The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

[Bro. James]

The RCC did not canonize anything--

Indeed so, if one means that the Holy See has never had the "keys for the right lock". Mt. 16, and the authority therein given, was to the assembly not a man. Usurped authority is no authority at all. The RCC is correct about the necessity of proper authority--they are gravely mistaken about who has the authority from on high. Those who take their authority from Rome have the same kind of problem--their "keys do not fit the lock" either.(quotation marks mean that some phrases are borrowed, but I do not have a proper bibliography.)

The reality of Mt. 16 still stands. The gates of hell have not prevailed. Jesus has never left Her nor forsaken Her. She is kept by the power of The Spirit and The Word. She is still the pillar and ground of The Truth.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[DHK]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the instructions which ye have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (Darby)

2 Thessalonians 2:15 so, then, brethren, stand ye fast, and hold the deliverances that ye were taught, whether through word, whether through our letter; (Young's)

2Th 2:15 So, then, brothers, stand firm and strongly hold the teachings you were taught, whether by word or by our letter. (Literal Translation)

2Th 2:15 Therefore, my brothers, stand fast and hold the teachings which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter. (MKJV)

DT,
2Thes.2:15 is a favorite verse of the Catholics to proof text their pet doctrine of Oral Tradition--a man-made doctrine not found nor even hinted at in the Bible. The Bible is our sole rule of faith and authority. Nowhere does this verse establish that tradition, defined by the Catholic encyclopedia, is authoritative in any way. There is no way that this verse teaches that tradition, as defined in the Catholic encyclopedia, was used in any way, shape or form, to teach Timothy an ounce of any kind of knowledge whatsoever. The total knowledge that he gained from the Catholic church's definition of "tradition" is zilch, zero, nada, nothing.
Traditiion as defined by the Catholic encylopedia, is knowledge, whether written or oral, passed down from one generation to another over a lengthy period of time or centuries.
Paul died about 68 A.D. 2Thessalonians was written around 53 A.D. Christ died 29 A.D. From 29 to 53 is a span of only 24 years, when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians. You would have us to believe that this "tradition" that the Catholics themselves define as that cumulative knowledge that is passed down throughout the generations for centuries, all accumulated within a span of just 24 years???
I ask: What tradition? The church was in its infancy. There was no tradition for the church to have. A new born infant does not have its own traditions, contrary to popular (Catholic) belief.
However, because the glasses of the RC's are so colored on this subject I took the liberty to quote for you a good number of translations whose translators obviously thought that the word "traditions" was an inadequate translation. It does not mean tradition as the Catholic church defines it, so these translations stay away from such a word. The word more accurately reflects "teachings" as in the MKJV. They were to keep in mind the "teachings" that Paul had given them. That is precisely what Paul was speaking about. Compare it to 2Tim.2:2 for a better understanding.

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.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

However, because the glasses of the RC's are so colored on this subject I took the liberty to quote for you a good number of translations whose translators obviously thought that the word "traditions" was an inadequate translation. It does not mean tradition as the Catholic church defines it, so these translations stay away from such a word. The word more accurately reflects "teachings" as in the MKJV. They were to keep in mind the "teachings" that Paul had given them. That is precisely what Paul was speaking about. Compare it to 2Tim.2:2 for a better understanding.

Sorry, DHK--no dice. That's simply incorrect.

Irrespective of how the RCC may define tradition, the Greek word translated "traditions" in 2 Thess 2:15 is paradosis which is the exact same word for that which is translated "tradition" in Mark 7:8 (for example) which Protestants use as a proof text against all tradition (regardless of the source). It is also the exact same word (paradosis) that's translated "tradition" (in the NKJV) in 1 Corinthians 11:2--"...remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you". In all three passages it's the same word, paradosis, which mean "that which is handed down". The difference between the traditions we are to avoid and the traditions we are to keep is the source of the "tradition". The concept of "that which is handed down" is the same however because that's what that word means. (BTW--the word paradosis doesn't have a definite time element; it merely refers to "that which is handed down" from one to another regardless of how much time is involved in the "handing down".)

