If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

[Alexander]

The 'scripture-only' crowd conveniently forgets (or perhaps never knew) that the New Testament canon did not fall out of the sky into their laps as a completed work.

In the 1st 300 or 400 years of the life of the church, many different books circulated within the church. Depending on where you lived (and when), you might hear some of the Scriptures in our NT read at church, others that we have you might never hear, and you might even hear others read (and accepted as authoritative) that we no longer consider to be Scripture.

It wasn't until an ecumenical council of bishops (of the - gasp - ancient catholic church) that an authoritative list of the books of the NT was promulgated.

So I ask those who believe in sola Scriptura: what do you say about the fact that the early Church did quite well for over 300 years without your red-letter, King James Bible in red calfskin?

Alexander

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks.

I really can't see how it can possibly be argued that, for example, calvinism and arminianism can be on the same side or indeed can be anything other than mutually anathematising. Canons of Dort, anyone?

 

[Chemnitz]

I disagree with the assessment of the formation of Scripture. Prior to the alluded to council there is evidence in the ECF writings of books that were accepted as canon by how they cited them in their works. Also evidence in the Letters of Peter indicates that even before the Apostles finished their ministry books of the NT were already accepted as scripture. I really don't buy the idea the Church was behind the formation of the canon. The Church defended the canon, but they did not form it.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
I disagree with the assessment of the formation of Scripture. Prior to the alluded to council there is evidence in the ECF writings of books that were accepted as canon by how they cited them in their works.

I generally agree. No Church council came up with an arbitrary list of books which were not already being used. However, it took a while for there to be a consensus in the universal Church on which books constituted the NT canon. The first listing that exactly mentions our 27 book NT was in the Paschal letter of Athanasius in AD 367. About a decade earlier at the council of Laodicea 26 books were mentioned (Revelation was left off). Before that the various lists either were missing books we all now accept and/or included others which only had local canonicity such as Hermas, First Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, and Didache. Church councils were indeed instrumental in arriving at the universal consensus about which books were canonical with all the books having already been considered canonical at least by some in the Church from the beginning.

Also evidence in the Letters of Peter indicates that even before the Apostles finished their ministry books of the NT were already accepted as scripture.

True, Peter in his Second Epistle specifically calls Paul's letters Scripture. This testifies to the fact that the Pauline corpus (for the most part) was among the earliest books to be widely considered authoritative along with the four Gospels. Ironically, Peter's Second Epistle itself was among those books (along with James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation, and 2/3 John) which were "disputed" (ie not universally accepted as genuine) for several centuries. (This is probably because it initially had a much narrower circulation than Paul's letters, and by the time it circulated beyond its initial recipients other spurious works were also being circulated as well.)

I really don't buy the idea the Church was behind the formation of the canon. The Church defended the canon, but they did not form it.

Well, I don't think it's "either/or". The canon was formed in the Church as the Apostles of the Church wrote letters under the inspiration of the Spirit to the Church. The same Spirit with time, based on how the books were used liturgically in the Church and how they aligned with the Apostolic "rule of faith" handed down in the Church, led the Church to come to a consensus regarding with books were authentically apostolic and thus canonical.

 

[Eliyahu]

Was it in chaos of Bible scriptures before the Councils like Nicean 325 AD? During 100-325 AD is the period like the time from US independence until now. Imagine there was no rule or no canon since US independence.
Many people misunderstand about canonization process. I don't believe God used the hands of the idol worshippers or inquisitors. The main problem is that RC destroyed so many true believers who preserved the Bible, like Albigenes or De Vois people, then Rc condemned them as heresies. What are the left over of those people's literatures? Does Rc have the literatures stated by their own hands? Is that the Holy technique of RC?
Does Bible teach that any heretics should be tortured and killed ?
It has been quite typical technique of Rc that they describe what the victims didn't claim, as if they had claimed.
Therefore, as I said before, on this thread, we must deal with Inquisition, Destruction of Bibles by RC, first. What are left? Why were they destroyed? What did Albigenes preserve until death?

I already mentioned about my belief denying theotokos, papacy, idol worship etc. If I had lived during Dark Age unbder RC, would my belief have been recorded properly and remained until now? Would there had been none or only a few during Dark Ages who had the same belief as I do now? There must have been plenty of people protected by God ! Where are the records of their assertions?

In China a monument was found which dates back to 86 AD, stating the Christianity. Without RC, there had been many activities of Christians throughout the world under the guidance of Holy Spirit.
There were many true believers throughout the history, like Montanus, Paulicans, Bogomils, Cathari, Donatusian, Nestorian, Moravian etc, whose beliefs are often misrecorded or distorted intentionally by those who tortured and kill them.

