot always be taken verbatum. It is, in fact, noteworthy that the Scriptures themselves state that we need teachers who, being led by the Holy Spirit, can direct us to the proper understanding of the Scriptures. Therefore, claims to perspecuity of Scripture regarding all things are simply absurd. The Book of the Apocalypse is testimony to this fact.

Even in the seemingly clearest statements of our Lord, such as Matthew 16: 18 - 19, there exists the possibility of misunderstanding. Take, for instance, the statement made by Jesus the Christ in which He promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Church). While such a statement seems unambiguous, those who wish to justify their rebellion against the Church have not lacked for coming up with novel interpretations of this verse. The most common misinterpretation is simply this: the Church does not mean an earthly, seen, and visible hierarchial entity, but rather an invisible empire, a kingdom made up only of "true believers" of every kind.

Thus, once again we must investigate that claim and ask if this is really true.

One is once again struck by the lack of councils regarding the issue of leadership over the earthly entity. History simply gives us no indication that the Early Fathers considered the Church to be this sort of spiritual entity, nor was there any noted rebellion against the idea of a hierarchial kingdom on earth until the Anabaptists began to pop up in the Middle Ages.

WHERE is the evidence for any other idea of the Church other than an earthly organization run by a supreme bishop? We do not find it in either the East or the West for the first thousand years, and it is noteworthy that the Orthodox East submitted to the authority of the papal see for 1,000 years. If there was any other idea afoot, WHY is there simply no mention of it? History is mute where some people are far too loud in their claims.

Furthermore, in investigating the idea of "independent congregations" as put forth by many modern Evangelicals, we find evidence which again would contradict such claims in a court of law. Law courts are not concerned with men's opinions or subjective feelings. They concern themselves with the facts. And the facts regarding this idea of "independent and autonomous" "churches" in the first century simply will not stand scrutiny. We see the apostles, especially St. Paul, giving orders by letter to parishes other than the one where they reside. This is incompatible with the idea of autonomy, especially in light of those modern independent assemblies where the "pastor" stands up and bellows "NNE tells me how to run MY CHURCH!!! I take orders from no one but God Himself". Yet we see the Church of the first century being run by the epistles of the apostles, which we know from record, were sent from parish to parish to instruct the faithful. Those who exhibit independent spirit, who will not be corrected in councils, such as the heretic Arias, are cast from the Church. All the evidence points to hierarchy, including the traditional structure of a kingdom. A kingdom is compose of men who are in varying positions of authority, yet all under one king. There are not 100 kings in a kingdom. There is but one, and his prime minister. In comparing the Church with the historical record of how a kingdom was structured and worked in the OT, the only comparable form we find again is the Church.

Those who do not wish to convert to the Church will find numerous innovative excuses not to do so, from twisting the Scriptures to suit their purpose to accusing the Church of leaving the truth and thus justifying their abandonment of the Catholic Faith. Unfortunately for them, the court of history will not back up their claims, and on the Great Day of Judgment, will testify against them.

Brother Ed

 

[WPutnam]

DHK replied, where I last said:

DHK, the title "Roman Catholic," let alone "Catholic" did not exist at that time! And yes, there were many churches scattered about as you say. But they were cohesive in their doctrines and their teachings simply because they were founded by the apostles in their evangelization per Matthew 28:19. One church was not pitted against another as we see today.

They were cohesive in their doctrine to some extent, to the extent that they had sola scriptura, or the Bible as their final authority. As I mentioned the churches were were scattered over a large territory and the apostles could not be ministering to all of these churches. They appointed pastors for that work.
Apollos was left in Corinth.
Timothy was left in Ephesus.
Titus was left in Crete.
There was a church in Aquilla and Priscilla's house where the church at Rome probably started. Paul's time there was spent in jail. And Peter only spent a few months there before he was martyred. It is only unsubstantiated tradition that he held any kind of leadership role in Rome at all, or was even in Rome.
There was a church in Philemon's house.
There was a church in the mother of John Mark's house.
There was a church started in the house of the Philippian jailor.

First of all, what "Bible" did these early churches have, DHK? The Old Testament, of course, but for the first 30 or so years, there was no New Testament! Therefore, there was no Sola Scriptura as well!

Calling the house of Aquilla and Priscilla a "church" is a bit much, other then when a priest were to come to the house to say Mass - In that time period, it was a church. But the term "Church," when we speak of "the church" being established in evangelization, I think it is a bit more synonymous with a whole region, such as Corinth, Ephisus, Thessaloniki (city) or Thessalonia (the region.)

You think church, and you automatically think of grandiose buildings: priests, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. There's no such set up in the Bible.

Actually no. When I speak of The church of England, for example, I am not thinking of Westminster Abby. And I agree that no such buildings existed during the very early Christian times. The celebration of the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion, the Eucharist) was indeed, held in individual houses as you say. But that does not mean that this should continue. Eventually, larger structures were adopted for such use, building originally built for other purposes, now become church buildings in adaptation. I am sure that quite a long bit of time passed before Christians were numerous enough, and with enough funds that they could construct their own church buildings. The famous Pantheon of Rome is an example of a building adapted for church use. I think it was originally a temple to one of the Roman Gods (off the top of my head) perhaps a gift from Constantine, the first Christian Emperor?

That may start a off-shoot conversation……………………

All that you read about is independent autonomous churches. The only authority they could appeal to was the Bible, except on occasion when they had opportunity they could ask Paul for advice in his many travels. In 1Cor.7:1, we read how that Paul was answering a letter that the Corinthians had previously written him. It was answering many of the problems that existed in the church.

Excuse me, DHK, but what bible could they appeal to when they only had the Old Testament? The gospel of Christ was infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles, ORALLY, DHK, without not one command to write a thing down (while Christ was with them in the flesh here on earth.) The amazing thing is, as Paul (and others) had to correct creeping errors in these far-flung communities of Christians we call (or at least I call) local/regional churches, the beginnings of the New Testament was being formed, to be included, no doubt a providence of God, that the apostles would produce the gospel in writings - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - that would come later in the church as time goes by. And to a certain extant, the newly forming scripture, later to become the New Testament was indeed, instrumental in keeping the local/regional church cohesive in doctrine and practice. But never alone, never without the influence of the central core of the apostles, the "first clergy" of the church. That is no Sola Scriptura, DHK, but rather the very antithesis of such a doctrine, a doctrine that would come later in the mind of one Martin Luther and company.

In 1Thessalonians he heard of the problem that they had. They were confused as to what would happen to the believers who had already died when the rapture took place. Paul tells them not to worry, for "the dead in Christ shall rise first..." He did from time to time give advice through the epistles that remain for us today. But the churches were not connected to each other in any way.

Other then the interesting word "rapture," there is a degree of truth in what you say, but be mindful of the fact that churches were "not connected to each other" by choice but rather by distance, the lack of modern transportation, telephone lines and high speed DSL connections!

In other words, regional churches were not "autonomous" as a preference, but by the limitations I speak of. Yet it is remarkable, even while Paul had to do some serious corrections here and there, that such regional churches remained remarkable together in doctrine and faith. Even so, serious heresies did arise, especially the one that nearly overwhelmed the whole church - Arianism.

Other than that the Bible alone was their guide, and the Holy Spirit to give them guidance as they studied it, much like He does today.

DHK, what version of the Bible did Paul carry with him as we went throughout the known world preaching the gospel of Christ?

Some years ago, I actually had a Fundamentalist individual claim that Paul preached from the Authorized 1611 King James Bible!

I'm being a little factitious here, but you do see my point, don't you? I bet you that Paul probably did not even have the Old Testament to carry around with him (he had it memorized, perhaps?) simply because of the bulk it would be, written on scrolls! Paul preached from the heart, what was infused onto his heart, most likely from the holy Spirit at his conversion, but I am sure by word of mouth from the other apostles when he came to them for baptism and acceptance. Oh, I do agree about the influence of the holy Spirit on Paul and the other apostles…

I last said:

There is a city block in my town where there is a different church on every corner. They all teach a different gospel: one believes in the Eucharist, the others do not, it only being symbolic, one teaches that baptism saves, the others think it is only symbolic. One of then does not baptize at all! That is not like how it was in the early little churches throughout the known Christian world, DHK. They were all a part of THE CHURCH as established by Christ.

