Is the Apostle John a Heretic?

[DHK]

You're not following the line of reasoning. My post shows that there is a commonly held view of history that is not substantiated but many here with regard to the early church (just see the history of baptist thread). Then there is historical data that is supported and they are in conflict with each other. The development of the NT is clear. I was contrasting the held view which has no substantive support and actual history with regard to the NT.

If you hold on to one line of reasoning you must conclude that John is a heretic (the initial one I pointed out which many here at the BB believe) based on historical analysis. Or You must give up that line of belief and hold to what actually happened.

However, "what actually happened" is not what you are putting forth. The ECF hold many varied and strange doctrines. That truth cannot be denied. It is well documented. So where does that leave you?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

However, "what actually happened" is not what you are putting forth. The ECF hold many varied and strange doctrines. That truth cannot be denied. It is well documented. So where does that leave you?

I contend that it is. And there is more data in support of my results. Where is the evidence for the opposing view? None is sited. Why not? The usual response is that the Catholics killed them all off or that all their writings were destroyed. Which is not really a valid argument. The gnostics for instance were deemed heretical and died out yet we have finds such as that at Nag Hammurabi which shows their existance. I believe that many here believe in a mythos of baptist churches existing from the very begining throughout history. Much like many Germans bought into the mythos that they are desendents from the lost Israel and that they were destroying the "fake" Israel" represented by the Jews. There is no evidence for either assumptions or Historical myth. Both seem to me an attempt to use a mythology to give historical precident to their beliefs which never really existed. Its a false premise and disingenuous claim. So where does it leave me. In the realm of truth. Where does it leave you?

 

[Eric B]

Your premise is flawed right from the beginning. Instead of assuming that the Bible is inspired, and its writers are telling the truth about God, you have assumed the opposite. You assume that the writings of the ECF are accurate simply because their writings are close to the writings of John. That is incorrect.

Let me give you an example.
Bob Jones University is a fine institution with many Godly graduates that are now pastoring in churches all over this world, including missionaries and others in full time ministry.
However one of its graduates is Peter Ruckman, the founder of KJVOism. If you check his beliefs you will find many other strange beliefs other than KJVOism. One could accurately say that those who follow him are the followers of a cult. Does that make BJU apostate because Peter Ruckman graduated from there?
Here are some of Ruckman's beliefs from one of his own books

http://www.cephas-library.com/evangeliists_peter_ruckman.html

If you are a follower of him you are a follower of a cult, not of the basic beliefs and standards of BJU.

Most of the beliefs of the ECF were at variance with each other. They had strange doctrinal beliefs which contradicted the writings of John. One of them believed that Jesus lived to the age of 80. At least one of them believed in baptismal regeneration. As Matt already pointed out one of them believed in the heresy of transubstantiation. Many of them were caught up in Mariolotry.
And the list goes on. All of these were heretical beliefs to John.
Your premise is flawed.
This is not what John believed, though these men believed this way.

This is the primary reason true Bible-believing Christians throughout the ages have always believed in sola scriptura. They have always gone back to the Word of God as their authority.

What it seems he is doing is pairing together opposing sides. the Catholics say the ECF's all had and continued the apostolic oral tradition, and since they contain evidences of some of the later doctrines and practices, then they were evidence that the Catholic teachings could be extrabiblical, yet still "aspotlic' and just as authoritative.

On the other side, Trail of Blood "Baptist History" theory disputes that, and does generally dismiss ECF's that are shown to have "Catholic-esque" teachings. Yet the theory does regard Polycarp, Polycrates, and maybe one or two others as genuine. (And I don't see any "Catholic" teachings in those two, who are the actual closest to John. It's Justin and later who are "jumped" to. He was not until the middle of the century).

As for BJU, I would say that their "traditional music-only" (TCMO-ism) stance, as well as the segregation they became infamous for were very much cut from the same cloth as KJVO-ism. Looking down on others, and exalting one's own group. Ruckman said it himself: "all truth is English truth". Birds of a feather, to me; only one takes it much further than the last guy. So I see the same one-upmanship. (Falwell enters politics and can condemn society for its godlessness, but then BJIII condemns Falwell as "compromising" --not "separating' enough from certain people; so, not to be outdone, Ruckman can condemn BJ and the others for "compromising" with new translations).