What we have to do is to dig up the wells of history as Isaac dug wells again and again after Amalekites destroyed them again and again, believing that God knows the true history of the past.

 

[Matt Black]

Oh dear, who's been reading too much J M Carroll's "Trail of Bull", then?

Let's look at your list of True Christians™, then:

Montanists - I'll just about give you them. They were akin to the modern charismatic movement which strayed off into what we would today call Word of Faith. Not persecuted, but excommunicated by the Catholics and Orthodox. (DHK and Pastor Larry wouldn't have liked them much.)

Donatists (I presume you meant) - even more grudgingly give you them. Schismatic rather than heretical. Excommunicated by the Catholic and Orthodox, not persecuted.

Nestorians - heretical. Said Jesus had two personalities. You ask how you would have got on in the Dark Ages; you probably would have ended up with this lot and ended up living in what is now Iran or India; OTOH they might have taken issue with some of your more far-out ideas and ended up persecuting you anyway.

Paulicians - now we're getting definitely heretical: Manicheeistic gnostic dualists. Believed all matter was evil. See also Bogomils while we're at it.

Cathari/ Albigensians - see Paulicians. Heretics. Doesn't excuse their persecution by the Inquisition, but heretics nevertheless.

De Vois - never heard of them. Who they?

Moravians - do you mean the Moravian Brethren of the 18th century? If so, they stemmed from the Pietist wing of Lutheranism. I'll definitely give you those, but not sure what if at all they have to do with the Catholic Church. If you mean OTOH the Bohemian Hussites then I'll give you them too and join with you in lamenting their persecution by the medieval Catholic Church

It's a shame you didn't mention the Waldenses, as I would have given you them too as proto-evangelicals.

[ February 22, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

[Chemnitz]

There is nothing like using a little consiparacy theory driven revision of History in order to deny reality.

 

[Chemnitz]

Oh dear, who's been reading too much J M Carroll's "Trail of Bull", then?

Matt is that the actual title or a commentary on the contents of the book.

 

[Matt Black]

A brief review.

 

[Eliyahu]

Caroll is not the only witness, but read Pilgrim Church by E Broadbent, Martyrs by John Foxe, and check the followings:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/thailand/PC-B-000.htm

http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0811Inquisition.html


What about the Museum in Europe, don't they witness something even though the most of the evidences were destroyed?

The more evidence is that RC is working far differently from Bible teachings even now, in such way as Idol worship, Mary Worship, Prayer to dead, Papacy, No Salvation outside Holy Roman Catholic, Purgatory, continuous sacrifice by Mass, etc.

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...I don't think I'd trust your sources to sit the right way round on a bathroom seat.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Oh dear, who's been reading too much J M Carroll's "Trail of Bull", then?

I was thinking the same thing. He does include a lot of known heretics in his list of "true of believers". It's funny (and convenient) how one can claim to know that these groups' "true beliefs" were suppressed or burned etc. I guess anyone--including Mormons and JWs--can apply this argument anywhere in Church history (I mean, poor little Arius!) to justify their claims as the "true" keepers of Christianity.

 

[Matt Black]

Now, poor little Arius came to a messy end on a bathroom seat...

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

"So answer my question then: which of my list of stances does Scripture say to subscribe to?"

None of them.

We are never to put the blinders on and unquestioningly accept as truth the teachings of any group.

We are to prayerfully consider the scriptures as they are taught from whomever we are listening to at that point. With a prayerful attitude of asking God to speak to us through those doing the teaching, and to cause us to hold to what he wants us to hold to, and to not internalise that which He doesnt.

I have listened to teaching by arminians and calvinists and pre-tribs and post-tribs and pentecostals and conservatives, etc etc etc and been greatly blessed, enriched and grown through all of them.

I personally consider myself to be sort of a "Bapticostal Charismatic Assembly of Christer"

And many many born again people think of themselves in that way.

How can that be?...if they are all proclaiming supposedly "contradictory" gospels?

Your claim is rubbish and nonsense.

And a further question: how do you know from Scripture whether those things to which you refer are the 'traditions of men' and not the teaching of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth(1 Tim 3:15)"?

Because the blashphemies, idolatries and exceedingly false teachings found in the Catholic Church are soundly and completly and thunderously contradicted by the truth found in God scriptures.

Arminians see the difference. Calvinsits see the difference. Pre-tribs see the difference. Post-tribs see the difference. Pentecostals see the difference.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Alexander,

"In the 1st 300 or 400 years of the life of the church, many different books circulated within the church. Depending on where you lived (and when), you might hear some of the Scriptures in our NT read at church, others that we have you might never hear, and you might even hear others read (and accepted as authoritative) that we no longer consider to be Scripture.