I wouldn't agree with your assessment even if I haven't been there. I have been to quite a few American cities, and I know what you are talking about. There is a different church on every corner. However there is only ONE gospel. You are right in that they all teach a different gospel; but there is only one truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father, but by me." There are cults, modernistic churches, new evangelical churches, fundamental Bible-believing churches, and of course there may be churches of other religions (like the mosques of Islam). Only a Bible-believing church, generally fundamental in nature will be preaching the gospel.

Oh, really? How do you know that? Actually, I think all Christian communities preach some truth, but collectively, I see too much diversion, excursion, out and out contradictions preached. So how do you separate them, eliminate the errors and hold on to the "truth," (even if you "think" you have found the truth) and find the whole truth among them, DHK?

You and I will disagree, no doubt, on what the gospel is. I know that by simply making the statement of my testimony that I was in the Catholic Church for 20 years and never heard the gospel once. The Catholic Church does not preach the gospel.

It makes me very sad to hear you say that, DHK, because when I go to Mass, I ALWAYS hear the gospel! I always hear the gospel PREACHED!

Here is what I heard last Sunday:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven, whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'

Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.'"

Then my pastor based his sermon on this gospel, read at all Masses throughout the world on that Sunday, and guess what he talked about? The holy Eucharist! He also spoke upon the fulfillment of this promise by Christ by speaking of what Christ did at the Last Supper on the night before He died!

When was the last time you heard a sermon, based upon this gospel, in your church, DHK?

The answer to all the different churches lies in the Bible. Most of all your different churches result in a failure to follow the Bible, or to have the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. They fail to beieve it, and fail to obey it.

You are sooooooo right, DHK, and the above gospel message I gave as an example is a prime example of "fail(ing) to obey it" (gospel)!

I last said:

What do you mean by "autonomy"? Each bishop has an authority that can be seen as "autonomous," such as in the ordaining of priests, and the application of discipline within that local church, but even then, there is indications that even here, for example, the unjust excommunication of a person could be appealed to the Bishop of Rome!

First of all, what you say is confused and not true. The word "bishop" in the Bible is just another word for overseer, and is another name for the office of pastor. The pastor and the bishop are the same thing. There is no such thing as a "priest," except in the sense that every believer is a priest before God. In the Old Testament there was a Levitical priesthood. That was done away with at the cross. There is no longer any priesthood, for their is only one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus. He is our mediator, not any human sinful priest. Call no man "father," for one is you Father, that is God. Otherwise there is no differentiation between elder, bishop, and pastor. They all define the same office, just different aspects of it.

DHK, let's stick to the subject at hand; we can discuss Holy Orders and what they are another time. The point I am trying to make is, the successors of the apostles had to inherit authority by succession from the apostles if the church was to ever remain cohesive and one. After all, did not Christ speak of "One fold and one shepherd" that were to be his followers? The other issues you raise also gets us off-topic, but I will be happy to discuss them at a later time.

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from last message)

It was the Corinthian church itself that disciplined (excommunicated) the unrepentant man in 1Cor.5, on the advice of Paul. It wasn't the pastor alone. It was the entire church under the leadership of the pastor. There was no appeal to any other church. There would and could never be. Action in discipline is taken according to Matthew 18. There is no appeal to anyone or any other church. What is decided is decided. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. That is the meaning of the verse.

Of course! This is exactly in accordance with the authority Christ gave to His apostles in Matthew 18:18!

Now, exactly what was the "Church of Corinth" like in Paul's time, DHK? Was it a single church, say, in a given town, or are we speaking of a collection of churches within region of Corinth? And if it is a
regional church" is not Paul addressing ALL of the individual churches within that region? And would you suppose we would have an "overseer" or two in that region. And is not the word "overseer" the same definition as "bishop"?

Now, who do you suppose read this letter from Paul first? I betcha it was a bishop or two! And do you suppose it was not also read from the pulpit of all the churches in Corinth? Get the picture?

The pastor of my particular church, St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church, cannot excommunicate anybody, but my local bishop can! Whether an individual church in those early times could do this is questionable in my mind, but it may have been so, since communications were a bit slow, as I have indicated above in this message. No cellular phones, remember?

But today, as canon laws change to the times (not doctrines, mind you) such measures can be modified, as per the authority of a given bishop.

The New Testament does not record an appeal by a Christian to the central authority of the Church so we do not know if this ever happened or not. But you can be sure that other matters were, such as the question of circumcision, which prompted the first church council - The Council of Jerusalem - as recorded in Acts. Individual churches did not settle this matter, H=DHK, but THE CHURCH, gathered in council, did.

I last said:

But to have actual churches who speak of different doctrines and teachings, is that your idea of "autonomy," DHK? If so, look what it has brought us!

To have actual churches, like the one in Berea, search out the Scriptures for themselves, have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, like the other believers, and come to the same conclusion, is what God meant it to be. It has been like that throughout the ages. The dissenters formed the Catholic Church. By the time of Constantine they had made a state church, Christianized paganism, and paganized Christianity.

First of all, the Jews in Berea where not Christians! (YET!) Secondly, what the Bereans did was do what the Catholic Church does this very day, compare scripture (then the Old Testament) with the then quite new TRADITIONS Paul was introducing to them, which was, of course, the indications that Christ was the very Messiah to come as predicted in the Old Testament!

My point: The Church considers both Sacred Tradition and the scriptures together to determine doctrine. Never Scripture alone, and never Traditions alone, did you know that, DHK?

What "Dissenters" are you talking about, DHK that "formed the Catholic Church" as you think? Was it the same "Catholic Church" first coined by St. Ignatius in about A.D. 110, so declared by the holy and Saintly bishop about a Church that existed some 200 years before Constantine was even conceived? The rest of your comment is pure nonsense, gleaned, I suspect, the likes of Hislop and others…

I last said:

Interestingly, I have read accounts that some churches were cut off for centuries, yet remained intact in their doctrines in faith. I think it was the Church in India, Founded by Thomas, that had this experience. Talk about the influence of the holy Spirit....

That is exactly what I have been talking about, and precisely what you have been disagreeing with.

But not cut-off intentionally as in autonomous on purpose. And interestingly, that very church in India was quote correct in who do you suppose, DHK, the doctrines of Luther, Swigli, Calvin or any of the Protestant reformers, or do you just suppose their teachings matched like a glove, the teaching and doctrines of Holy Mother Church - The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

I last said:

How do you or this William Cary know this? How do we know that St. Thomas simply went there (India) with the simple nod of the head of agreement from Peter and the rest of the apostles? We simply do not know. In those times, I am sure that Peter was given a great deal of respect and deference, even while the exercise of an infant papacy was yet to develop.

William Carey's works, biography, letters, etc. are well documented in history. There is much information on him, even in the encyclopedias.
People in India and Pakistan both have some information on Thomas.
Did Paul need Peter's permission? Actually it was Peter that was rebuked by Paul. Did James need Peter's permission? It was James that gave the final decision in Acts 15. You're blowing off steam here. Thomas himself was an apostle. All the apostles were equal. Peter had no more authority than Thomas or Bartholomew.

Did Paul go into conference with Peter? I think Paul needed Peter's approval, which was quick in coming, and even in rebuke, do you see Peter's authority taken away, or do you see Peter, still a man, being called on a human weakness as we all have? Also be very careful with what you read in Act 15, as I see a very compelling opinion that St. Luke may have very well "telescoped" the Council of Jerusalem, where Peter is obviously taking precedence, to a separate event, whereas James, the bishop of Jerusalem, decrees on issues concerning the diatary laws. If you are interested, we can discuss this later…

You previously said:

Yet Carey successfully started a church and a Bible college and through his work many churches were started.

And I replied:

What church is this?

It was the only Baptist Church in Serampore India.

OK, I learn something new everyday in my old age!

