The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

[Thinkingstuff]

What I am saying, and you are not denying, is that there were divisions with the very churches they established.

Good and very true.

1. You are, as many do, separating oral tradition from written tradition andascribing authority to oral tradtion. As Hodge said, "The Scriptures do not, as claimed, ascribe authority to oral tradition. Tradition, as intended by Paul in the passage cited (2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6), signifies all his instructions, oral and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not handed down. On the other hand, Christ rebuked this doctrine of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matt. 15:3,6; Mark 7:7.".[/

These would be considered the same thing. So the author errs in that Handed down has the same connotation as signifying all his instructions even ones not writing in the Epistles

3. The entire argument you make must depend on an unbroken succession which is impossible to prove.

That's not true as can be seen in comparisions between writings of Irenaus and Eusibius and modern lists.

4. The traditions now held by romanists and orthodox were unknown for the first 300 years of the church

Also not true. There are distinct referrences to "tradition beliefs and practices" long before 300 AD. Ignatius shows the distinctiveness of the Eucharistic celebration early in 100's. Justin Martyr describes such practice 50 years later. Catacomb drawings in Rome date Marian veneration back to 230 AD. And other Catholic type beliefs. Which is why I contend that the Christian church evolved and is currently nothing like it was back during the time of the Apostles nor the ECF.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Good and very true.
These would be considered the same thing. So the author errs in that Handed down has the same connotation as signifying all his instructions even ones not writing in the Epistles
That's not true as can be seen in comparisions between writings of Irenaus and Eusibius and modern lists. Also not true. There are distinct referrences to "tradition beliefs and practices" long before 300 AD. Ignatius shows the distinctiveness of the Eucharistic celebration early in 100's. Justin Martyr describes such practice 50 years later. Catacomb drawings in Rome date Marian veneration back to 230 AD. And other Catholic type beliefs. Which is why I contend that the Christian church evolved and is currently nothing like it was back during the time of the Apostles nor the ECF.

Your smarter than this.

Show me that Eucharist means the elements turn into actual blood and flesh. First, the Scripture NEVER teaches this despicable doctrine. Secondly, and under and below the Scripture, even the ECFs never knew this idea.

Provide proof of this Marian veneration. Sounds like papal non-sense to me.

What other Catholic(Roman) type beliefs are you talking about?

The Christian church is nothing like it was in the time of the Apostles?

Where do you live? Do you own a Bible? lol

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your smarter than this.

Show me that Eucharist means the elements turn into actual blood and flesh. First, the Scripture NEVER teaches this despicable doctrine. Secondly, and under and below the Scripture, even the ECFs never knew this idea.

Provide proof of this Marian veneration. Sounds like papal non-sense to me.

What other Catholic(Roman) type beliefs are you talking about?

The Christian church is nothing like it was in the time of the Apostles?

Where do you live? Do you own a Bible? lol

Absolutely, I own a bible and read it daily. I also study history advidly. We have the Same scriptures but our cultural context and understanding of those same scriptures have changed overtime in small respects.

Here is evidence of Eucharistic believe. Ignatius the martyred bishop of Antioch wrote to the Smyrneans indicating for them not participate with people who deny that the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Note Justin Martyr also explains in detail the "process" by which the Eucharist becomes the body and blood. These documents show what some believers believed at that time.

As far as my thought with the evolved church consider this. Paul never address the Trinity specifically. Why. People believed in Jesus, they Believed in the Father, they believed in the Holy Spirit but they didn't have a clear consept as to how that worked. They equally believed there was just one God. Paul never addresses it because it wasn't necissary because people just accpeted that God was God and Jesus was God. How was a later development and now if you ask about the trinity you get a pretty detailed explination. Just like Hypostatic Union. These are developed over time. You may believe in "Soul Liberty" but that was also not spoken to in the writings of the Apostles because they would have no consept of that in their cultural context. They may have said things to suggest it but it wasn't until recently that consept became clear using those same scriptures. Scriptures are a living thing and becomes a deep well of insight.

