Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

[Matt Black]

No it wasn't. And the Bible doesn't say that. Why change the plain teaching of the Bible into "traditions of men," which Jesus soundly condemned?

Your view would hold water if this was the 'traditions of men'. But it isn't

Acts 8:3-4 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
--There is no "tradition" here; only the sound preaching of the Word of God.

But not the complete Word (by evangelical definition ie: the Bible) since the NT did not exist; not one of its 27 books had been written at that point, so 'Word of God' there cannot mean the NT.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
--The Apostles and early Christians obeyed the command of Christ and....preached tradition??NOT!!!
They preached the gospel everywhere they went, as Christ commanded them.

Yes. And? Did they preach from the written NT? No! It hadn't been written. So they must have been preaching from something other than the NT.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--There is no tradition here. Paul taught the Word to Timothy. Timothy taught the Word to faithful men, who in turn were to disciple others in instructing them in the Word of God also. There is no tradition.

How can you be so blind?! It's there! You yourself said that Paul "taught the Word". Now, what do you mean by that term? You surely can't mean the NT, because although that was by then partly written, it was not complete. As we were discussing in the thread on the Word of God, it must mean Scripture plus something else, and that something else is Apostolic Tradition - that which is 'handed down '- of which you have a very plain example in the verse you just quoted: Paul hands something down to Timothy who is enjoined to hand the same thing on. What's he handing on? Not the Scriptures - they're not complete yet, and if Oaul had meant the Scriptures he would have said so. He's asking Timothy to hand down what he's heard, not what's been written.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
--It doesn't say to study tradition; rather to study so that one might rightly divide the word of truth. Study the Word of God.

Again, I ask you to define that term in the light of the fact that the Scriptures were not yet complete still yet canonised.

The duty of the Apostles:
Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
--No tradition here.
--The emphasis everywhere is on the Word; and nowhere on tradition.
The only emphasis on tradition is when Jesus condemns it as commandments of man that are followed instead of the Word of God.

But we're not talking about that - we're talking about Apostolic Tradition, the teaching of the Apostles, handed down - all of which is referenced in those Scriptures you've quoted.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And DHK conviently leaves out this word of Paul in 2 Timothy 1:13

13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

The entire NT was not writen at this time. Paul clearly indicates for Timothy to keep what he HEARD from Paul not read from Pauls letters. Keep as the PATTERN which implies pattern or form or matrix. to GUARD TEH DEPOSIT of Pauls spoken words or the Deposit of Faith which Paul handed down before the entire NT was written. Its clear. This verse says the word of God which is often translated bible just says word. No qualifiers on how its passed. And its directed to church leadership in the wider context of the chapter with regard to people who claim the resurection has already occured.

15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Since the book of Revelation had many more years before being writen we must assume that the doctrine of our future resurection was orally passed on by Paul to at least Timothy. And so we come to Pauls discussion of the scriptures themselves and he says:

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

but he wasn't speaking about the NT and as I've mentioned before there is question as to what he meant by ALL scriptures with regard to the qumran find and the LXX. But at least this Paul could not have been speaking of the NT but the OT and at least the Tanakh.

And so when I view the revisionist history I hear on this board with regard to the origin of the baptist churches being from Christ until Constantine and remain hidden unil the reformation this verse brings a chill down my spine:

3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

 

[DHK]

Matt and Thinkingstuff,
Let's not be naive, as I think you are both being. Compare the age of the early Christians to the time that William Carey, founder of modern missionary movement, went to India in the last decade of the 18th century and most of the first half of the 19th century.

While he was there he translated the Bible into seven different languages.
But his accomplishments didn't stop there.

However, the press itself and the punches were saved, and the mission was able to continue printing in six months. In Carey's lifetime, the mission printed and distributed the Bible in whole or part in 44 languages and dialects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)


If the entire Bible was printed in seven different languages then in 37 other languages they either had the entire NT, or some of the books of the NT. Either way there were 44 ethnic groups of India that had the Word of God. It did not matter if it was all 66 books. They still had the Word of God, were able to understand the gospel, preach the gospel, teach the gospel, spread the gospel, all just like the NT churches were able to do. Your arguments above are quite fruitless. Just because a group of people are missing some of the books of the Bible, does not mean they don't have the Word of God. Many today don't have the entire Bible translated into their language, but they still have "the Word of God." Some, today, only have John and Romans. Do we say that they don't have God's Word? No. They don't have the entire Bible, but they do have the Word of God. Read the Bible carefully.


Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Matt and Thinkingstuff,
Let's not be naive, as I think you are both being. Compare the age of the early Christians to the time that William Carey, founder of modern missionary movement, went to India in the last decade of the 18th century and most of the first half of the 19th century.

While he was there he translated the Bible into seven different languages.
But his accomplishments didn't stop there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Carey_(missionary)


If the entire Bible was printed in seven different languages then in 37 other languages they either had the entire NT, or some of the books of the NT. Either way there were 44 ethnic groups of India that had the Word of God. It did not matter if it was all 66 books. They still had the Word of God, were able to understand the gospel, preach the gospel, teach the gospel, spread the gospel, all just like the NT churches were able to do. Your arguments above are quite fruitless. Just because a group of people are missing some of the books of the Bible, does not mean they don't have the Word of God. Many today don't have the entire Bible translated into their language, but they still have "the Word of God." Some, today, only have John and Romans. Do we say that they don't have God's Word? No. They don't have the entire Bible, but they do have the Word of God. Read the Bible carefully.


Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says.

I like William Carey a lot. However, there is no comparison. I'm not being naive. By the Time of William Carey the printing press had already been developed and advanced where books could be printed much more cheeply. Propagation of delivering bibles were only inexpensive in comparision and travel was also much more developed. Steam engines could propel boats no mater what directions the winds were going in. A systematic road system was also developed making passage into more remote areas more accessable. The Fact is your right with your very last statement. They didn't have the bible but they had the word of God which was delivered orally and by tradition from their church. So to say baptist churches were extant at the time of the apostles are disgenuous. And not reliant on actual historical data.

 

[DHK]

The Fact is your right with your very last statement. They didn't have the bible but they had the word of God which was delivered orally and by tradition from their church. So to say baptist churches were extant at the time of the apostles are disgenuous. And not reliant on actual historical data.

Why do you bear false witness?
I said no such thing. You won't find the word "tradition" in my quote at all. Please quote where I said tradition. Why is it that those who claim to be Christians deliberately misrepresent others? I will never understand it. I continue to say that tradition never played a role. They preached the Word, not tradition.
Either quote me accurately or retract what you said.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Why do you bear false witness?
I said no such thing. You won't find the word "tradition" in my quote at all. Please quote where I said tradition. Why is it that those who claim to be Christians deliberately misrepresent others? I will never understand it. I continue to say that tradition never played a role. They preached the Word, not tradition.
Either quote me accurately or retract what you said.

I am referencing your statement here:

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says

Which means that the word was passed on Orally and by Tradition until the establishment of all 66 books (at least) as canon. It's the next logical step to your very last statement. You were right in that they did not deliver the bible to all the early churches instead they preached the word. And they did that verbally and by how "they had church". Which is why there are so many references to liturgical worship in the earliest of christian documents. And that is tradition.
I know you don't believe in tradition but I was commenting on your statement and showing the next logical conclusion.

 

[DHK]

I am referencing your statement here:


Which means that the word was passed on Orally and by Tradition until the establishment of all 66 books (at least) as canon. It's the next logical step to your very last statement. You were right in that they did not deliver the bible to all the early churches instead they preached the word. And they did that verbally and by how "they had church". Which is why there are so many references to liturgical worship in the earliest of christian documents. And that is tradition.
I know you don't believe in tradition but I was commenting on your statement and showing the next logical conclusion.

Which means.... No it does not mean that at all.
If you want further clarification of what I said, then ask.
Don't read my mind. I said what I said. I know what I said, and if you can't understand the English that I wrote maybe I should try another language. Don't read into what I said. I did not say what you "think I meant," or unwisely concluded. Ask for clarification if you need it.

Otherwise you have falsely misrepresented me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which means.... No it does not mean that at all.
If you want further clarification of what I said, then ask.
Don't read my mind. I said what I said. I know what I said, and if you can't understand the English that I wrote maybe I should try another language. Don't read into what I said. I did not say what you "think I meant," or unwisely concluded. Ask for clarification if you need it.