Carey was born in a small thatched cottage in Paulerspury, a typical Northamptonshire village in England, August 17, 1761, of a weaver's family. When about eighteen he left the Church of England to "follow Christ" and to "...go forth unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." At first he joined the Congregational church at Hackleton where he was an apprentice shoemaker. It was there he married in 1781. And it was in Hackleton he began making five-mile walks to Olney in his quest for more spiritual truth. Olney was a stronghold of the Particular Baptists, the group that Carey cast his lot with after his baptism, October 5, 1783. Two years later he moved to Moulton to become a schoolmaster -- and a year later he became pastor of the small Baptist congregation there.
The more he read and studied, the more convinced he was "the peoples of the world need Christ." He read, he made notes, he made a great leather globe of the world and, one day, in the quietness of his cobbler's shop -- not in some enthusiastic missionary conference -- Carey heard the call: "If it be the duty of all men to believe the Gospel ... then it be the duty of those who are entrusted with the Gospel to endeavor to make it known among all nations." And Carey sobbed out, "Here am I; send me!"

To surrender was one thing -- to get to the field was quite another problem. There were no missionary societies and there was no real missionary interest. When Carey propounded this subject for discussion at a ministers' meeting, "Whether the command given to the apostles to teach all nations was not obligatory on all succeeding ministers to the end of the world, seeing that the accompanying promise was of equal extent," Dr. Ryland shouted, "Young man, sit down: when God pleases to covert the heathen, He will do it without your aid or mine." Andrew Fuller added his feelings as resembling the unbelieving captain of Israel, who said, "If the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be!"

Thus Carey wrote his famed Enquiry Into the Obligations of the Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. In this masterpiece on missions Carey answered arguments, surveyed the history of missions from apostolic times, surveyed the entire known world as to countries, size, population and religions, and dealt with the practical application of how to reach the world for Christ!

And he prayed. And he pled. And he plodded. And he persisted. And he preached -- especially his epoch-producing message, "EXPECT GREAT THINGS FROM GOD. ATTEMPT GREAT THINGS FOR GOD." The result of that message preached at Nottingham, May 30, 1792 -- and all the other missionary ministries of Carey -- produced the particular Baptist Missionary Society, formed that Fall at Kettering on October 2, 1792. A subscription was started and, ironically, Carey could not contribute any money toward it except the pledge of the profit from his book, The Enquiry.
It was in 1793 that Carey went to India. At first his wife was reluctant to go -- so Carey set off to go nevertheless, but after two returns from the docks to persuade her again, Dorothy and his children accompanied him. They arrived with a Dr. Thomas at the mouth of the Hooghly in India in November, 1793. There were years of discouragement (no Indian convert for seven years), debt, disease, deterioration of his wife's mind, death, but by the grace of God -- and by the power of the Word -- Carey continued and conquered for Christ!
When he died at 73 (1834), he had seen the Scriptures translated and printed into forty languages, he had been a college professor, and had founded a college at Serampore. He had seen India open its doors to missionaries, he had seen the edict passed prohibiting sati (burning widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands), and he had seen converts for Christ.

He sounds like a good man, DHK!

I will not minimize those good people of God in the non-Catholic community, and so this Carey person is obvious a member in good standing! To him I would add Albert Sweitzer (sp?) Billy Graham, and a few others I respect and admire. The holy Spirit works in all men, DHK, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
Bill Putnam,

Sorry to say, but DHK is cutting you to shreds.....the scales are not tipping
in your favor.

OK, if you say so...

The content of your debates have cause me to wonder what the early Catholic
church relied on if it wasn't sola scriptura. Of course they didn't have the New
Testament OR the historical writings and all the decrees awarded over the
last 1500 years that your present day Catholics rely on. Imagine that, Bill........
(The early Catholics could not make the same claims as you do now.....that is;
IF your Catholic Church existed since Pentacost as you say).

Relied on what, Singer? How could the Catholic Church rely on the New Testament before it was written? There is an easy answer...

Sacred Tradition taught orally by Christ and infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles!

What would they have bragged about? They had no pope, no Vatican, no infant
baptism, no rulings on baptismal regeneration, didn't pray to Mary (because she
was among them), etc.

You have read nothing of those links I have posted at all, have you, Singer?

But just for kicks, here is an interesting list for you:


THE SUCCESSION OF POPES


St. Peter (?- 67) THE APOSTLE
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus (217-222)
St. Urban (222-230)
St. Pontain (230-235)
St. Anterus (235-236)
St. Fabian (236-250)
St. Cornelius (251-253)
St. Lucius I (253-254)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (259-268)
St. Felix (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309?-310?)
St. Meltiades (311-314)
St. Sylvester I (314-335)
St. Marcus (336-336)
St. Julius I (337-352)
Liberius (352-366)
St. Damasus I (366-384)
St. Siricius (384-399)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-417)
St. Zozimus (417-418)
St. Boniface I (418-422)
St. Celestine I (422-432)
St. Sixtus III (432-440)
St. Leo I (440-461)
St. Hilary (461_468)
St. Simplocius (468-483)
St. Felix III (II)(483-492)
St. Gelasius I (492-496)
St. Anastasius II (496-498)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-523)
St. John I (523-526)
St. Felix IV (III)(526-530)
Boniface II (530-532)
John II (533-535)
St. Agapitus I (535-536)
St. Silverius (536-537)
Vigilius (537-555)
Pelagius (556-561)
John III (561-574)
Benedict I (575-579)
Pelagius II (579-590)
St. Gregory (590-604)
Sabinianus (604-606)
Boniface III (607-607)
St. Boniface IV (608-615)
St. Deusdedit(Adeodatus I) (615-618)
Boniface V (619-625)
Honorius I (625-638)
Severinus (640-640)
John IV (640-642)
Theodore I (642-649)
St. Martin I (649-655)
St. Eugene I (654-657)
St. Vitalian (657-672)
Adeodatus II (672-676
Donus (676-768)
St. Agatho (678-681)
St. Leo II (682-683)
St. Benedict II (684-685)
John V (685-686)
Conon (686-687)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-705)
John II (705-707)
Sisinnius (708-708)
Constantine (708-715)
St. Gregory II (715-731)
St. Gregory III (731-741)
St. Zachary (741-752)
St. Stephen II (752-752)
Stephen II (III)(752-757)
St. Paul I (757-767)
Stephen III(IV)(768-772)
Adrian I (772-795)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen IV(V)(816-817)
St. Paschal I (817-824)
Eugene II (824-827)
Valentine (827-827)
Gregory IV (827-844)
Sergius II (844-847)
St. Leo IV (847-855)
Benedict III (855-858)
St. Nicholas I (858-867)
Adrian II (867-872)
John VIII (872-882)
Marinus I (882-884)
St. Adrian III (884-885)
Stephen V(VI)(885_891)
Formosus (891-896)
Boniface VI (896-896)
Stephen VI(VII)(896-897)
Romanus (897-897)
Theodore II (897-897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-903)
Leo V (903-903)
Sergius III (904-911)
Anastasius III (911-913)
Landus (913-914)
John X (914-928)
Leo VI (928-928)
Stephen VII(VIII)(928-931)
John XI (931-935)
Leo VII (936-939)
Stephen VIII(IX)(939-942)
Marinus II (942-946)
Agapitus II (946-955)
John XII (955-964)
Leo VIII (963-965)
Benedict V (964-966)
John XIII (965-972)
Benedict VI (973-974)
Benedict VII (974-983)
John XIV (983-984)
John XV (985-996)
Gregory V (996-999)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003-1003)
John XVIII (1004-1009)
Sergois IV (1009-1012)
Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
John XIX (1024-1032)
Benedict IX (1032-1044)
Sylvester III (1045-1045)
Benedict IX (1045-1045)
Gregory (1045-1046)
Clement II (1046-1047)
Benedict IX (1047-1048)
Damasus II (1048-1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
Victor II (1055-1057)
Stephen IX(X)(1057-1058)
Nicholas II (1059-1061)
Alexander II (1061-1073)
St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)
Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Callistus II (1119-1124)
Honorius II (1124-1130)
Innocent II (1130-1143)
Celestine II (1143-1144)
Lucius II (1144-1145)
Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)
Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
Adrian IV (1154-1159)
Alexander III (1159-1181)
Lucius III (1181-1185)
Urban III (1185-1187)
Gregory VIII (1187-1187)
Clement III (1187-1191)
Celestine III (1191-1198)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-1227)
Gregory IX (1227-1241)
Celestine IV (1241-1241)
Innocent IV (1243-1254)
Alexander IV (1254-1261)
Urban IV (1261-1264)
Clement IV (1265-1268)
Bl. Gregory X (1271-1276)
Bl. Innocent V (1276-1276)
Adrian V (1276-1276)
John XXI (1276-1277)
Nicholas III (1277-1280)
Martin IV (1281-1285)
Honorius IV (1285-1287)
Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
St. Celestine V (1294-1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)
Clement V (1305-1314)
John XXII (1316-1334)
Benedict XII (1334-1342)
Clement VI (1342-1352)
Innocent VI (1352-1362)
Bl. Urban V (1392-1370)
Gregory XI (1370-1378)
Urban VI (1378-1389)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Gregory XII (1406-1415)
Martin V (1417-1431)
Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Nicholas V (1447-1455)
Callestus III (1455-1458)
Pius II (1458-1464)
Paul II (1464-1471)
Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503-1503)
Julius II (1503-1513)
Leo X (1513-1521)
Adrian VI (1522-1523)
Clement VII (1523-1534)
Paul III (1534-1549)
Julius III (1550-1555)
Marcellus II (1555-1555)
Paul IV (1555-1559)
Pius IV (1559-1565)
St. Pius V (1566-1572)
Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
Sixtus V (1585-1590)
Urban VII (1590-1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
Innocent IX (1591-1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605-1605)
Paul V (1605-1621)
Gregory XV (1621-1623)
Urban VIII (1623-1644)
Innocent X (1644-1655)
Alexander VII (1655-1667)
Clement IX (1667-1669)
Clement X (1670-1676)
Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)
Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-1721)
Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
Clement XII (1730-1740)
Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
Clement XIII (1758-1769)
Clement XIV (1769-1774)
Pius VI (1775-1799)
Pius VII (1800-1823)
Leo XII (1823-1829)
Pius VIII (1829-1830)
Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
Pius IX (1846-1878)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-1914)
Benedict XV (1914-1922)
Pius XI (1922-1939)
Pius XII (1939-1958)
John XXIII (1958-1963)
Paul VI (1963-1978)
John Paul I (1978-1978)
John Paul II (1978-present)