Not all insight was given by the apostles. The apostles themselves did not imagine a Christianity as we have it today. They were Jews and believed they were fulfilling Judaism and grafting in the gentiles as God had promised. This is why all early churches started in Synagogues and where that was imposible wealthy people's homes. Many consepts of Jesus teachings can only be understood from a Jewish context like the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Absolutely, I own a bible and read it daily. I also study history advidly. We have the Same scriptures but our cultural context and understanding of those same scriptures have changed overtime in small respects. Here is evidence of Eucharistic believe. Ignatius the martyred bishop of Antioch wrote to the Smyrneans indicating for them not participate with people who deny that the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Note Justin Martyr also explains in detail the "process" by which the Eucharist becomes the body and blood. These documents show what some believers believed at that time. As far as my thought with the evolved church consider this. Paul never address the Trinity specifically. Why. People believed in Jesus, they Believed in the Father, they believed in the Holy Spirit but they didn't have a clear consept as to how that worked. They equally believed there was just one God. Paul never addresses it because it wasn't necissary because people just accpeted that God was God and Jesus was God. How was a later development and now if you ask about the trinity you get a pretty detailed explination. Just like Hypostatic Union. These are developed over time. You may believe in "Soul Liberty" but that was also not spoken to in the writings of the Apostles because they would have no consept of that in their cultural context. They may have said things to suggest it but it wasn't until recently that consept became clear using those same scriptures. Scriptures are a living thing and becomes a deep well of insight. Not all insight was given by the apostles. The apostles themselves did not imagine a Christianity as we have it today. They were Jews and believed they were fulfilling Judaism and grafting in the gentiles as God had promised. This is why all early churches started in Synagogues and where that was imposible wealthy people's homes. Many consepts of Jesus teachings can only be understood from a Jewish context like the Gospel of Matthew.

As a side note, because you do not break up your paragraph it makes it extremly painful to read...at least for me.

I am asking for a reference.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As a side note, because you do not break up your paragraph it makes it extremly painful to read...at least for me.

I am asking for a reference.

Ok I'll split it up for you. The referrence is Ignatius letter to the Smyrneans. And Justin's first Apology.

As far as Trinity and Hypostatic union you will not find it in scripture. Nor will you find "Soul Liberty" in scripture.

I was able to break it up a little bit.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Ok I'll split it up for you. The referrence is Ignatius letter to the Smyrneans. And Justin's first Apology.

As far as Trinity and Hypostatic union you will not find it in scripture. Nor will you find "Soul Liberty" in scripture.

I was able to break it up a little bit.

By reference I meant actual quotes.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

Recognizing that these writing are ancient, we must be careful not to read Roman Catholic doctrine into them. We come to these quotes with the knoweldge of transubstantiation already. But is that what these statements are teaching?

For example, Ratiumus, a 9th century monk wrote "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi)

Ratiumus was making this disctinction because of the debate between him and Paschasius Radbertus.

The point is this, take Ignatius as our first example, he could be simply commenting on the elements being not common, but as Christ said, "This is my blood" and "This is my Body"

The idea of transubstantiation isn't taught there, but is read into that statement. Do we have an example of an ECF making a similiar statement as Ignatius but then clarifying what he meant? Yes. Tertullian.

Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body (Against Marcion, Bk 4).

Justin Martyr is not teaching transubstation, but it is easy to see why some would think so. Consider this from another of Justin's writings:

Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho).

While it may be that Justin believe in some sort of "real presence" regarding the Eucharist, he was not teaching transubstantiaion.

The same is true with Augustine, which I decided to include for more history. He is speaking figuratively. Augustine once wrote, "That's how he explained the sacrament of the Lord's Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be" (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

When we eat, do we turn into a loaf of bread? lol So if he speaks figuratively of the partakers, why do others insist he is speaking literally about the elements?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

By reference I meant actual quotes.