Therefore, if anyone's glasses are colored on the subject it's the Protestant translaters who translate it "tradition" when it's to be read in a negative light, and "teachings" when it would otherwise cast tradition in a favorable light (which of course wouldn't suit their purposes). Regardless, in GREEK the word is the same.

 

[D28guy]

Bro James...

How to make quote boxes...

Put this in front of the text you want to quote...

[ quote ]

Put this after the quoted text...

[ / quote ]

Then post your post and those things wont be there and the quote box will.

But...I put gaps in there so it wouldnt disapear. When you put them before and after the quoted text, do not put any gaps.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Kiffen]

It is true the Roman Catholic Church did not canonize Scripture BUT The ancient Catholic Church did canonize Scripture OR as we Protestants like to say "Discover it". The RCC was a gradual progression and the ancient Catholic Church is not synomous with the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox Churches often remind both Rome and Protestants of that fact. We Protestants dare not cut ourselves off from the ancient Catholic Church though Baptists often try. God used the ancient Church councils in discovering or canonization.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
It is true the Roman Catholic Church did not canonize Scripture BUT The ancient Catholic Church did canonize Scripture OR as we Protestants like to say "Discover it". The RCC was a gradual progression and the ancient Catholic Church is not synomous with the RCC. The Eastern Orthodox Churches often remind both Rome and Protestants of that fact. We Protestants dare not cut ourselves off from the ancient Catholic Church though Baptists often try. God used the ancient Church councils in discovering or canonization.

Excellent post, Kiffen. All very good points.

 

[D28guy]

I dont know how anyone could "cut themselves off" from the "ancient catholic church" since that church is nothing more than the body of Christ. To be "cut off" from that church could only mean no longer being saved.

That which we know today as the "Catholic Church" based in Rome wasnt invented until about the 3rd century...and the heresies and idolatries have been growing in it since then.

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
I dont know how anyone could "cut themselves off" from the "ancient catholic church" since that church is nothing more than the body of Christ. To be "cut off" from that church could only mean no longer being saved.

Hmmmm....you could be on to something....

(At any rate, you should know of at least one specific way of cutting one self off from the church--it's called "apostasy". I believe that's a term I've seen you use before.)

That which we know today as the "Catholic Church" based in Rome wasnt invented until about the 3rd century...and the heresies and idolatries have been growing in it since then.

Mike

Actually, the adjective "catholic" (meaning "whole, complete") was used as early as Ignatius (if not earlier), bishop of Antioch, at the beginning of the 2nd century in describing the true church as opposed to the gatherings of gnostics, docetists, and other assorted heretics. This catholic church was never "based" in one particular city (despite latter claims of Rome to the contrary).

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas...

"Actually, the adjective "catholic" (meaning "whole, complete") was used as early as Ignatius (if not earlier), bishop of Antioch, at the beginning of the 2nd century in describing the true church as opposed to the gatherings of gnostics, docetists, and other assorted heretics. This catholic church was never "based" in one particular city (despite latter claims of Rome to the contrary).

I didnt capitalise the "c" in catholic the 1st time I used it. I did capitolise it the 2nd time, to make the distinction.

The 1st time I was just referring to all the christians during the 1st 3 centuries. Thats all "the church" is. Its not any one religious organisation. The church is christians.

The 2nd time I was referring to the Catholic Church we know of today. It was THAT religious organisation that was invernted in the 3rd century.

Mike

 

[Bro. James]

Definitions of "Catholic" seem to be abundant--

the primary meaning found in my search was: universal. This word has connotated to: universal,mystical,visible;and universal, mystical and invisible.

The notion that there was a universal(catholic) assembly which came from the Jerusalem Assembly(the most ancient assembly), is not founded in scripture. Just because such things may have been taught by "Ancient Fathers", does not make such doctrine true. The wolves in sheep's clothing had been at work even as the scriptures were being completed circa 90 A.D.--Book of Revelation.