They must have looked and acted like a bunch of Protestants (gulp)....As Bill Putnam
would say.

Again, read some of the early church fathers, especially those before Constantines time, and note the "Catholic" tone they have!

And again, as I would say, GULP!!!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

[Singer]

(MikeS)

In case you really don't know, the Chiniquy book is just another in a long line of
anti-Catholic slanders. You can buy it from Jack Chick, if that tells you anything.

Isn't that odd.....that anything that is Anti-Catholic is "slander" but the
Anti-Protestant slander suddenly becomes "revelation".

(Bill Putnam)

Relied on what, Singer? How could the Catholic Church rely on the New
Testament before it was written? There is an easy answer...

Sacred Tradition taught orally by Christ and infused in the hearts and
minds of the apostles!

Didn't I just say they could NOT rely on the New Testament? Yes, I did.
Now you say that Sacred Tradition taught by Christ was infused in the hearts /minds
of the apostles. Christ himself never heard the word "Catholic" breathed. You think
Jesus taught them to pray to Mary? To recite the Rosary? To attend Mass and
confess sins to a priest? To baptize infants? My forgiving you of stealing from
me only means that I forgive you of wronging me.....not that you are
forgiven by God; you need to take that to Him. Remember how it goes; "If you forgive,
you will be forgiven"......! Who forgives you but God. Those priests who get paid for
"forgiving your sins" are only fooling themselves and you.

Catholics admit that changes have occurred in the RCC due to decrees by Bishops
and Popes. If they need a new law they make one. How can you claim that they
are sticking to the sacred traditions? I remember when it was sin for my classmates
to eat meat on Fridays. Since that time, some Catholic leader has determined that
it isn't such a sin afterall and it's overlooked. Contraception a Sin? You don't see
many Catholic families with 15 kids anymore. Sacred Tradition includes washing someone's
feet.......how often do you do that?

 

[WPutnam]

Singer replied, where I last said:

Relied on what, Singer? How could the Catholic Church rely on the New Testament before it was written? There is an easy answer...

Sacred Tradition taught orally by Christ and infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles!

Didn't I just say they could NOT rely on the New Testament?

I'm so confused...............

Yes, I did.

Now you say that Sacred Tradition taught by Christ was infused in the hearts /minds
of the apostles. Christ himself never heard the word "Catholic" breathed.

Now I am really confused...

You think Jesus taught them to pray to Mary? To recite the Rosary? To attend Mass and
confess sins to a priest? To baptize infants? My forgiving you of stealing from me only means that I forgive you of wronging me.....not that you are forgiven by God; you need to take that to Him. Remember how it goes; "If you forgive,
you will be forgiven"......! Who forgives you but God. Those priests who get paid for "forgiving your sins" are only fooling themselves and you.

(Scratching my head in further confusion) Last time I checked, Mary was still alive and well wen He died, resurrected, and ascended to the Father in heaven!

Shall we discuss the Eucharist and what happened at the Last Supper, Singer? And finally, please, oh please give me your exegesis (eisegesis?) of John 20:22-23. You may have done this before already, but I am good to go all over again on that subject...

Catholics admit that changes have occurred in the RCC due to decrees by Bishops
and Popes. If they need a new law they make one. How can you claim that they
are sticking to the sacred traditions?

Again, a total confusion on your part on the differences between canon law and doctrines that cannot be changed. For example, the Ten Commandments are doctrines etched in stone, unable to be changed, but the canon law concerning eating meat on Friday can be changed (as I read ahead a bit.)

I remember when it was sin for my classmates to eat meat on Fridays. Since that time, some Catholic leader has determined that
it isn't such a sin afterall and it's overlooked.

Nope, not at all, Singer, as it is simply a disciplinary ruling that has been changed, just like the discipline of celibacy for priests. You do know that all the pope has to do is snap his fingers and allow all priests to marry, didn't you?

But be advised that the likelyhood of that happening is about as likely as hell freezing over!

Contraception a Sin? You don't see
many Catholic families with 15 kids anymore. Sacred Tradition includes washing someone's
feet.......how often do you do that?

First of all artificial contraception is a sin because it violates the Natural Law of God. And at one time, all Christian commities stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church (circa 1930) in condemning such practice as a serious sin.

Who stands with her today, Singer?

As for those Catholics who practice it, they will have their accounting before God. For your information, I never practiced that, Singer, never.

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
First of all, what "Bible" did these early churches have, DHK? The Old Testament, of course, but for the first 30 or so years, there was no New Testament! Therefore, there was no Sola Scriptura as well!

You are right they did not have the "completed" Word of God, the New Testament. That is why they were given spiritual gifts, particularly the ones mentioned in 1Cor.13:8: prophecy, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge. With these three gifts the early believers were given knowledge of the New Testament before it was completed. Then as 1Cor.13:10 says,

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When the Perfected or completed Word of God was come at the end of the century, that which was in part or temporary--those temporary gifts of tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge ceased. There was no more need of them. They had the completed (Old English "perfect") Word of God with the completion of the Book of Revelation. The spiritual sign gifts ceased. They had served their purpose.
Verse 9 "We know in part (Old Testament), and we prophesy in part (New Testament knowledge). This was the basis for sola scriptura.

Calling the house of Aquilla and Priscilla a "church" is a bit much, other then when a priest were to come to the house to say Mass - In that time period, it was a church. But the term "Church," when we speak of "the church" being established in evangelization, I think it is a bit more synonymous with a whole region, such as Corinth, Ephisus, Thessaloniki (city) or Thessalonia (the region.)

I prefer to take the Bible for what it says, and believe it. I find nowhere in the Bible where any priest came into any house to say Mass. That concept is just absurd. But here is what the Bible does say in Romans 16:

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise [/B]greet the church that is in their house[/B]. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
--Priscilla and Aquilla lived very sacrificial lives. They were willing to lay down their lives for the Lord and for the work that Paul was doing. The church in Rome was in their house.
Other than that Paul greets various households.