Otherwise you have falsely misrepresented me.

Let me clarify what I'm saying:

You said:

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says

The bold part indicates that the bible was not given as a whole to all the churches by the apostles. That is where you stopped. My statment was that bolded part was correct. Then I was adding on to what you said by taking the next logical step which I stated. So here I'm differentiating between what you actually said and my statement which jumped from your statement.

Now for the record for everyone who reads this thread and post and to all future generations of BB members let me make this statement:

DHK DOES NOT BELIEVE IN TRADITION. HE THINKS THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THE APOSTLES DEPARTED TRADITION IS WRONG. DHK DOES NOT HOLD THAT VIEW.

Does that help?

 

[DHK]

I am referencing your statement here:


Which means that the word was passed on Orally and by Tradition until the establishment of all 66 books (at least) as canon. It's the next logical step to your very last statement. You were right in that they did not deliver the bible to all the early churches instead they preached the word. And they did that verbally and by how "they had church". Which is why there are so many references to liturgical worship in the earliest of christian documents. And that is tradition.
I know you don't believe in tradition but I was commenting on your statement and showing the next logical conclusion.

This is not a conclusion, especially when the Bible says that, that is not what they did. They went everywhere preaching the word--full stop.
The only thing that was passed on in those churches that remained true to God's Word, was the teaching of the Word of God, and that is not tradition. We have the preaching of the Word of God every Sunday and Wednesday, and sometimes at other times as well. Just because it is preached orally does not put it in the realm of tradition. Where does such a silly idea like that come from? It is still the Word of God being communicated. It is the preaching of the Word of God as commanded by Christ. It has nothing to do with tradition.

The canon was established at the end of the first century when John finished the Book of Revelation. It was established by the Holy Spirit, recognized by the Apostles, and taught to early believers. Let me emphasize: It did not need the stamp of the RCC to become the Bible.
Liturgical worship was a by-product of error slipping into the churches at that time. See my previous posts about the ECF's doctrinal errors. The early church did not have liturgical worship. That is obvious from a simple study of the book of Acts.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The canon was established at the end of the first century when John finished the Book of Revelation. It was established by the Holy Spirit, recognized by the Apostles, and taught to early believers. Let me emphasize: It did not need the stamp of the RCC to become the Bible.
Liturgical worship was a by-product of error slipping into the churches at that time. See my previous posts about the ECF's doctrinal errors. The early church did not have liturgical worship. That is obvious from a simple study of the book of Acts.

First of all no one mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. Or its stamp of approval on anything. What we are discussing is the transmition of the Gospel and Christianity to the earliest Churches.

You make two errors. First of all canon was not established at the end of the first century. Show me your evidence. The completion of the writings of the NT was at the end of the first century but not its canonization. To believe otherwise is myth. (which is what we are discussing) Canon came much later. It is clear that not all the churches had all 66 books of scripture we now know as the bible. It is also clear that the churches used other writings by other leaders and believed them to be authoritative to a point. Review what Tinytim mentioned on his post. Tinytim is correct. To believe that canon was established as canon by the end of the first century you must hold to a conspiracy theory that the Roman Catholic church has a on going plan since the time of the apostles to decieve Christians. And in that Case you fall into the same catagory as Dan Brown. The second error is that Liturgy is an example of departure from truth. I would say liturgy of the early church was an attempt to proclaim truth. The word were we get the term liturgy is mentioned in the NT itself indication of what type of worship may have been expressed. Also note that the disciples are Jews their mode of worship was liturgical. It is reasonable to think that they carried forward the appropiate aspects of liturgy into the christian faith. And when you read the didache and Hyppolytus Apostolic traditions you can see it Jewish roots.

It seems to me (and I admit I may be wrong) that you hate the Roman Catholic church so much that you must accept the myth of first century baptist no matter the facts. But note that within the first three centuries christians (to include present day orthodox churches) called themselves Catholic not Roman Catholic. Which meant they believed they were united in faith. That all Christian churches were universal.

 

[DHK]

First of all no one mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. Or its stamp of approval on anything. What we are discussing is the transmition of the Gospel and Christianity to the earliest Churches.