The Spirit, The Holy, (3rd Person of Trinity) has indwelled the New Testament Assembly since Pentacost--leading Her in all Truth. The Lord's assemblies did not have to wander aimlessly for centuries trying to figure who it was they were following. Jesus was leading by The Holy Spirit and The Word--sharper than any two-edged sword.

The Lord did not need the help of Constantine, the Great, to keep the gospel alive--did not need popes and potentates either.

The Assembly that Jesus is building is still alive and well. She has been bloodied by the religions of the world--but she has survived the "gates of hell"--just like Jesus promised. He has never left Her nor forsaken Her.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Enoch]

BobRyan said

Is it your position that the Catholic church did NOT "divide" into eastern and Roman Catholic schisms?

Is it your position that Martin Luther was not a Catholic, trained by the Catholic church etc?

The fact is that the RCC is the "center" of all major schisms in history if not the cause.

All Christian churches today can trace their roots back to the apostles through some group of other Christians that gave rise to the current set. (No news there).

The RCC has no more right to claim that Peter was a Roman Catholic than Baptist do to claim that Peter was a Baptist.

In fact - given the fact that Peter never taught Purgatory, Never called Mary "the Mother of God", Never prayed TO or FOR the dead, never baptized an infant, never claimed to forgive sins... one could argue that though he was not a Southern Baptist - he WAS MUCH MORE Southern Baptist than Roman Catholic!

Finally - your approach above seems to argue that ALL other Christian groups must fit into ONE church and defennd schisms as just and true WHILE the RCC denomination must only defend its own unified clergy and does not have to take the blame for all the schisms IT started!

A fascinating kind of argument you make!

And what about the RCC owning up to the millions of Christians it slaughters BY POLICY of "extermination" see the (Lateran IV council for examples)

The RCC and the EOC are both based on a false Gospel. Are some saved? Of course by God's Grace!

Her (RCC) holy hands are covered in blood!

 

[Daniel David]

There is nothing holy about the catholic church. More Christians have died at the hands of catholics than any other group.

 

[manchester]

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15

That sure looks like it's "the living God" who is "the pillar and ground of the truth." Can any Greek scholars tell me if there is any grammatical reason to think it says the church, not God, is the pillar?

Regardless, if you read the verses in context, Paul says he is leaving this writing (scripture) to be followed if he is not present to instruct Timothy. So, Paul's teaching is: (a) I'll tell you Jesus's teaching in person so you'll know how to conduct yourself, but if I'm not available, (b) follow the scriptures written by me to know how to conduct yourself in church. That's a firm, strong repudiation of the claim that you should follow the leaders of the church after the apostles depart.

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
There is nothing holy about the catholic church. More Christians have died at the hands of catholics than any other group.

Can you tell us how many?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by manchester:
[QB] "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15

That sure looks like it's "the living God" who is "the pillar and ground of the truth." Can any Greek scholars tell me if there is any grammatical reason to think it says the church, not God, is the pillar?

Actually, it looks like, grammatically, that "ground and pillar of truth" is describing the "church of the living God". Even John MacArthur ( no friend of Rome) acknowledges that in the footnote for that verse in his study Bible.

 

[Saveferris]

Doubting,
It will never cease to amaze me how far people will go to discredit something they know little about. Clearly an example of taking bias to scripture to make it say what you want it to.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Actually, it looks like, grammatically, that "ground and pillar of truth" is describing the "church of the living God". Even John MacArthur ( no friend of Rome) acknowledges that in the footnote for that verse in his study Bible.

Yes that is right DT.
"Of the living God" is a prepositonal phrase that defines the subject, "church," which is the pillar and ground of the truth. The prepositional phrase "of the living God" isn't even needed and the statement would still make sense.

The pillar and ground of the truth is the church and always has been. The question is: "Which church?" Not the Catholic--never has been, and never will be.
Examine the word "church," ekklesia. It means "assembly." There is no such thing as a universal assembly except up in Heaven when all believers will be assembled together. The word "church" or assembly used here is used in a generic sense to refer to every Bible-believing assembly throughout the ages that has the Bible as its foundation, and Christ as its head.