Now think about the church in Jerusalem. There were three thousand saved, baptized, and added unto the church just on the day of Pentecost. Then it says that the Lord "added to the church daily such as should be saved." It was a fast growing church. Just a few days later, the Scripture records:

Acts 5:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

History tells us that the church grew rapidly to as many as between 150,000 to 200,000 Christians. Now use some reasoning here. They could not stay in the Temple long, and even the Temple could not hold that many people. In fact, to put things in perspective, the largest stadium in America is the Superdome in New Orleans. It has a seating capacity of just less than 77,000 for football games, and a capacity of around 97,000 for conventions. The largest stadium in the U.S. of A. could not accomodate the church in Jerusalem. So where did they meet? Out in the open. In spaces large enough where they could gather. Some of their ministry involved going door to door, as the text suggests near the end of Acts 2, but that is not all they did. They assembled together as one, as the church that was in Jerusalem. BTW, the largest RC church is in the Ivory Coast, and seats a paltry 7,000 (Guiness World Book of Records). That's peanuts in comparison to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.

The church (ekklesia) is an assembly. The assembly gathers in one place. It is not regional as in a province or state. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was not writing to all the believers in Greece, or even all the believers in the province that Corinth may have been in. He wrote to a very specific church. He said:

1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,
There was one church in Corinth; one assembly. Paul started it, and appointed Apollos as the pastor when he left.

You think church, and you automatically think of grandiose buildings: priests, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. There's no such set up in the Bible.

Actually no. When I speak of The church of England, for example, I am not thinking of Westminster Abby. And I agree that no such buildings existed during the very early Christian times. The celebration of the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion, the Eucharist) was indeed, held in individual houses as you say. But that does not mean that this should continue. Eventually, larger structures were adopted for such use, building originally built for other purposes, now become church buildings in adaptation. I am sure that quite a long bit of time passed before Christians were numerous enough, and with enough funds that they could construct their own church buildings. The famous Pantheon of Rome is an example of a building adapted for church use. I think it was originally a temple to one of the Roman Gods (off the top of my head) perhaps a gift from Constantine, the first Christian Emperor?

See above for the answer to most of this paragraph. However, please realize that the "Church of England" is not a church. It is an organization. A church is an assembly located in one place. It is not akin to a world-wide business corporation like both Catholic and Anglican churches are. There are no such beasts found in the Bible.

Excuse me, DHK, but what bible could they appeal to when they only had the Old Testament?

Remeber, they had the Old Testament PLUS spiritual gifts to help them along before the canon of Scripture was completed, or before "that which was perfect (New Testament) was come."

The gospel of Christ was infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles, ORALLY, DHK, without not one command to write a thing down (while Christ was with them in the flesh here on earth.) The amazing thing is, as Paul (and others) had to correct creeping errors in these far-flung communities of Christians we call (or at least I call) local/regional churches, the beginnings of the New Testament was being formed, to be included, no doubt a providence of God, that the apostles would produce the gospel in writings - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - that would come later in the church as time goes by. And to a certain extant, the newly forming scripture, later to become the New Testament was indeed, instrumental in keeping the local/regional church cohesive in doctrine and practice.

The Holy Spirit promised to guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13). He promised that all Scripture is inspired of God (2Tim.3:16). He told us that No Scripture is of private interpretation but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. All the writers of Scripture were so moved by the Holy Spirit, that all the Scriptures we now have are inspired of God. They did not have to be written at the time that Christ was alive. Again, in the first century spiritual gifts played a large role in the communication of revelation.
DHK

 

[DHK]

But never alone, never without the influence of the central core of the apostles, the "first clergy" of the church. That is no Sola Scriptura, DHK, but rather the very antithesis of such a doctrine, a doctrine that would come later in the mind of one Martin Luther and company.

So how many of "this so-called clergy" of apostles go and supervise the work that Thomas had in India? Your theory breaks down completely there doesn't it. We have no proof that anyone other than Thomas went to India. Thomas was a missionary to the people of India and started independent autonomous churches there, that did not come under the authority of anyone but God. The Bible was their final authority. You would have a hard time proving otherwise. It is Paul that commended those that practiced sola scriptura, as he did with the Bereans in Acts 17:11. You don't see any word of condemnation from him for not accepting an Apostle's Word. Today you would here condemnation from Catholics for those who would reject the pope's word. Is the Pope above Paul??
To say that sola scriptura came from Luther is the same as saying that the trinity came from the Catholics, or the rapture from the Baptists. All three doctrines are taught in the Bible. All are Biblical. The trinity no more originated from the Catholics then the Ten Commandments origninated from Moses. Both the Ten Commandments and the doctrine of the trinity were written with the finger of God.

Other then the interesting word "rapture," there is a degree of truth in what you say, but be mindful of the fact that churches were "not connected to each other" by choice but rather by distance, the lack of modern transportation, telephone lines and high speed DSL connections!

In other words, regional churches were not "autonomous" as a preference, but by the limitations I speak of. Yet it is remarkable, even while Paul had to do some serious corrections here and there, that such regional churches remained remarkable together in doctrine and faith. Even so, serious heresies did arise, especially the one that nearly overwhelmed the whole church - Arianism.

Agreed. Apart from Paul stepping in where and when he could, what kept the churches pure was the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God, or the gift of prophecy as needed.
"We know in part and we prophecy in part."

Other than that the Bible alone was their guide, and the Holy Spirit to give them guidance as they studied it, much like He does today.

DHK, what version of the Bible did Paul carry with him as we went throughout the known world preaching the gospel of Christ?

Well that is an interesting question. He no doubt took as much as he could, which would entail the Hebrew Old Testament, and whatever epistles he had already written (supposing he may have had copies), and possibly some of the earlier books such as James and Matthew, two of the earliest books to be written. We can't be sure what he traveled with for the Bible doesn't say. It is evident that others had access to his epistles and considered them as Scripture. Some of them twising the meaning as false teachers will do. Peter writes in 2Pet.3:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

These are interesting verses in light of the fact that both Peter and Paul died around the same time or year. Paul's epistles were known to Peter as Scripture, and obviously to others as Scripture as well.
But again, I draw you attention to the use of spiritual gifts in the absence of written New Testament truth.

Some years ago, I actually had a Fundamentalist individual claim that Paul preached from the Authorized 1611 King James Bible!

I'm being a little factitious here, but you do see my point, don't you? I bet you that Paul probably did not even have the Old Testament to carry around with him (he had it memorized, perhaps?) simply because of the bulk it would be, written on scrolls! Paul preached from the heart, what was infused onto his heart, most likely from the holy Spirit at his conversion, but I am sure by word of mouth from the other apostles when he came to them for baptism and acceptance. Oh, I do agree about the influence of the holy Spirit on Paul and the other apostles…

Hey I've got the book that says that Paul did preach from the KJV, so it must be true!
I also thought of the possiblty of the bulk of carrying the entire OT in scrolls. Depending on where he went, it often would not be necessary for him to carry any part of the Old Testament for he often preached in the synagogue first. Probably most good Jewish homes would have a copy of the Old Testament or at least the Torah. So the Old Testament may not have been as necessary as what New Testament revelation had been made available to him.

Oh, really? How do you know that? Actually, I think all Christian communities preach some truth, but collectively, I see too much diversion, excursion, out and out contradictions preached. So how do you separate them, eliminate the errors and hold on to the "truth," (even if you "think" you have found the truth) and find the whole truth among them, DHK?

They may teach some truth. Jim Jones preached "some" truth. That is precisely the problem. It only takes a small amount of arsenic mixed with a larger amount of good wholesome wheat to kill the rat.

It makes me very sad to hear you say that, DHK, because when I go to Mass, I ALWAYS hear the gospel! I always hear the gospel PREACHED!

Here is what I heard last Sunday:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven, whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'

Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.'"

Then my pastor based his sermon on this gospel, read at all Masses throughout the world on that Sunday, and guess what he talked about? The holy Eucharist! He also spoke upon the fulfillment of this promise by Christ by speaking of what Christ did at the Last Supper on the night before He died!

When was the last time you heard a sermon, based upon this gospel, in your church, DHK?