So what I think this shows in this case, is that one person or group being "close" to another may indicate influence, but it is possible for the teaching to be changed from one person to the next. It's like the analogy I have always used in this "tradition" issue. In military training, they gave us a "message" to pass around the room, and by the time it circled back to the beginning, it was totally different. Each person puts their own spin on it, and it is gradual. So the ECF's can only be used as historical guides for tracing Church development. John was the last of the inspired apostles. His doctrine does not hang on theirs.

 

[DHK]

I contend that it is. And there is more data in support of my results. Where is the evidence for the opposing view? None is sited. Why not? The usual response is that the Catholics killed them all off or that all their writings were destroyed. Which is not really a valid argument. The gnostics for instance were deemed heretical and died out yet we have finds such as that at Nag Hammurabi which shows their existance. I believe that many here believe in a mythos of baptist churches existing from the very begining throughout history. Much like many Germans bought into the mythos that they are desendents from the lost Israel and that they were destroying the "fake" Israel" represented by the Jews. There is no evidence for either assumptions or Historical myth. Both seem to me an attempt to use a mythology to give historical precident to their beliefs which never really existed. Its a false premise and disingenuous claim. So where does it leave me. In the realm of truth. Where does it leave you?

Are you sure there is more data. I contend that there is not. There are many doctrinal areas where they are in error. I will cite just one, and that is in church government. I will quote you an excellent article that will demonstrate this well.

[FONT=&quot]So what were the teachings that the Early Church Fathers developed and propagated which so undermined, and then replaced, this established mode of church government?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clement of Rome [/FONT][FONT=&quot]- Epistle to the Corinthian Church in AD 95:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The high priest has been given his own special services, the priests have been assigned their own place, and the Levites have their special ministrations enjoined on them. The layman is bound by the ordinances of the laity."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Around the very same time that John the apostle is, likely as not, putting the finishing touches to the Book of Revelation on the Isle of Patmos, we here have Clement of Rome coming up with the grand idea of applying the Old Testament Levitical Priesthood to the Christian churches. Here, as early as AD 95, we have the introduction of the concept that church leadership ought to be that of priesthood, with the inevitable resultant distinction being made between'priest' and'people'. The clergy/laity divide, which has dogged Christianity for two millennia, didn't originate with either Jesus or his apostles, and is therefore nothing whatsoever to do with the teaching of the New Testament. It rather originated with a guy called Clement who took church leadership, as set up by the apostles (non-hierarchical, plural, co-equal, indigenous elders/bishops or overseers/pastors or shepherds), and turned it into a priesthood quite separate from the laity. (I wonder what the high priest will turn into!)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let's go to the next phase and move forward some 15 years:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch[/FONT][FONT=&quot]AD 110[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To the Ephesians:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Your REVEREND presbytery is tuned to the Bishop as strings to a lyre...Let us be careful not to resist the Bishop, that through our submission to the Bishop we may belong to God...We should regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself..."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To the Magnesians:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles...As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To the Trallians:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...respect the Bishop as the counterpart of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the Apostles: without those no church is recognised."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]To the Smyrneans:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Let no-one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the Bishop...it is not permitted to baptise or hold a love-feast independently of the Bishop. But whatever he approves, that is also well pleasing to God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Notice where have we come? The presbytery (this is where the English word priest comes from) is now a reverendpresbytery. It is growing both in importance and spiritual authority. (And of course this is how the designation of Reverend as a title for a church leader originated.) Moreover, non-hierarchical co-equality is gone too, and this'ordained ministry' is now headed up by a Bishop. Note too the astounding authority ascribed to the Bishop. He is to be looked upon, ' &as the Lord Himself. (At least they were still having love-feasts, even though you had to get permission from the Bishop first.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Tertullian[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - AD 200[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The supreme priest (that is the Bishop) has the right of conferring baptism: after him the presbyters and deacons, but only with the Bishop's authority. Otherwise the laity also have the right...how much more is the discipline of reverence and humility incumbent upon laymen (since it also befits their superiors)...It would be idle for us to suppose that what is forbidden to PRIESTS is allowed to the laity. The distinction between the order of clergy and the people has been established by the authority of the Church."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Another ninety years have now passed and we have a full-blown priesthood, under the authority of a Bishop, with said priests considered the superiors of the mere laity, and with the Bishop regarded as supreme. In his statement that the clergy/laity divide, ' &has been established by the authority of the Church , we can see how Tertullian and the other church leaders of the day are claiming divine authority to sanction their own system. Church leaders are now, in effect, beyond question or challenge.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cyprian - Bishop of Carthage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]AD 250.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fifty years later you might be amazed to discover that this priesthood has developed even further and is now considered to be an actual sacrificing one. It is thought to be actually mediating between God and those who are not priests. Writing of the Lord's Supper, Cyprian declares:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"If Christ Jesus our Lord and God is Himself the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself as a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in remembrance of Himself, then assuredly the priest acts truly in Christ's place when he reproduces what Christ did, and he then offers a true and complete sacrifice to God the Father, if he begins to offer as he sees Christ Himself has offered."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[DHK]