Timothy was the pastor of the church at Ephesus. When Paul went to Ephesus there was a great uproar caused by Demetrius, a silversmith. The whole city was in an uproar crying,

Acts 19:28 And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

There was a great and massive temple at Ephesus, the Temple of Diana. It had large structural columns, a magnificent building dedicated to the goddess of Diana. This is what Paul is referring to in a picture.

Every church (local assembly) ought to be that way. We are the foundation of the truth.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
--Our church (assembly) is built on Jesus Christ, the Christ of the Bible. We must have the Word of God as our foundation. We must have a solid foundation with Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. He is found in God's Word. Each church needs to be Bible-based.

Every church (assembly) needs to be the pillar of the truth. As those pillars of that temple held up the structure, we hold up the truth of God's Word. We declare it to our community, our city, our state, and the world. We carry out the Great Commission. We are the light of this world. We are pillars of the truth. The local church is the pillar of the truth. It is the church's responsibility to hold up the truth to all.

Thus the church, the local church, is the pillar and ground of the truth.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

"...and on this rock I will build My Church [singular] and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it [singular]" Matthew 16:18

Sadly the "gates of Hell" have prevailed against many local congregations, but the CHURCH remains undefeated. Many local congregations have succumbed to error, but the CHURCH has remained the "pillar and ground of the truth" since the days of the apostles. AMEN!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
"...and on this rock I will build My Church [singular] and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it [singular]" Matthew 16:18

Sadly the "gates of Hell" have prevailed against many local congregations, but the CHURCH remains undefeated. Many local congregations have succumbed to error, but the CHURCH has remained the "pillar and ground of the truth" since the days of the apostles. AMEN!

Not true sir.
The gates have prevailed, and very well have they prevailed against the Catholic Church throughout the ages of history. Where shall we start?
The Spanish Inquisition?
The slaughter of the Albigenses?
The crusades?
The Dark Ages that eventually brought on the Reformation?
How about a good reading of "Foxes Book of Martyrs"
What about our contemporary scene: one case after another of pedophilias; and what is worse is the cover-ups. The shifting of one sex offender from one parish to another to avoid prosecution. It is as if your church actually condones this activity.

Have the gates of Hell prevailed in the RCC? Most certainly they have. In fact the RCC didn't even get a start untiil the fourth century well after all the apostles were dead and in the grave.

The concept of the church being the pillar and ground of the truth throughout the ages goes like this. In every age in history, beginning from the Day of Pentecost onward, there have been local churches (assemblies) that have been faithful and true to God's Word. God has never left himself without a witness. These churches have not been Catholic Churches obviously. These churches have existed because of their adherence to the Word of God. They are the pillar and ground of the truth. The Bible does not speak of denominations. We are speaking of local assemblies.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by DHK:
Not true sir.
The gates have prevailed, and very well have they prevailed against the Catholic Church throughout the ages of history. Where shall we start?
The Spanish Inquisition?
The slaughter of the Albigenses?
The crusades?
The Dark Ages that eventually brought on the Reformation?
How about a good reading of "Foxes Book of Martyrs"
What about our contemporary scene: one case after another of pedophilias; and what is worse is the cover-ups. The shifting of one sex offender from one parish to another to avoid prosecution. It is as if your church actually condones this activity.

Why do you bring this up? I'm not Roman Catholic.

The concept of the church being the pillar and ground of the truth throughout the ages goes like this. In every age in history, beginning from the Day of Pentecost onward, there have been local churches (assemblies) that have been faithful and true to God's Word. God has never left himself without a witness. These churches have not been Catholic Churches obviously. These churches have existed because of their adherence to the Word of God.

And what's your evidence for these hypothetical "Bible" churches--the "TRAIL OF BLOOD"? Please...

They are the pillar and ground of the truth. The Bible does not speak of denominations. We are speaking of local assemblies.

You're right--the Bible does not speak of denominations. It speaks of the Church. By your narrow definition of church to mean simply "local assemblies" you are making Christ out to be a LIAR, since He said He would build His Church [singular], not build "multiple local assemblies".