That is not the gospel, and it cannot save. If you call it the gospel, it is a false gospel even though it may contain Scripture. One cannot get saved or be born again hearing that message. Or at least it is very unlikely that anyone ever would. The word gospel simply means "good news." The good news is that Jesus Christ died according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. (1Cor.15:3,4). The gospel is believing in that sacrifice of Christ alone is sufficient to take away your sins and give you eternal life by simply believing in what He did on the cross for you, and trusting Him and Him alone by faith. There is no "eucharist," no sacrament, no baptism, no mass, no kind of work at all involved. Simply trust Him and what He has done for you, and that is all. The gospel is very simple. The Catholic Church has obscured it.

The answer to all the different churches lies in the Bible. Most of all your different churches result in a failure to follow the Bible, or to have the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. They fail to beieve it, and fail to obey it.

You are sooooooo right, DHK, and the above gospel message I gave as an example is a prime example of "fail(ing) to obey it" (gospel)!

But your example does not deal with the right gospel.

DHK, let's stick to the subject at hand; we can discuss Holy Orders and what they are another time. The point I am trying to make is, the successors of the apostles had to inherit authority by succession from the apostles if the church was to ever remain cohesive and one. After all, did not Christ speak of "One fold and one shepherd" that were to be his followers? The other issues you raise also gets us off-topic, but I will be happy to discuss them at a later time.

Simply put there is no succession or any precedent for succession. Go back to India and Thomas. Your model just doesn't work. Each church's pastor is called of God, not of man. I know of a church not far from here who called a pastor who has never been to Bible College or Seminary of any kind. His church is doing well. As far as the Bible is concerned, he is self-taught. I don't advise this for everyone, but I am not going to criticize this man or his work either. It is God that has called him, not man.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

DHK replied, where I last said:

First of all, what "Bible" did these early churches have, DHK? The Old Testament, of course, but for the first 30 or so years, there was no New Testament! Therefore, there was no Sola Scriptura as well!

You are right they did not have the "completed" Word of God, the New Testament.

Uh, DHK, you are misinterpreting what I said; they had the completed word of God! ORALLY! What they did not have was scrolls of papyrus or parchment that had this "Word" inscriptured for about 30 years give or take after Pentecost (the latest ideas, scholars think, most of them taking it still out to sometime after AD 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and even beyond.)

Other then the book of Revelations, where Christ, from His throne in heaven, told John what to write concerning the seven churches, Christ gives absolutely no hint to His apostles to write a thing down! He taught them orally, infusing His "Word" into their hearts and minds without not one whit of a command to write anything!

That is why they were given spiritual gifts, particularly the ones mentioned in 1Cor.13:8: prophecy, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge. With these three gifts the early believers were given knowledge of the New Testament before it was completed. Then as 1Cor.13:10 says,

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

I can agree here. There is no doubt that such gifts were needed to continue the "jump start" of the new infant church, after the initial jolt by the holy Spirit at Pentecost, and yes, I would include as well, that gift that would have them preserve the "Word," finally, in the inscripturation process, but the point remains, there was no Sola Scriptura in those times! It could not exist, which was my whole point. In fact, while it is true that the early heresies attempted to support their doctrines from scripture only (the early signs of a false doctrine), it does not come to the fore as a doctrine until the so called "Protestant Reformation" in the 16th century.

My ultimate point is, if Sola Scriptra did not exist as a doctrine at one time, how can it be true in a later time, when finally, we have the New Testament, compiled by the only authority around that could do such a thing in the 3rd century, and then declare it, somehow, as our "sole source of faith and doctrine" or however you may want to define it in Sola Scriptura terms? Did the very authority that did this - the Church - loose that authority into thin air after the New Testament was finally declared canonical, God's written word, the New Testament?

When the Perfected or completed Word of God was come at the end of the century, that which was in part or temporary--those temporary gifts of tongues, prophecy, and revelatory knowledge ceased. There was no more need of them. They had the completed (Old English "perfect") Word of God with the completion of the Book of Revelation. The spiritual sign gifts ceased. They had served their purpose.
Verse 9 "We know in part (Old Testament), and we prophesy in part (New Testament knowledge). This was the basis for sola scriptura.

First of all, this is the first time I have ever seen as association of the "gifts" you speak of as being entirely connected to the inscripturation of the New Testament. In fact, I see that it was enough for the apostles to simply know in their hearts and minds what the "Word" of Christ is, without the tongues, certainly, but only conjecture as to "prophecy and revelatory knowledge" that seems to be applicable to the book of Revelation mostly, with little seen (from my viewpoint) in the rest of the New Testament, even the gospels beyond the actual words of Christ. (For example, the prediction of Christ of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.)

If this were so as you describe here, why does not scripture itself describe the process of this inscripturation? If Scripture is so all-encompassing as some declare, why is this not an obvious process described? In other words, where does it say that the authority of the Church passes into oblivion (or is at least subjugated) when the time comes when the New Testament is a completed document? Where does it in fact say that scripture is the sole source for faith and doctrine? (Or sole source of authority, it being the only Word of God, now that ink has completed it's mark on papyrus?

I last said:

Calling the house of Aquilla and Priscilla a "church" is a bit much, other then when a priest were to come to the house to say Mass - In that time period, it was a church. But the term "Church," when we speak of "the church" being established in evangelization, I think it is a bit more synonymous with a whole region, such as Corinth, Ephisus, Thessaloniki (city) or Thessalonia (the region.)

I prefer to take the Bible for what it says, and believe it. I find nowhere in the Bible where any priest came into any house to say Mass. That concept is just absurd.

How about using the term, "participating in the Lord's Supper" then? Does that sound better? I bet they did not use the word "Trinity" either, yet they believed in the Three Persons in the One God, albeit in primitive form, to be developed later as a heresy loomed…

But here is what the Bible does say in Romans 16:

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
--Priscilla and Aquilla lived very sacrificial lives. They were willing to lay down their lives for the Lord and for the work that Paul was doing. The church in Rome was in their house.
Other than that Paul greets various households.

DHK, that's fine. It is the same as the phrase "when two or three are gathered together in my name" we have therefore the "church." If my pastor comes to my house and says Mass (Oops, celebrates the Lord's Supper) for me and my sick wife, we have the "church." When we all gather inside of St. John's Catholic Church (My parish) here in Warrington, FL, we have the "church." If we gather outside, in the open air, and celebrate the "Lord's Supper," we have the "church." And if a Catholic Chaplain says Mass (sorry, I must revert to my more modern meaning here) on the fantail of a ship, we have the "church." And if all the bishops gather together with the present pope in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in a mighty ecumenical council, we have the "church." All of these events, be they in individual houses, aboard ship, in Rome, wherever, we have THE CHURCH, DHK!

Now think about the church in Jerusalem. There were three thousand saved, baptized, and added unto the church just on the day of Pentecost. Then it says that the Lord "added to the church daily such as should be saved." It was a fast growing church. Just a few days later, the Scripture records:

Acts 5:4 Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

You are making my point, DHK. Collectively, I can call all of them who came to the Lord as the "church." If I were to say, "The church of Jerusalem," I am speaking of a collective of the church in Jerusalem, headed by a bishop (James in fact in those times) and all of his clergy and the believing faithful.

History tells us that the church grew rapidly to as many as between 150,000 to 200,000 Christians. Now use some reasoning here. They could not stay in the Temple long, and even the Temple could not hold that many people. In fact, to put things in perspective, the largest stadium in America is the Superdome in New Orleans. It has a seating capacity of just less than 77,000 for football games, and a capacity of around 97,000 for conventions. The largest stadium in the U.S. of A. could not accomodate the church in Jerusalem. So where did they meet? Out in the open. In spaces large enough where they could gather. Some of their ministry involved going door to door, as the text suggests near the end of Acts 2, but that is not all they did. They assembled together as one, as the church that was in Jerusalem. BTW, the largest RC church is in the Ivory Coast, and seats a paltry 7,000 (Guiness World Book of Records). That's peanuts in comparison to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.

Very funny! Did St. Ignatius name the Jerusalem church the "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem"?