[FONT=&quot]

What eventually became the full-blown Catholic Mass is here in germinal form as early as AD 250. And of course the supremacy of the Bishop over the priesthood soon led to even more layers of priestly hierarchy developing culminating, of course, in the very Bishop of Bishops himself. Ladies and gentlemen, may we please hear it for the Pope![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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. It was indeed a seed-bed in which grew various other plants of error and deception.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Early Church Fathers claimed, in effect, the same authority as had the original apostles; and so they argued that what they taught was therefore necessarily correct. This was fine, arguably, where they were right, and they were right about a great many things, but it is also undeniable that it was most certainly not so good where they were not. It was, in point of fact, completely and unutterably disastrous! We can see them actually argue this:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clement of Rome:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"The Apostles have received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ was sent forth by God and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments were made in an orderly way according to the will of God...The Apostles appointed the first-fruits of their labours to be bishops and deacons for those who would believe."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We remind ourselves here too that, by bishop, the apostles and the Fathers meant completely different things. As far as the apostles were concerned bishop was simply one of the words used to describe the function of an elder (pastor or shepherd), whereas to the Fathers it denoted a high ranking religious figure in an organized ecclesiastical hierarchy.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ignatius - Bishop of Antioch[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To the Magnesians:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I advise you to always act in godly concord with the Bishop, presiding as the counterpart of God, and the presbyters as the counterpart of the council of the Apostles...As the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by Himself or by means of the Apostles, so you must do nothing without the Bishop and the presbyters."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Irenaeus - Bishop of Lyons[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles: the order of the church as established from the earliest times throughout the world: the distinctive stamp of the Body of Christ preserved through the episcopal [/FONT][FONT=&quot](bishops) succession: for to the Bishops the Apostles committed the care of the church which is in each place, which has come down to our time, safeguarded without any written documents."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Cyprian - Bishop of Carthage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Writing on the procedure for choosing a Bishop):[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Therefore we should be careful to observe and keep the procedure we received from the Divine Tradition, and from the practise of the Apostles which is kept among us."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So the argument basically goes like this:[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]God sent Jesus. Therefore Jesus carried the same authority as His Father in Heaven. (Absolutely correct!)[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Having been sent by God, Jesus then sent the apostles. Therefore the apostles were divinely inspired and authoritative. (Thus far no problem. The argument is quite sound and fully in keeping with the Word of God.)[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Having been sent by Jesus, Who had Himself been sent by God, the apostles then sent the leaders who came after them (i.e. the Early Church Fathers). Therefore the Early Church Fathers were inspired and infallible in their teaching just like the apostles of Jesus were. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And of course that is where things went so badly wrong, because the last part of the sequence doesn't necessarily follow in the slightest. (It's rather like the progression of logical thought that goes like this: All cats have four legs! Butch has four legs! Therefore Butch is a cat! But of course not necessarily! Butch may actually be a dog, or any number of other four legged creatures.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Fathers' mistake was that they completely missed the fact that God's plan was to eventually have a black and white written record of the teaching of both Jesus and the apostles. This written record, the New Testament, would be the final yardstick against which everything would be tested in order to ascertain what was true or false, right or wrong. That book, and most emphatically not the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, was intended to be the final authority in the life of believers and in the Christian Church.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And of course once it was eventually realised that this New Testament, this written record of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, was at variance with the way things had turned out under the teaching of the Fathers, then the decision should have been made to make the necessary changes and to bring into line anything that didn't square with it. Everything, including church life and practice, should have been tested in the light of this newly and wonderfully available and inspired document containing all that they needed to know. But of course things didn't quite work out that way. Instead, the leaders of the religious organisation that the Christian Church had by then become decided that the New Testament was rather to be interpreted in the light of the teaching of the Early Church Fathers. And I can't help but wonder if here we have the reason why the blatantly and overwhelmingly correct course of action to take, testing everything by the New Testament, proved too difficult for them. I wonder if it is simply that the power, prestige and authority vested in the position church leaders had, and which they were so used to exercising and enjoying, was just too much for them to give up. Could it simply be that the corrupting influence of that power had just gone too deep for too long? I have to say that I rather think so![/FONT]