Recognizing that these writing are ancient, we must be careful not to read Roman Catholic doctrine into them. We come to these quotes with the knoweldge of transubstantiation already. But is that what these statements are teaching?

For example, Ratiumus, a 9th century monk wrote "The bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense" (De corpore et sanguine Christi)

Ratiumus was making this disctinction because of the debate between him and Paschasius Radbertus.

The point is this, take Ignatius as our first example, he could be simply commenting on the elements being not common, but as Christ said, "This is my blood" and "This is my Body"

The idea of transubstantiation isn't taught there, but is read into that statement. Do we have an example of an ECF making a similiar statement as Ignatius but then clarifying what he meant? Yes. Tertullian.




Justin Martyr is not teaching transubstation, but it is easy to see why some would think so. Consider this from another of Justin's writings:




While it may be that Justin believe in some sort of "real presence" regarding the Eucharist, he was not teaching transubstantiaion.

The same is true with Augustine, which I decided to include for more history. He is speaking figuratively. Augustine once wrote, "That's how he explained the sacrament of the Lord's Table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be" (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

When we eat, do we turn into a loaf of bread? lol So if he speaks figuratively of the partakers, why do others insist he is speaking literally about the elements?

Yes I see what you are saying and when you study what transubstantiation means it agrees with the above. (not that I agree with it but this is the principle of it). Note the Orthodox don't define Transubstantiation. What is common is the believe in the Real presence during the communion which as you're making the point of generality so it seems are these writers. In otherword Christ presence is there during communion. Not specific as in elements possibly.
Note Catholics don't understand their own doctrine save the educated clergy. Note Transubstance is a consept put forward by Aquinas. Who used Greek philosophy to make their point. Note Substance is the spiritual truth behind matter not matter itself. This is a platonic idea. You can see this in the writings of CS Lewis and George Macdonald. This view of Spirit and matter. The substance is not matter but what matter is based on. Catholics split the Eucharist into two aspects Substance and Accidents. Accidents are the Matter of the elements. So Transsubstance is a Changing that goes on behind the scenes spiritually. Accidents remain the same. So in reality its a figurative point that spiritually we believe this happens but not physically. Most catholics seem to believe its a physical thing but that not what the doctrine teaches. However, the importance of the eucharist is noted in all the quotes you made which is Catholic. Thus as you see this development of Doctrine is stictly based on Greek Thought as are the Majority of Early Christian doctrine. So in the sence you mean Justin believed in the real presence (generally) Catholic believe the same with the exception that it is directly connected to the elements though the elements themselves do not change.
However, as baptist we say Christ is in communion in a general way as he is always with us. We differ from Catholics and Justin in this matter. What I find out about the Catholic Church is that they give a lot of fancy latin names to very simple consepts but somehow make it seem more than it is. Like with Transubstantiation.

 

[lori4dogs]

Reformed Baptist said: "Furthermore, the differences among most Protestant and Evangelical churches are minute."

The majority of mainline protestant churches, the Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, Ev. Lutheran Church, Episcopal, etc., are having a big struggle with liberal theology. In most of these churches liberals are in the majority now. They have lost their theological moorings.

Denying the virgin birth, referring to the atonement as 'Divine child abuse, no physical resurrection, ordaining practicing homosexuals, on and on is more than 'minute' differences wouldn't you say?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The majority of mainline protestant churches, the Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, Ev. Lutheran Church, Episcopal, etc., are having a big struggle with liberal theology. In most of these churches liberals are in the majority now. They have lost their theological moorings.

...and all these Churches at one time were very conservative and what will stop RB's Church from becoming a 'liberal' staple as well? NOTHING...just another victim of schism is all and a Church re-name all in the name of sola scriptura.

In XC
-

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes I see what you are saying and when you study what transubstantiation means it agrees with the above.

That's as far as I read because you don't know how to make paragraphs yet. Your hurting my eyeballs. lol

When I study transub..it means it agrees with the above..hmm...another way to say that is: "When I learn the new doctrine called transub, I can go and read it back into some of the ECF writings rather than reading the ECFs as the starting point."