Oh, everything else above is just fine! I know they met in the open air, and also in individual houses! I have already spoken of that in my last message, I think. I even spoke of them adapting existing structures, such as the Pantheon in Rome, into houses of worship. It was a long, long time, I think, before they started building their own structures, DHK.

The church (ekklesia) is an assembly. The assembly gathers in one place. It is not regional as in a province or state. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was not writing to all the believers in Greece, or even all the believers in the province that Corinth may have been in. He wrote to a very specific church. He said:

1 Cor 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,
There was one church in Corinth; one assembly. Paul started it, and appointed Apollos as the pastor when he left.

OK, fine. I have no problem with that. My bishop appointed Fr. Richard Altenbaugh as pastor of "the church of Warrington" (called St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church) but that is not all, we have another church in Myrtle Grove, (suburb of Pensacola) as well as about 6 churches within the city of Pensacola itself, not to mention the other parishes that extend to Tallahassee, FL (the diocese borders on the Diocese of St. Augustine, FL)

Neat huh?

You previously said:

You think church, and you automatically think of grandiose buildings: priests, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals, popes, etc. There's no such set up in the Bible.

And I replied:

Actually no. When I speak of The church of England, for example, I am not thinking of Westminster Abby. And I agree that no such buildings existed during the very early Christian times. The celebration of the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion, the Eucharist) was indeed, held in individual houses as you say. But that does not mean that this should continue. Eventually, larger structures were adopted for such use, building originally built for other purposes, now become church buildings in adaptation. I am sure that quite a long bit of time passed before Christians were numerous enough, and with enough funds that they could construct their own church buildings. The famous Pantheon of Rome is an example of a building adapted for church use. I think it was originally a temple to one of the Roman Gods (off the top of my head) perhaps a gift from Constantine, the first Christian Emperor?

See above for the answer to most of this paragraph. However, please realize that the "Church of England" is not a church. It is an organization. A church is an assembly located in one place. It is not akin to a world-wide business corporation like both Catholic and Anglican churches are. There are no such beasts found in the Bible.

It's not a church? Do you consider the Catholic Church the same way?

It seems to me that the "Church," Christ founded in Matthew 16:18 had all the ingredients of not only being a church, as Christ so called it, but also an "organization" as you call it, since two ingredients make up the "organization":

1.) Authority, as given in the "keys of the kingdom," and…

2.) Men, who form the origanization, the "charter clergy" called the apostles!

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I last said:

Excuse me, DHK, but what bible could they appeal to when they only had the Old Testament?

Remeber, they had the Old Testament PLUS spiritual gifts to help them along before the canon of Scripture was completed, or before "that which was perfect (New Testament) was come."

I should have put "…" around the word "bible" in the above, since I was appealing the a "bible" that included the New Testament! And of course, the Old Testament was the only Bible around at the time, unable to be the sole authority for the Word of God as given to us orally by Christ! I am not putting-down the Old Testament, it now being a closed covenant. But the only authority the early church had was the oral authority given to them by Christ!

I certainly acknowledge the spiritual gifts you speak of, including, I dare say, a "charisma" that would guide the church into which books are to be included in the New Testament. There were "competing" texts, you know, some very close to being included, others are obviously apocyphra, such as the following:

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

Now, take a look at your bible and see if any of these books are included in the New Testament. Not a one, you say? Well, you can thank the very Church who determined that they were not to be included in the latter part of the 3rd century!

I last said:

The gospel of Christ was infused in the hearts and minds of the apostles, ORALLY, DHK, without not one command to write a thing down (while Christ was with them in the flesh here on earth.) The amazing thing is, as Paul (and others) had to correct creeping errors in these far-flung communities of Christians we call (or at least I call) local/regional churches, the beginnings of the New Testament was being formed, to be included, no doubt a providence of God, that the apostles would produce the gospel in writings - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - that would come later in the church as time goes by. And to a certain extant, the newly forming scripture, later to become the New Testament was indeed, instrumental in keeping the local/regional church cohesive in doctrine and practice.

The Holy Spirit promised to guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13). He promised that all Scripture is inspired of God (2Tim.3:16). He told us that No Scripture is of private interpretation but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. All the writers of Scripture were so moved by the Holy Spirit, that all the Scriptures we now have are inspired of God. They did not have to be written at the time that Christ was alive. Again, in the first century spiritual gifts played a large role in the communication of revelation.

I certainly agree with your first sentence.

And indeed, I also agree that "all scripture is inspired of God." The problem is, what is scripture and what is not? The above list I gave shows the problems the early church had to figure out in the 3rd century, long after St. Ignatius called it the "Catholic Church."

On your third statement, this is why I declare that Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine! For in that doctrine, it says that only scripture is the sole source for faith and doctrine (your definition may vary) and that (in some definitions), that scripture is "self-interpreting." That means that we call all pick-up the bible and decide for ourselves what it means and what it says, a direct contradiction with your statement, "No scripture is of private interpretation."

Finally, I certainly agree that the apostles were so moved by the holy Spirit as to what they would write. But where do you get the idea that they were so moved, DHK? Where does it say that the apostles were moved by the holy Spirit when they wrote scripture? Many of the local/regional churches thought that the didache (a part of the long list above) was divinely inspired, it being dated within the apostolic age, but the Church said no, it is not. Also, some local/regional churches did not accept Hebrews, James and certainly not the Book of Revelation. The Church certainly included them, didn't they?

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued from previous message)

I last said:

But never alone, never without the influence of the central core of the apostles, the "first clergy" of the church. That is no Sola Scriptura, DHK, but rather the very antithesis of such a doctrine, a doctrine that would come later in the mind of one Martin Luther and company.

So how many of "this so-called clergy" of apostles go and supervise the work that Thomas had in India? Your theory breaks down completely there doesn't it. We have no proof that anyone other than Thomas went to India. Thomas was a missionary to the people of India and started independent autonomous churches there, that did not come under the authority of anyone but God. The Bible was their final authority. You would have a hard time proving otherwise. It is Paul that commended those that practiced sola scriptura, as he did with the Bereans in Acts 17:11. You don't see any word of condemnation from him for not accepting an Apostle's Word. Today you would here condemnation from Catholics for those who would reject the pope's word. Is the Pope above Paul??

Er, ah, DHK, show me the written works of St. Thomas? Do you know of any?

Tell me, DHK, how many of the apostles were involved in writing the New Testament? Well, we have the following human authors (not all apostles): Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, John again for the book of Revelations; can you count any more?

My point is, not all of the apostles wrote anything at all (so far as we know) but only went out and evangelized, such as St. Thomas. Paul did both, and so did Peter!

Now, did anyone "supervise" John's writings of the Book of Revelations when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos? Not a one! How about Peter? Did anyone "supervise" him? Even Paul, whose writings come from the pen of Luke and other companions, likewise had no "supervision" that we know of.

Therefore, your "supervisory" theory is a straw man that goes nowhere, DHK, sorry…

And again, the Bereans did not practice Sola Scriptura, but in fact, may be the very model of how the church today views scripture in a symbiotic relationship with the Sacred Traditions that are handed down from the Apostles. A doctrine must fit the mold, so to speak, of both Sacred Tradition AND of scripture, it cannot be based on one and be opposed by the other.

To say that sola scriptura came from Luther is the same as saying that the trinity came from the Catholics, or the rapture from the Baptists. All three doctrines are taught in the Bible. All are Biblical. The trinity no more originated from the Catholics then the Ten Commandments origninated from Moses. Both the Ten Commandments and the doctrine of the trinity were written with the finger of God.

As a matter of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity did indeed, come from the Catholic Church:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Show me any other source of the doctrine of the Trinity, as interpreted and defined by the Catholic Church, then Holy Mother Church herself.

Actually, Sola Scriptura, as a doctrine, was silently on the scene in the early heresies by implication - they would defend their heresies from scripture only, they aschewing the teaching authority of the Church. But some where in the Reformation (I don't know who first used the term) the term sprang from. If not, someone correct me. In any case, for all intents and purposed, Sola Scriptura as a doctrine finds it early adoption in the era of the 16th century.