You make two errors. First of all canon was not established at the end of the first century. Show me your evidence. The completion of the writings of the NT was at the end of the first century but not its canonization. To believe otherwise is myth.

To believe other than what I have presented is to believe the revisionist history of the RCC and their brainwashing down throughout the centuries. They have done a good job haven't they? They have even convinced you.
Are you so naive as to believe that the 12 Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Himself did not know which books were Scripture (inspired) and which were not, even though Christ promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth? This is truly amazing! You think the Apostles themselves were ignorant. Well join with the Pharisees; they thought the same thing.

(which is what we are discussing) Canon came much later.

You can believe that "myth" if you like. I prefer to believe actual Scriptural evidence that points to the fact that the Apostles knew which writings were Scripture.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter commands his readers to remember the words, not only of the prophets of the OT, but of the Apostles of the NT, which were the writers of the NT Scripture. Those were the things that they were to remember.

Read on:
2 Peter 3:15-16 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.
--Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture, and he knew which writings of Paul were Scripture and which were not.

It is clear that not all the churches had all 66 books of scripture we now know as the bible.

So? I gave you the example of William Carey. Did you not understand my example? He translated the Bible (66 books) into 7 different languages, but he translated only parts of the Bible into 37 other languages. Does that mean that those 37 other ethnic groups did not have the Word of God. No it does not. They may not have had the entire Word of God--all 66 books, but that doesn't matter. Even today there are nations that don't have the entire Bible translated into their language. Your point is moot.

It is also clear that the churches used other writings by other leaders and believed them to be authoritative to a point.

Authoritative or inspired? There is a difference. I have many books which I believe to be authoritative. Strong's concordance is an authoritative book, as is Thayer's Lexicon. But they don't replace the Bible. Early Christians knew which was inspired Scripture, and which was not.

Review what Tinytim mentioned on his post. Tinytim is correct. To believe that canon was established as canon by the end of the first century you must hold to a conspiracy theory that the Roman Catholic church has a on going plan since the time of the apostles to decieve Christians. And in that Case you fall into the same catagory as Dan Brown.

I don't know who Dan Brown is, but I know that the RCC has done a good job of deceiving many. I suppose you believe that Peter was the pope at Rome for 25 years as well.

The second error is that Liturgy is an example of departure from truth. I would say liturgy of the early church was an attempt to proclaim truth. The word were we get the term liturgy is mentioned in the NT itself indication of what type of worship may have been expressed. Also note that the disciples are Jews their mode of worship was liturgical. It is reasonable to think that they carried forward the appropiate aspects of liturgy into the christian faith. And when you read the didache and Hyppolytus Apostolic traditions you can see it Jewish roots.

Etymology does not determine meaning. If it did, on the first day of the week we should be worshiping the sun, and on the fifth day of the week we should worship the god of Thor, and on the last day of the week we should worship the god of Saturn. A hamburger is neither made of ham nor is it a "burger," (a formally defined class of medieval Germany--burgher) if you want to look at etymologies.

The disciples left their Judaism behind. Christianity was a new religion, not rehashed Judaism as so many think. The very fact that the early church did not have instruments whereas the OT did should speak volumes of how much change they went through. The OT had an elaborate Temple; in the NT the body was the temple. The OT had synagogues. The NT had houses to meet in, or the catacombs (graveyards) or open fields, just wherever they could. It was not a carry over. It was new, different, radically different.
If liturgy was introduced it was probably introduced at the time of Constantine with all the other idols and paganization of Chrisitianity.
What is "reasonable" to think, is what is found in the NT, in the book of Acts, where we see believers gathering around the Word of God in simple fashion.

It seems to me (and I admit I may be wrong) that you hate the Roman Catholic church so much that you must accept the myth of first century baptist no matter the facts.

The false accusation of hate should be deleted, shouldn't it. Can you read the heart?
Perhaps I have studied history with better sources and from a more accurate perspective than you have.

But note that within the first three centuries christians (to include present day orthodox churches) called themselves Catholic not Roman Catholic. Which meant they believed they were united in faith. That all Christian churches were universal.