http://www.house-church.org/earl_parttwo.htm

 

[Matt Black]

Just one point of correction:

As Matt already pointed out one of them believed in the heresy of transubstantiation.

Actually, no I haven't. I pointed out they believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which is not the same thing. Transubstantiation was a much later doctrine (12th-13th centuries) and only put forward by the Western part of the Church. The East has never held it.

 

[Matt Black]

What it seems he is doing is pairing together opposing sides. the Catholics say the ECF's all had and continued the apostolic oral tradition, and since they contain evidences of some of the later doctrines and practices, then they were evidence that the Catholic teachings could be extrabiblical, yet still "aspotlic' and just as authoritative.

On the other side, Trail of Blood "Baptist History" theory disputes that, and does generally dismiss ECF's that are shown to have "Catholic-esque" teachings. Yet the theory does regard Polycarp, Polycrates, and maybe one or two others as genuine. (And I don't see any "Catholic" teachings in those two, who are the actual closest to John. It's Justin and later who are "jumped" to. He was not until the middle of the century).

You forgot Ignatius (fl. first decade of the second century AD), also a disciple/appointee of John and, as DHK has shown below, also a propogator of proto-Catholic/Orthodox teaching, both on the Real Presence and episcopal government.

DHK, interesting, is it not that, given that Clement was a contemporary of John, we find nothing in John's NT writings condemning Clement's 'innovations'? One would think, if this was a significant departure from the Apostolic Church, that an Apostle would be concerned about it, but apparently not.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You forgot Ignatius (fl. first decade of the second century AD), also a disciple/appointee of John and, as DHK has shown below, also a propogator of proto-Catholic/Orthodox teaching, both on the Real Presence and episcopal government.

DHK, interesting, is it not that, given that Clement was a contemporary of John, we find nothing in John's NT writings condemning Clement's 'innovations'? One would think, if this was a significant departure from the Apostolic Church, that an Apostle would be concerned about it, but apparently not.

Good point Matt.

Also keep in mind DHK the wide spread belief of this among the Churches spread through out Egypt, Antioch, and most of Turkey. Hardley a minor movement that would have escape the notice of the Apostles or "true" churches. And DHK your statement has to make the assumption that nothing apart from the writen word was passed on to the churches which is not accurate. Paul mentions the traditions that are passed on to Timothy so with in the text themselves there is indication of Paul and others orally transmiting aspects of the faith. Plus we know that not all the churches had all the library of books now in the NT. That was a later development. One of the traditions that the apostles passed on is on exegete of OT scripture. We can compare how the apostles exegeted OT scripture and compare them to the ECF. You're article also indicates that the people who were trained by the Apostles immediately got it wrong. Which would indicate the ineffectiveness of the apostles to pass the true faith and limit the intervention of the Holy Spirit with regard to transmition of the faith to just the apostles in which case NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS CORRECT. And the faith died out with John who I contend seems to be passing on a lot of tradition to People who knew him. Therefore, John could have been responsible for the ineffectual treatement of the faith by later generations. And its his fault that we have the Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, and I'll throw in the Anglicans with that crowd. Therefore he would have died a heretic. Or at best a confused old man.

 

[Eric B]

You forgot Ignatius (fl. first decade of the second century AD), also a disciple/appointee of John and, as DHK has shown below, also a propogator of proto-Catholic/Orthodox teaching, both on the Real Presence and episcopal government.

DHK, interesting, is it not that, given that Clement was a contemporary of John, we find nothing in John's NT writings condemning Clement's 'innovations'? One would think, if this was a significant departure from the Apostolic Church, that an Apostle would be concerned about it, but apparently not.