LOL LOL

FAIL

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Reformed Baptist said: "Furthermore, the differences among most Protestant and Evangelical churches are minute."

The majority of mainline protestant churches, the Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, Ev. Lutheran Church, Episcopal, etc., are having a big struggle with liberal theology. In most of these churches liberals are in the majority now. They have lost their theological moorings.

Denying the virgin birth, referring to the atonement as 'Divine child abuse, no physical resurrection, ordaining practicing homosexuals, on and on is more than 'minute' differences wouldn't you say?

Has the Bible changed?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

...and all these Churches at one time were very conservative and what will stop RB's Church from becoming a 'liberal' staple as well? NOTHING...just another victim of schism is all and a Church re-name all in the name of sola scriptura.

In XC
-

Your response amounts to not addressing anything and ignoring all my points....= FAIL.

So your Orthodox eh?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's as far as I read because you don't know how to make paragraphs yet. Your hurting my eyeballs. lol

When I study transub..it means it agrees with the above..hmm...another way to say that is: "When I learn the new doctrine called transub, I can go and read it back into some of the ECF writings rather than reading the ECFs as the starting point."

LOL LOL

FAIL

don't I get some assistance on the curve? LOL. No I don't I use the writings of these People and see the context which Transubstantiation is in.

Transubstantiation has to do with Substance. A Greek consept of the reality behind Matter. Matter is what this world is made of. Substance is the spiritual world. Accidents are matter. Trans-substance is a change of the spiritual rather than the matterial. So Transsubstantiation is as spiritual change that is not observed. In otherwords its a spiritual truth believed that Jesus Christ is present in the communion. All Early church Doctrine was viewed from Greek prespectives. Aquinas first coining the phrase was a student of Greek philosophy and so the term hail back to that.

It is sufficient to say that the early Christians believed in the real pressence during communion either figuratively, generally, or connected to the communion itself but they believed it. That's not reading back into it but understanding the consept from their perspective rather than ours.

Even lay catholics get this wrong because they believe the Accidents change as well. But its a change never observed because its spiritual just like when we say The spirit of God resides in us. You can't really see it save in our behavior but its a spiritual truth. My body hasn't changed but I have faith that the HS is with me. This is how The Catholics are supposed to view the eucharist but most don't understand.

Is this helping your eyeballs? Note How in your quote Justin connects the presence with the Eucharist at a particular time. Thats not reading modern though back into it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

don't I get some assistance on the curve? LOL. No I don't I use the writings of these People and see the context which Transubstantiation is in.

Transubstantiation has to do with Substance. A Greek consept of the reality behind Matter. Matter is what this world is made of. Substance is the spiritual world. Accidents are matter. Trans-substance is a change of the spiritual rather than the matterial. So Transsubstantiation is as spiritual change that is not observed. In otherwords its a spiritual truth believed that Jesus Christ is present in the communion. All Early church Doctrine was viewed from Greek prespectives. Aquinas first coining the phrase was a student of Greek philosophy and so the term hail back to that.

It is sufficient to say that the early Christians believed in the real pressence during communion either figuratively, generally, or connected to the communion itself but they believed it. That's not reading back into it but understanding the consept from their perspective rather than ours.

Even lay catholics get this wrong because they believe the Accidents change as well. But its a change never observed because its spiritual just like when we say The spirit of God resides in us. You can't really see it save in our behavior but its a spiritual truth. My body hasn't changed but I have faith that the HS is with me. This is how The Catholics are supposed to view the eucharist but most don't understand.

Is this helping your eyeballs? Note How in your quote Justin connects the presence with the Eucharist at a particular time. Thats not reading modern though back into it.

Yes, you have learned young padawan. My eyeballs are soothed.

Justin could be saying what some churches such as Lutheran or others teach that Christ is present during this celebration. But its quite a leap to jump to transubstantiation and the mystical process that the priest supposedly does.