They were not united in faith in the first three centuries. You are far from the truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To believe other than what I have presented is to believe the revisionist history of the RCC and their brainwashing down throughout the centuries. They have done a good job haven't they? They have even convinced you.
Are you so naive as to believe that the 12 Apostles who walked and talked with Jesus Himself did not know which books were Scripture (inspired) and which were not, even though Christ promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth? This is truly amazing! You think the Apostles themselves were ignorant. Well join with the Pharisees; they thought the same thing.

You can believe that "myth" if you like. I prefer to believe actual Scriptural evidence that points to the fact that the Apostles knew which writings were Scripture.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter commands his readers to remember the words, not only of the prophets of the OT, but of the Apostles of the NT, which were the writers of the NT Scripture. Those were the things that they were to remember.

Read on:
2 Peter 3:15-16 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.
--Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture, and he knew which writings of Paul were Scripture and which were not.

So? I gave you the example of William Carey. Did you not understand my example? He translated the Bible (66 books) into 7 different languages, but he translated only parts of the Bible into 37 other languages. Does that mean that those 37 other ethnic groups did not have the Word of God. No it does not. They may not have had the entire Word of God--all 66 books, but that doesn't matter. Even today there are nations that don't have the entire Bible translated into their language. Your point is moot.

Authoritative or inspired? There is a difference. I have many books which I believe to be authoritative. Strong's concordance is an authoritative book, as is Thayer's Lexicon. But they don't replace the Bible. Early Christians knew which was inspired Scripture, and which was not.

I don't know who Dan Brown is, but I know that the RCC has done a good job of deceiving many. I suppose you believe that Peter was the pope at Rome for 25 years as well.

Etymology does not determine meaning. If it did, on the first day of the week we should be worshiping the sun, and on the fifth day of the week we should worship the god of Thor, and on the last day of the week we should worship the god of Saturn. A hamburger is neither made of ham nor is it a "burger," (a formally defined class of medieval Germany--burgher) if you want to look at etymologies.

The disciples left their Judaism behind. Christianity was a new religion, not rehashed Judaism as so many think. The very fact that the early church did not have instruments whereas the OT did should speak volumes of how much change they went through. The OT had an elaborate Temple; in the NT the body was the temple. The OT had synagogues. The NT had houses to meet in, or the catacombs (graveyards) or open fields, just wherever they could. It was not a carry over. It was new, different, radically different.
If liturgy was introduced it was probably introduced at the time of Constantine with all the other idols and paganization of Chrisitianity.
What is "reasonable" to think, is what is found in the NT, in the book of Acts, where we see believers gathering around the Word of God in simple fashion.

The false accusation of hate should be deleted, shouldn't it. Can you read the heart?
Perhaps I have studied history with better sources and from a more accurate perspective than you have.

They were not united in faith in the first three centuries. You are far from the truth.

Dan Brown is an author who wrote the novel "The Davinci Code" and it was also inacurate. I'm saying you're belief is of the same mythical nature as Dan Brown's book. Which, BTW, he also believes to the exclusion of Fact.

I have already mentioned the verse used in the book of 2 Peter. But will not find all of the other letters mentioned. Not only which there is still debate over who wrote the book of Hebrews.

I would like to know what sources you consider accurate with regard to the early church. Whom have you read? Have you read the writings of the ECF? Or just excerpts another person mentioned. What where their educational background. How can you determine if they are more accurate source? Do you base it on if they agree with your perspective? Which is not a very scientific method at approaching a problem. You don't start with a bias.

As far as leaving Judaism behind I find it funny you would say that. Because you can see in the book of Acts that the first place Paul would go is the Synagogue. And he used their scriptures. Not only that but the church in the book of Acts had a problem with judiasers. Why would that be if they did not feel comfortable in the Christian service. If it was too foriegn they would not have participated.

Etymology is very important when studing scriptures which is why many pastors and theologians spend time studying Greek and Hebrew and Syriac, and Aramaic.

There is evidence (didache, Hyppolytus) that liturgy was practiced long before Constantine. The Didache may have coincided with the writing of the gospel of Mark which traditon says was written in Rome by a follower of Peter. Who do you think wrote the gospel of Mark. If your anwer is the same you accept certain tradition. And tradition promulgated by the RCC.