I didn't forget Ignatius. I considered including him, but wasn't sure he was really connected to John. - know you all claim he is, but Polycarp is the only one I used to read as being a direct disciple of John. And both he and his disciple Polycrates opposed the burgeoning office of Rome over practical matters.

It is also clear from DHK's quotes how the concept of the bishop (which Ignatius exalted WAY beyond what any NT writer ever did) was changing into a vehicle of absolute power and control. I still see whatever "catholic" teachings from him as only germinal.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Plus we know that not all the churches had all the library of books now in the NT. That was a later development. One of the traditions that the apostles passed on is on exegete of OT scripture. We can compare how the apostles exegeted OT scripture and compare them to the ECF. You're article also indicates that the people who were trained by the Apostles immediately got it wrong. Which would indicate the ineffectiveness of the apostles to pass the true faith and limit the intervention of the Holy Spirit with regard to transmition of the faith to just the apostles in which case NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH IS CORRECT.

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.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

In XC
-

The opposing side would claim little to no link with Luther but insist on an apocryhal church (hidden church to use Jeromes wording) that had it right until the reformation allowed for greater freedom of religion. I use the term hidden purposely. Because there is no evidence of independent baptist churches existing from the time of Christ up to the reformation so by lack of evidence they would have to be considered hidden.

 

[tinytim]

Part of the problems with the ECFs...(BTW, good OP.. I followed your reasoning while others seemed not to...)

Anyway, part of the problems of the ECFs.. was the fact that the Bible was not completely compliled... and freely distributed...

I grew up cutting my teeth on the TOB... and teachings like that.
One thing everyone assumed was that the NT was around for the first church to use.

After I studied church history.. true church history, not the TOB fairytales... I realized how hard it would have been to even have a completed NT even up to the yr 800!

Even after the NT was canonized, NOT every church accepted James or 2 Peter.. or Revelation... for YEARS!

Now imagine you are a member of a church in the yr 425.
YOU don't have a personal copy of the scriptures..
Remember the printing press was still 100s of years away...

Chances are your church doesn't have a complete copy of the NT.. maybe the OT.. but even in 425, some books in the NT were disputed, and debated... and some churches far away from the cities.. would not have had access to all the NT.

Suppose your church had the 3 of the 4 gospels... and a couple other writings of paul.. say Romans.. and Ephesians... (Faith only books)
One Sunday, and new preacher comes to visit, and claims to have the book of James...

Now suppose you are the pastor and you look at it... read it, and yhou come across the passage where James seems to be saying Salvation is of works not faith.... Now suppose you knew nothing before about the existance of this "supposed book from James"... would you allow it to be read to your congregation?

Chances are if you are a good pastor, you wouldn't until you had time to examine it more thoroughly...

The next Sunday.. a travelling evangelist comes and presents you a copy of Revelation! WOW!!... NOW what... and on top of that points to the passage about the 1000 yr reign of Jesus... YOU have never heard such teaching! HERESY you think...

The point I am trying to make is this...

It is easy for us to set here in the 21st century with a completed NT that has been digested, copied, printed, distributed, so much so that most homes have 4 or 5 NTs in them in America...
Each verse has been studied, diagrammed, compared to the OT teachings, Other NT writings.. so much so that those of us that grew up in church knows it inside and out....

It is easy for us to set back and blame the ECFs for doctrines we now know they were wrong on...

But we have to remember they only had bits and pieces of the whole picture... we have the whole picture...
They were looking through a dark glass.. we now see clearly...

What amazes me is the omnipotence of God.. .even though they might have distorted a few things because they didn't have all the books of the NT... God's message and church still continued to flourish...

This is also one reason I feel that God put his doctrines throughout many books of the NT... before the printing press.. even if a church had 50% of the NT.. .that church would still have had access to all the major doctrines of Christianity...

It is easy to sit in our comfy chairs today and point out the faults of the ECFs... but if you were living back then... would you have been 100% correct on your doctrine?

Are you sure you are 100% correct even today.. or is there a possibility you may be wrong on some things...

And suppose Christ tarries.. and someone finds your writings 1500 yrs from now... would they call you a heretic based upon your limited knowledge of the Bible?

In essence this is what we are doing to the ECFs...

No, John was not a Heretic.. neither was Paul..