As for the "rapture," that is a good subject for another time…

I last wrote:

Other then the interesting word "rapture," there is a degree of truth in what you say, but be mindful of the fact that churches were "not connected to each other" by choice but rather by distance, the lack of modern transportation, telephone lines and high speed DSL connections! In other words, regional churches were not "autonomous" as a preference, but by the limitations I speak of. Yet it is remarkable, even while Paul had to do some serious corrections here and there, that such regional churches remained remarkably together in doctrine and faith. Even so, serious heresies did arise, especially the one that nearly overwhelmed the whole church - Arianism.

Agreed. Apart from Paul stepping in where and when he could, what kept the churches pure was the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God, or the gift of prophecy as needed.
"We know in part and we prophecy in part."

Well, there is noting to disagree with you here, especially that you agree with me! That means you are a good fellow after all! (Big smile!)

As for the extraordinary "charismas" that existed in the early church, we could talk all day long, including noting a vestige that continues to this day! But again, a subject for another time…

Other than that the Bible alone was their guide, and the Holy Spirit to give them guidance as they studied it, much like He does today.

I will simply repeat here, that their only guide was what was infused in their hearts and minds by Christ. Was there guidance by the holy Spirit? Sure, there must be if we are to consider the scripture (as determined by the Church) as divinely inspired of God.

I last said:

DHK, what version of the Bible did Paul carry with him as we went throughout the known world preaching the gospel of Christ?

Well that is an interesting question. He no doubt took as much as he could, which would entail the Hebrew Old Testament, and whatever epistles he had already written (supposing he may have had copies), and possibly some of the earlier books such as James and Matthew, two of the earliest books to be written. We can't be sure what he traveled with for the Bible doesn't say. It is evident that others had access to his epistles and considered them as Scripture. Some of them twising the meaning as false teachers will do.

DHK, I was "pulling your leg" a bit here!

But seriously, most scholars think that if Paul had any of the Old Testament with him (since he probably had a good memory of it's contents in his head) it was most probably the Greek Septuagint.

And interestingly, as he rolled-up his papyrus roll of a letter or two to Timothy, his prize student, little did he know that what he wrote would be included as divinely inspired scripture!

That kinda boggles my mind, thinking about it….

Anyway, you continued:

Peter writes in 2Pet.3:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

These are interesting verses in light of the fact that both Peter and Paul died around the same time or year. Paul's epistles were known to Peter as Scripture, and obviously to others as Scripture as well.
But again, I draw you attention to the use of spiritual gifts in the absence of written New Testament truth.

Ah yes, the only, yet veiled reference to a writing of an apostle that his writings were inspired! I bet Peter never considered his own writings in the same way out of pure humility! And I am sure the early church saw this as an important clue that would have them include all of Paul's writings in the New testament!

I last said:

Some years ago, I actually had a Fundamentalist individual claim that Paul preached from the Authorized 1611 King James Bible!

I'm being a little factitious here, but you do see my point, don't you? I bet you that Paul probably did not even have the Old Testament to carry around with him (he had it memorized, perhaps?) simply because of the bulk it would be, written on scrolls! Paul preached from the heart, what was infused onto his heart, most likely from the holy Spirit at his conversion, but I am sure by word of mouth from the other apostles when he came to them for baptism and acceptance. Oh, I do agree about the influence of the holy Spirit on Paul and the other apostles…

Hey I've got the book that says that Paul did preach from the KJV, so it must be true!

Are you now "pulling my leg"?

Does the name, "Peter Ruckman," ring a bell? (He has his church here in Pensacola! When I visited his book store, I had to make sure my rosary was out of sight in my car!) I think it was one of his "disciples" who told me that…

I also thought of the possiblty of the bulk of carrying the entire OT in scrolls. Depending on where he went, it often would not be necessary for him to carry any part of the Old Testament for he often preached in the synagogue first. Probably most good Jewish homes would have a copy of the Old Testament or at least the Torah. So the Old Testament may not have been as necessary as what New Testament revelation had been made available to him.[/quote

Good point, DHK!

Yes, having access to the scrolls in the synagogues is another source; better still, as I think about it, that he could then point out the prophecies of the coming Messiah to the doubting Jews right then and there! There is another problem, however, and that is literacy. While the Jews, especially the educated ones, illiteracy was common in those times. And that is certainly why it was read in the synagogues in those times, as the gospels were similarly read in the early church to this very day!

(Continued in next message)

 

[WPutnam]

(Continued in previous message)

I last said:

Oh, really? How do you know that? Actually, I think all Christian communities preach some truth, but collectively, I see too much diversion, excursion, out and out contradictions preached. So how do you separate them, eliminate the errors and hold on to the "truth," (even if you "think" you have found the truth) and find the whole truth among them, DHK?

They may teach some truth. Jim Jones preached "some" truth. That is precisely the problem. It only takes a small amount of arsenic mixed with a larger amount of good wholesome wheat to kill the rat.

Sadly, I could not agree more.

And likewise for the likes of David Korish, whose community was done in by our wonderful Attorney General some years ago.
I last said:

It makes me very sad to hear you say that, DHK, because when I go to Mass, I ALWAYS hear the gospel! I always hear the gospel PREACHED!

Here is what I heard last Sunday:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven, whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, 'How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?'

Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.'"

Then my pastor based his sermon on this gospel, read at all Masses throughout the world on that Sunday, and guess what he talked about? The holy Eucharist! He also spoke upon the fulfillment of this promise by Christ by speaking of what Christ did at the Last Supper on the night before He died!

When was the last time you heard a sermon, based upon this gospel, in your church, DHK?

That is not the gospel, and it cannot save. If you call it the gospel, it is a false gospel even though it may contain Scripture. One cannot get saved or be born again hearing that message. Or at least it is very unlikely that anyone ever would. The word gospel simply means "good news." The good news is that Jesus Christ died according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. (1Cor.15:3,4). The gospel is believing in that sacrifice of Christ alone is sufficient to take away your sins and give you eternal life by simply believing in what He did on the cross for you, and trusting Him and Him alone by faith. There is no "eucharist," no sacrament, no baptism, no mass, no kind of work at all involved. Simply trust Him and what He has done for you, and that is all. The gospel is very simple. The Catholic Church has obscured it.

Well, I kind of lead you down the garden path, DHK, but it does point out that we have serious disagreements as to what is the gospel and what is not. I won't do it here, as it is an entirely 'nother thread, but I am fully prepared to demonstrate how the quotes I give above demonstrate the actual literal sense of what Christ is saying here that leads to the doctrine of transubstantiation and the true meaning of the Eucharist.

I may have recently done this already, if you are interested, and dig into the archives in this forum, if available…

You previously said:

The answer to all the different churches lies in the Bible. Most of all your different churches result in a failure to follow the Bible, or to have the Bible as their final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. They fail to beieve it, and fail to obey it.
And I previously replied:

You are sooooooo right, DHK, and the above gospel message I gave as an example is a prime example of "fail(ing) to obey it" (gospel)!

But your example does not deal with the right gospel.

I previously said:

DHK, let's stick to the subject at hand; we can discuss Holy Orders and what they are another time. The point I am trying to make is, the successors of the apostles had to inherit authority by succession from the apostles if the church was to ever remain cohesive and one. After all, did not Christ speak of "One fold and one shepherd" that were to be his followers? The other issues you raise also gets us off-topic, but I will be happy to discuss them at a later time.

Simply put there is no succession or any precedent for succession. Go back to India and Thomas. Your model just doesn't work. Each church's pastor is called of God, not of man. I know of a church not far from here who called a pastor who has never been to Bible College or Seminary of any kind. His church is doing well. As far as the Bible is concerned, he is self-taught. I don't advise this for everyone, but I am not going to criticize this man or his work either. It is God that has called him, not man.

What has the Indian model with St. Thomas have to do with succession? As a matter of fact, I understand that the Church was without priests to could celebrate Mass and a bishop who could ordain priests to celebrate Mass until they were once again, be reunited with the very Church who St. Thomas was an apostle in! (Off the top of my head, recalling reading something about this…)
And by the way, this also happened in Japan, where the first Catholic missionaries were martyred! For years, there was no bishop or priest to minister to them, yet when the Catholic missionaries returned, their Catholic faith was intact without error. Incredible story!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)