I can say anything seems a certain way to me which it does. I can't say for certain what your heart is doing but I can say it seems to me by such and such you heart is doing this or that. I did say I may be wrong but its how it looks to me. But if you really want me to take back that it seems to me you hate the RCC I will. I trust what you say with regard to yourself.

I like emperical evidence. I like facts. I don't think the myth of the earliest churches are Baptist. I actually think that modern day baptist come from several different protestant movement. Some came from the Ana baptist, others came from the Puritans but none came from the 1st centrury church. There is still no evidence of it. Show me your sources I'll read them and weigh the facts.

 

[Matt Black]

Matt and Thinkingstuff,

If the entire Bible was printed in seven different languages then in 37 other languages they either had the entire NT, or some of the books of the NT. Either way there were 44 ethnic groups of India that had the Word of God. It did not matter if it was all 66 books. They still had the Word of God, were able to understand the gospel, preach the gospel, teach the gospel, spread the gospel, all just like the NT churches were able to do. Your arguments above are quite fruitless. Just because a group of people are missing some of the books of the Bible, does not mean they don't have the Word of God. Many today don't have the entire Bible translated into their language, but they still have "the Word of God." Some, today, only have John and Romans. Do we say that they don't have God's Word? No. They don't have the entire Bible, but they do have the Word of God. Read the Bible carefully.


Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.--Nowhere does it say that they went abroad preaching a canon of 66 books of the Bible. It says that they went preaching the Word. Take the Bible at face value. Don't read into it any more than what it says.

Thank you for demonstrating my point: that the Word of God does not equal the entirety of Scripture or even Scripture alone; you've demonstrated the principle that the Word of God equals Scripture plus Apostolic oral preaching and teaching. Thank you. I rest my case.

 

[Matt Black]

The early church did not have liturgical worship. That is obvious from a simple study of the book of Acts.

Wow...just...wow! (Thinkingstuff has answered the rest.)

 

[Matt Black]

To believe other than what I have presented is to believe the revisionist history of the RCC and their brainwashing down throughout the centuries. They have done a good job haven't they? They have even convinced you.

Not Thinkingstuff, but no-one has 'convinced' me. Only the evidence, which you deny, has convinced me. On the contrary, it is your view which is the 'Trail of Blood'-style, Carroll-ist revisionist mythological one which denies the plain facts, even when they are set out in the very words of Scripture from which you quote. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand?

 

[Eric B]

As far as leaving Judaism behind I find it funny you would say that. Because you can see in the book of Acts that the first place Paul would go is the Synagogue. And he used their scriptures. Not only that but the church in the book of Acts had a problem with judiasers. Why would that be if they did not feel comfortable in the Christian service. If it was too foriegn they would not have participated.

Since much of the early Church was Jewish, they started off in the synagogues, and followed many of its practices including the sabbaths (which the sabbathkeepers here had always argued). But the rift grew, and the Churches were kicked out of the synagogues, all of that stopped, and the Church did not continue all of that stuff (the biggest evidences being the sabbaths). It was even considered "old wineskins".

No, the liturgy didn't all start with Constantine. It was gradually reintroduced, and had nothing to do with the synagogues.

 

[DHK]

No, the liturgy didn't all start with Constantine. It was gradually reintroduced, and had nothing to do with the synagogues.

True, many things were gradually introduced. I explained that in a previous post. However, by the time of Constantine, when the Christianity was made a state-church, the liturgy was complete or full-blown. It didn't all of a sudden exist as the others are implying. It is the same with RCC. We know that the Assumption of Mary for example, wasn't even made an official doctrine until 1950.

 

[DHK]

Thank you for demonstrating my point: that the Word of God does not equal the entirety of Scripture or even Scripture alone; you've demonstrated the principle that the Word of God equals Scripture plus Apostolic oral preaching and teaching. Thank you. I rest my case.

Your case is only rested in a complete lack of understanding of the transmission of Scripture. Even when examples are given you throw them out the window. How pitiful!

 

[DHK]

Not Thinkingstuff, but no-one has 'convinced' me. Only the evidence, which you deny, has convinced me. On the contrary, it is your view which is the 'Trail of Blood'-style, Carroll-ist revisionist mythological one which denies the plain facts, even when they are set out in the very words of Scripture from which you quote. I really don't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand?