 

[Matt Black]

Excellent post!:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Exactly! :thumbsup:

But the question remains how was the faith spread and practiced? By Traditions passed from Apostles to church leader on down since no one had the entirel library we now know as the bible.

 

[tinytim]

The answer is by the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit who Inspired the words of the Bible, also made sure that the church survived and that she had the truth...
And by the gifts of prophecy.. and interpretation of prophecy.. Gifts of Knowledge, and of Wisdom.. the Early church could gauge whether a teaching was true.
If someone came in with a revelation from God.. someone with the gift of knowledge or prophecy would varify it.
Again.. The Holy Spirit made sure the church would flourish.. the same way he does today.

Sure there were heretics...
And sure there were churches that didn't teach the truth before the Bible was canonized....


But even though we have the Bible now.. there are still heretics.. adn churches that don't teach the truth...

BUT GOD..... (two of the most beautiful words in the Bible... do a bible search and it will give you a blessing)

BUT GOD.. .was able, just as He is able today... to make sure that the church will stand.

If a group of Christians doesn't have a complete Bible.. does that mean they are not a church? NO... Many churches down through the centuries didn't have a complete Bible.
Many Christians in third-world countries NOW don't have Bibles...
But they are praising God in their churches...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The answer is by the Holy Spirit...

The Holy Spirit who Inspired the words of the Bible, also made sure that the church survived and that she had the truth...
And by the gifts of prophecy.. and interpretation of prophecy.. Gifts of Knowledge, and of Wisdom.. the Early church could gauge whether a teaching was true.
If someone came in with a revelation from God.. someone with the gift of knowledge or prophecy would varify it.
Again.. The Holy Spirit made sure the church would flourish.. the same way he does today.

Sure there were heretics...
And sure there were churches that didn't teach the truth before the Bible was canonized....


But even though we have the Bible now.. there are still heretics.. adn churches that don't teach the truth...

BUT GOD..... (two of the most beautiful words in the Bible... do a bible search and it will give you a blessing)

BUT GOD.. .was able, just as He is able today... to make sure that the church will stand.

If a group of Christians doesn't have a complete Bible.. does that mean they are not a church? NO... Many churches down through the centuries didn't have a complete Bible.
Many Christians in third-world countries NOW don't have Bibles...
But they are praising God in their churches...

Holy Spirit through the medium of the church which followed traditions and particularily those of John (if any gauge of the ECF can be made in this respect). So we see (in the didache) early liturgy (Also the text known as Apostolic traditions of Hypolytus spelling off). And so it makes one wonder about the assertion that many here believe with regard to baptist origins does it not?

 

[tinytim]

I agree...

 

[Zenas]

DHK put up this quote (not sure by whom) in Post 25:

What eventually became the full-blown Catholic Mass is here in germinal form as early as AD 250. And of course the supremacy of the Bishop over the priesthood soon led to even more layers of priestly hierarchy developing culminating, of course, in the very Bishop of Bishops himself. Ladies and gentlemen, may we please hear it for the Pope!

The prevailing thought among Evangelicals is that the New Testament church subsisted in its pimitive form until Constantine made Christianity legal throughout the empire, circa 313, at which time the church became corrupted by pagan influences. Thus emerged the Roman Catholic Church. However, if these "corrupting" influences were extant in 250, we must withdraw some of the blame against Constantine for corruption of the church. Or . . . we must recognize that maybe not all these early developments were corrupting after all.

 

[DHK]

Exactly! :thumbsup:

But the question remains how was the faith spread and practiced? By Traditions passed from Apostles to church leader on down since no one had the entirel library we now know as the bible.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

DHK put up this quote (not sure by whom) in Post 25: The prevailing thought among Evangelicals is that the New Testament church subsisted in its pimitive form until Constantine made Christianity legal throughout the empire, circa 313, at which time the church became corrupted by pagan influences. Thus emerged the Roman Catholic Church. However, if these "corrupting" influences were extant in 250, we must withdraw some of the blame against Constantine for corruption of the church. Or . . . we must recognize that maybe not all these early developments were corrupting after all.

The statement was correct. The corruption and heretical doctrines existed in "germinal form" earlier than Constantine. Before Constantine one can find Mariolotry, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and many other such doctrines that the RCC now holds to. At the time of Constantine when "the Church" became a "state-church" as the RCC did, it came all together. Christianity was paganized and paganism was Christianized.