The scriptures we now refer to as the new testament were all written, circulated, and considered to be scripture by approximetly the end of the 1st century.

"It wasn't until an ecumenical council of bishops (of the - gasp - ancient catholic church) that an authoritative list of the books of the NT was promulgated."

To say that Gods scriptures became Gods scriptures when some group of men "proclaimed" that they were is laughable.

"So I ask those who believe in sola Scriptura: what do you say about the fact that the early Church did quite well for over 300 years without your red-letter, King James Bible in red calfskin?"

The scriptures do not have to be in any one particular form whatsoever for them to be Gods scriptures.

They can be bound into one book, or seperate books. They can be a scroll form, in letter form, on a computer, etc.

At one time they were found chisled in stone.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

"I was thinking the same thing. He does include a lot of known heretics in his list of "true of believers"."

Its just incredible to me that the Catholic Church...(((THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)))...concerns itself with the "pointing of the finger" with the charge of "HERETIC" on its lips.

This is an organisation who...

Places its curse upon the saving gospel of justification through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Proclaims the very gospel (faith plus works) that God Almighty places His curse on in Galatians.

Practices and promotes Goddess worship.

Has the blood of the saints of God on her hands by the multipied thousands if not millions.

Has a Pope...who was one of the most popular of all time...bring together Sihks, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Voodoo practitioners and who know who else all together for a prayer gathering and referes to all of them as his spiritual "brothers".

And yet, we have the "pointing of the finger" from this group.

"23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Do not call anyone "Father"?

"23:10
And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."

What does the Catholic Church say of their organisation? And what do they criticise us for saying?

"23:11
But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.

23:12
And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

23:13
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

23:14
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers."

(ever pray a rosary?)

"Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. F126

23:15
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

23:16
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.'

23:17
Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies F127 the gold?

23:18
And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'

23:19
Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?

23:20
Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it.

23:21
He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells F128 in it.

23:22
And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.

23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

23:24
Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

23:25
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. F129"

The "indugences" of the dark ages? The current child molesting crisis?

"23:26
Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

23:27
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

23:28
Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness"

Very sadly,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"So answer my question then: which of my list of stances does Scripture say to subscribe to?"

None of them.

We are never to put the blinders on and unquestioningly accept as truth the teachings of any group.

We are to prayerfully consider the scriptures as they are taught from whomever we are listening to at that point. With a prayerful attitude of asking God to speak to us through those doing the teaching, and to cause us to hold to what he wants us to hold to, and to not internalise that which He doesnt.

I have listened to teaching by arminians and calvinists and pre-tribs and post-tribs and pentecostals and conservatives, etc etc etc and been greatly blessed, enriched and grown through all of them.</font>[/QUOTE]Then you obviously haven't been properly taught by them or understood their teaching. Did you actually read the link to the Synod of Dort?

I personally consider myself to be sort of a "Bapticostal Charismatic Assembly of Christer"

And many many born again people think of themselves in that way.

Try and get DHK or Pastor Larry to describe themselves in that way.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And a further question: how do you know from Scripture whether those things to which you refer are the 'traditions of men' and not the teaching of the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the truth(1 Tim 3:15)"?

Because the blashphemies, idolatries and exceedingly false teachings found in the Catholic Church are soundly and completly and thunderously contradicted by the truth found in God scriptures.

</font>[/QUOTE]How can this be, since the Church is declared - 'thundered' as you like that word - by that same Scripture to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth. How come you're qualified to interpret the Scriptures but apparently the Catholic Church isn't?

 

[Eliyahu]

Can Roman Catholic be qualified to discern who is heretic or who is orthodox, while they promote the Idol Worship, Prayer to the Dead Woman who is not OmniPresent, Calling the Dead Woman-Mary as Mother of God, Papacy, Torturing People and Killing People in the name of Inquisition, Spreading Heresy of Purgatory, ever-offering Sacrifice without believing the Sacrifice at the Cross once for All?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by jay29:
Then why has it prospered for over 2,000 years and is THE largest denomination of Christianity? Over 1 billion people around the world. Is that for nothing? Shall we ignore that fact? Or has it been guided and protected by the Holy Spirit all these years? Is is not the one that Jesus actually founded on Peter?

The practice of the RC denomination was much like that of the Taliban until the Reformation, they slaughtered all those who dissented. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit does not guide believers into heresy.

 

[Eliyahu]

We must try to avoid Papal Blessings and should be pleased to get the curses from the Popes:

Look at this:

http://www.alamoministries.com/content/english/Antichrist/bewareof.html