Vicar of Jesus Christ?

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

If it weren't for the crusades you'd be praying to mecca right now.

. . . say you as if the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the Power of God to save his Own without the help of the popes' troopers and puppets.


. . . say you, as though "they (who) lived with Christ ... until the thousand years were finished ... sat” not “on thrones ... and reigned with Christ” despite they were "beheaded for the witness of Jesus" BY YOU and YOUR vicar of Christ.


In the end, you Roman and other Catholics again, with the help of your first born harlot daughter Islam whom you brought up for the very purpose, will under the firm impression that you earn your salvation, murder the Protestants wholesale. Soon! one of these days. But again, like in the times of the crusades, will turn one upon the other like hungry dogs.

Yea, the sooner the better.

PS
In fact it is already happening.

Come Lord Jesus, come quickly

 

[herbert]

DHK,

Thanks for your continued feedback, though I see you've brought up a host of other issues. For now, we'll put those on the shelf and I'll wrap these posts up here over the next few days and then get back to that summarized list you presented before tackling issues related to the Communion of Saints, intercessory prayer, etc. Below is the next section of my response to your previous comments (which I had already written by the time you presented those distilled topics).

Part II

Perhaps the word "trinity" may have been coined by some Catholic theologian, but that is irrelevant.

That is the very thing in question here, DHK. You say it’s irrelevant. I say it’s relevant. Therefore, we need to consider the rationale by which we reach our respective conclusions. I say that you reach your conclusions according to a combination of arguments from (Biblical) silence, mistaken and inaccurate historical notions, cases of special pleading, ad hominems, and non sequiturs. Hence my refrain “Your Biblicism is itself unBiblical.” For I say that although that unnamed Catholic theologian was a mere man, toiling within a grand institution (which was and is susceptible to the frailties of any institution) within which he was just one single fallible agent, God is able to, despite human imperfection, further reveal, through the ministry of the Church, the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of a type of “development of doctrine.” As the acorn becomes the great oak, so do Scriptural ideas and concepts blossom and grow within the community of the faithful according to the life everpresent there and always kindled by the Holy Spirit. So it is that a deepening of an understanding of a doctrine mustn’t be confused with the invention of a doctrine. For though the Trinity is present there in Scripture, it’s not affirmed by every person who’s read the Bible. The Scriptures themselves don’t demand that they’re rightly understood, afterall. And how often is Scripture distorted and misunderstood by ignorant and unstable men? I think this is part of what GK Chesterton was getting at when he said: “You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God.”

The doctrine is from the Bible not from the RCC, and existed long before the RCC. The Bible is our guide, not the RCC. As a matter of basic history, it was long before the fourth century that the ECF believed the trinity:

The doctrine is from God and it comes to us through God's chosen vehicle of delivery, not yours. His chosen vehicle for delivery is, according to the Bible, the Church which Christ established within which the Bible is rightly understood according to the Holy Spirit. Again, I am not saying that the Bible does not contain information which reveals to us God’s Tri-une nature. On the contrary, the Trinity is surely there. But that doesn’t mean that the doctrine is “from the Bible,” either. No, the doctrine is simply a formulation, in terms accessible to human beings, "whether by word of mouth or by letter" of the mysterious nature of God. It is a mystery which we can affirm yet not truly understand regardless of where we learn of it. Further, a Catholic can say that the “Bible is our guide,” too. But the Catholic holds to the teachings of the Bible in their rightful place. It’s Christ’s authority, though, to rightly interpret Scripture. And that right, along with all authority given to Christ, was conferred upon the Apostles. And nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that this steward’s authority died with them. So what people really mean when they say “the Bible is our guide” is actually something more like “The Bible (according to my interpretations of it) is our guide” which further translates as "I am our guide." So I do certainly believe that “early Christians” believed in the Trinity. They were, after all, making the sign of the cross on their foreheads since the earliest of days. and one more thing, by appealing to the practice of the “early Christians” as (apparently as some form of) validation for your doctrines, bear in mind the fact that I could turn around and demonstrate that these same early Christian communities believed a whole host of doctrines which you reject (according to your interpretation of the Scriptures). It also presents them as some sort of authority worthy of referencing. But if the Scriptures alone are meant to be the “sole” authority for all of a Christian’s beliefs, though, then why appeal to these communities in the first place? A Catholic would certainly appeal to them as holding to the faith “as it was understood” by the Apostles and delivered to the early Christians. And this faith wasn’t the faith that Marcion, Tertullian, Theodotus, or Arius held to. So in your view, does the broader witness provided by “early Christians” for the Trinity factor in or not? Does it somehow grant credibility to it, or not? If not, then why refer to them at all? If it does, well, then, again, your appeal is not only extraBiblical, it is rather ad hoc, considering the fact that these very early Christians to whose witness you appeal held to a host of "unBiblical" doctrines (in your estimation). To summarize, David Anders put it this way: "The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith... By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11." So it (ironically) the Biblicist who sees himself as holding to the Bible who's waivered from the Bible's teachings... and the Catholic, in his affirmation of the authority of Christ's Church, is the one who's a held to what the Bible actually says.