Please read carefully:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1376498&postcount=24

and

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1376499&postcount=25

 

[Eric B]

And so we see how, little by little (though I'm actually more inclined to say lottle by lottle,) the Early Church Fathers took Christian churches from being a proliferation of little localised extended families, and made them instead into a worldwide hierarchical religious corporation. It is evident too how this first error, which I refer to as their foundational one, made it inevitable that more errors would soon follow. This wrong teaching about the very nature of the leadership and government of the church gave Christian leaders, in the form of Priests and Bishops, such authority that whatever else they ended up teaching was accepted virtually automatically as being from the Lord.

Great article!
And this right here would answer the question "why no one opposed the error coming in". Who would be able to? John was the last Apostle, and he was banished to Patmos. Polycarp was a disciple of his, and he still seems to be in line with the NT. Ignatius' link to John seems to be speculated by Eusebius with uncertainty (a "tradition" also says he was one of the "children" blessed by Jesus). Even so, Ignatius wrote well after John, so John is no longer in the picture.
He did write a letter to Polycarp (which is easily available), and in 2:9-12, he does repeatedly urge "hearken to the bishop", but that by itself does not sound like anything to oppose. It was so subtle, and not easily picked up in just one letter. Only when you see the whole overall trend, (including the overemphasis of the bishop in all of his letters together) does the shift become clear. So Polycarp would not have anything to oppose (and there was no TV or even print media to carry every word a person teaches). Though Polycarp would have a dispute with Rome, which the "apostolic sucessionists" here always brush aside.

Then when you look at what Clement did (I never even caught onto that one!), he's appealing to the Old Testament "order", and since that was the "scripture" of the church (before the NT was widespread), who would be able to quesion that? Once the all authoritative "clergy" system was on place, they had complete control over the floc, and spread there ideas far and wide, quickly. So by the time you get to Vincent with his three "criteria", you're already way out in left field!

And so when I view the revisionist history I hear on this board with regard to the origin of the baptist churches being from Christ until Constantine and remain hidden unil the reformation this verse brings a chill down my spine:
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Well, this is exactly what we see transpiring in this period.

And DHK conviently leaves out this word of Paul in 2 Timothy 1:13
The entire NT was not writen at this time. Paul clearly indicates for Timothy to keep what he HEARD from Paul not read from Pauls letters. Keep as the PATTERN which implies pattern or form or matrix. to GUARD TEH DEPOSIT of Pauls spoken words or the Deposit of Faith which Paul handed down before the entire NT was written. Its clear. This verse says the word of God which is often translated bible just says word. No qualifiers on how its passed. And its directed to church leadership in the wider context of the chapter with regard to people who claim the resurection has already occured.

So I also ask, regarding the so-called "oral tradition", we have focused on baptism and communion, but what about this other stuff? Is all of this power conferred on the bishops another one of those "traditions" the apostles passed down orally only, but never happened to write? And what about what Agnus quoted on that new Easter thread. The EOC deliberately avoids holding Pascha on the same day as the Jews whenever they coincide (Anti-semitism prevalent in postapostolic centuries. So much for taking the liturgy from the synagogues!)
Is that stuff really that "pattern" or "Deposit of faith" "handed down" they "heard", Paul was referring to? And why did they never write all of this, but Ignatius and later did, and with increasing emphasis? Looks more like a development to me (according to Occam's Razor--simplest plausible explanation of the facts).
Since the book of Revelation had many more years before being writen we must assume that the doctrine of our future resurection was orally passed on by Paul to at least Timothy. And so we come to Pauls discussion of the scriptures themselves and he says: but he wasn't speaking about the NT and as I've mentioned before there is question as to what he meant by ALL scriptures with regard to the qumran find and the LXX. But at least this Paul could not have been speaking of the NT but the OT and at least the Tanakh.

Which would also fly in the face of Christ's Words when He promised to protect His Church, led His Church into all truth, be with His Church until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell would never prevail.
Hard for me to believe that these promises were held hostage until Luther, some 1500 years later finally figured it all out.

While the notion of various sects representing a "proto-baptist" church might not be true, the fact that we still have the Word ofGod, and hence a body of believer in Christ shows that this promise was kept, and it did not rest in an organization of controlling leaders!