The fact is, do we really know? I am not sure that we do. So it is back to the Scriptures to see if they teach such a thing, which is ultimately where we should turn to judge, repectfully, even the ECFs.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Your response amounts to not addressing anything and ignoring all my points....= FAIL.

As a "reformed" Baptist whose theology is committed to Covenant theology, does your particular church practice infant baptism?

Just wondering, back where I lived in Indianapolis, I had a neighbor who was a Presbyterian preacher and would hold bible studies...this was during the time I started to re-think what I believed as a Baptist. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist I told him I was thinking of checking out the Reformed Baptist Church...it was then did he tell me, the Reformed Baptist wasn't truly "Reformed" and that worldwide there were over 700 "Reformed" denominations and good luck finding the authentic Reformed Church.

So your Orthodox eh?

That would be correct...

In XC
-

 

[lori4dogs]

Yes, you have learned young padawan. My eyeballs are soothed.

Justin could be saying what some churches such as Lutheran or others teach that Christ is present during this celebration. But its quite a leap to jump to transubstantiation and the mystical process that the priest supposedly does.

The fact is, do we really know? I am not sure that we do. So it is back to the Scriptures to see if they teach such a thing, which is ultimately where we should turn to judge, repectfully, even the ECFs.

When it comes to St. Ignatius of Antioch, I suspect this is what he did. He sat at Johns feet. He wrote seven letters that were considered for inclusion in the canon because of this. I put a lot more weight to his writings than some of the other ECF's because of that. I would have expected him to ask John 'just what did you mean when you wrote John 6?"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

As a "reformed" Baptist whose theology is committed to Covenant theology, does your particular church practice infant baptism?

Just wondering, back where I lived in Indianapolis, I had a neighbor who was a Presbyterian preacher and would hold bible studies...this was during the time I started to re-think what I believed as a Baptist. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist I told him I was thinking of checking out the Reformed Baptist Church...it was then did he tell me, the Reformed Baptist wasn't truly "Reformed" and that worldwide there were over 700 "Reformed" denominations and good luck finding the authentic Reformed Church.

No, a 1689 London Baptist Confessional church would not practice infant baptism.

I have seen the talk about what is really reformed and what isn't. I find it rather childish and usually stay out of those conversations. For me I used the terms Reformed and Baptist because it best describes how I understand the Scriptures. Also, the 1689 confession is closest to what I believe the Scriptures teach, although I do take some exceptions to it that I don't think square with the Scripture. Reformed refers to the Reformation not Covenant Theology per se, and this is more in-line with the 5 Solas of the reformation.

Baptist refers to Church governance and the proper subject of baptism.

But as important as Baptism or Church governance is, I don't view those things as essential Christian doctrine. How a man can stand just before an All Holy God is.

So my contention for the Gospel revolves around the Gospel. I contend against the papacy and orthodox churches because their traditions, in my opinion, have perverted the Gospel found in the Bible, specifically as it relates to the doctrine of justification.

 

[lori4dogs]

Reformed Baptist are Creedal, right? Would you say that the Apostles, Athanasian, and Nicene creeds are summarys of the faith? Just not on the same level as scripture?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

When it comes to St. Ignatius of Antioch, I suspect this is what he did. He sat at Johns feet. He wrote seven letters that were considered for inclusion in the canon because of this. I put a lot more weight to his writings than some of the other ECF's because of that. I would have expected him to ask John 'just what did you mean when you wrote John 6?"

Perhaps we can just look to John's writings?

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:26-27

Do you have this anointing?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Reformed Baptist are Creedal, right? Would you say that the Apostles, Athanasian, and Nicene creeds are summarys of the faith? Just not on the same level as scripture?

Reformed Baptists are creedal, yes. I am not sure if that means the same thing to you as it does to me, but as you can see in my signature, I post a creed/statement of faith.

And yes, I would say that the Apostles, Anthanasian, and Nicene creeds are good statements on what they address. And yes, they are not on the same level as Scripture but have their use.