As a matter of basic history, it was long before the fourth century that the ECF believed the trinity:

This, like an appeal to “early Christian” consensus, represents an appeal to an extraBiblical authority of sorts. Further, I am not sure that a reference to “trinitas” (God, His Word, and His Wisdom) in 180 BC (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autoclycus) is rightly characterized as “long before” Nicaea. It’s a full century and a half both after Christ and before the Council. Upon what basis do you claim that “As a matter of basic history, it was long before the fourth century that the ECF believed the trinity.”?

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Part II
That is the very thing in question here, DHK. You say it’s irrelevant. I say it’s relevant.

One can see that the "trinity" that is, the word, not the doctrine, is not relevant. Christ, the apostles, and the early Christians did not speak English. The Word came from Latin. It was an early doctrine that existed before the RCC by other terminology. Of course it would not be in the Greek NT.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
--Even the unsaved were without excuse not to believe. In all of nature he has left evidence of his triune nature everywhere.

Therefore, we need to consider the rationale by which we reach our respective conclusions. I say that you reach your conclusions according to a combination of arguments from (Biblical) silence,

The Bible is not silent.
The trinity or triune Godhead is spoken of throughout the Word. I just gave you one reference.
Another is in the baptism of Jesus where we see all three persons of the Godhead present.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

There are dozens of individual Scriptures which demonstrate that the Father is God.
That Christ is God,
That the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three separate gods, but One God in three different persons.

Here is a good example of what I am talking about:
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
--Ananias and Sapphira had lied to the Holy Spirit who is God. That is what is demonstrated here.
There are dozens of such Scriptures.
And yet we know that the Scriptures declare:
Isa 43:10-11
(10) Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
(11) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
--Over and over again the Scriptures declare that there is only One God.
But that God is Jehovah; Christ; and the Holy Spirit.
Somehow you think that all the Apostles were ignorant of the Scriptures and missed these points??
Phleeezzz Remember it was Peter identifying the Holy Spirit as God.

mistaken and inaccurate historical notions, cases of special pleading, ad hominems, and non sequiturs. Hence my refrain “Your Biblicism is itself unBiblical.”

Herein is the difference between Baptists (and most evangelicals) and Catholics. We have the Bible (God's inspired revelation to mankind) as our authority. You believe the Magesterium is your authority. We have a basis for our belief in that the Bible is not only inspired but its inspiration is divinely preserved. But you have no basis for believing in a divinely kept Magesterium, Catechism, or papal line. All of them can be proven wrong. One's belief in these institutions must be blind, without foundation.

For I say that although that unnamed Catholic theologian was a mere man, toiling within a grand institution (which was and is susceptible to the frailties of any institution) within which he was just one single fallible agent, God is able to, despite human imperfection, further reveal, through the ministry of the Church, the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of a type of “development of doctrine.”

As demonstrated this doctrine was already in the Bible.
However, doctrine is progressive. That is to say, we build upon the foundation that others have laid for us. Even then all doctrine must be in harmony with that which is already written in the Bible. Indeed we are Biblicists. Those who are not are condemned by the Bible itself:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--If the doctrine is not according to the Bible then it is not of God. There is no light in those that teach doctrine not according to the Word. That is a great and terrible condemnation.

As the acorn becomes the great oak, so do Scriptural ideas and concepts blossom and grow within the community of the faithful according to the life everpresent there and always kindled by the Holy Spirit. So it is that a deepening of an understanding of a doctrine mustn’t be confused with the invention of a doctrine.

Since the Bible is our authority we understand the doctrines of the Bible.
Since the Magesterium is the Catholic guide they understand the doctrines of men, and they have invented them. I gave you a link to many invented doctrines, one of which only became "official" in 1950. I believe that was the assumption of Mary. That is an invention; a doctrine of man, and quite unbiblical, if not anti-biblical. The RCC is known for its invention of doctrines.

For though the Trinity is present there in Scripture, it’s not affirmed by every person who’s read the Bible.

Quite true. There are many who read the Bible and are anti-trinitarian to this day, such as Oneness Pentecostal.

The Scriptures themselves don’t demand that they’re rightly understood, afterall. And how often is Scripture distorted and misunderstood by ignorant and unstable men?

Many times. And many times those that do are not guided by the Holy Spirit. Even Madeline Murray Ohare used the Bible.

I think this is part of what GK Chesterton was getting at when he said: “You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God.”

The RCC uses the Bible more as a crutch than anything else. They refuse to acknowledge the truths which the Bible teaches such as "justification by faith alone," and then proceed to try and make the Bible teach what it doesn't teach such as baptismal regeneration, transubstantiation, and infant baptism, none of which are in the Bible.

The doctrine is from God and it comes to us through God's chosen vehicle of delivery, not yours. ... And nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that this steward’s authority died with them.

You are very confused here, seriously.
First God gave the Scriptures to man, and they came through the prophets and the apostles.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--The holy men of God were the prophets and the apostles, those who penned the words of Scripture, those who were "moved by the Holy Spirit."

2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
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 tells his readers that the words of the apostles are just as important as the words of the prophets. Be mindful or remember both the words of the OT and the NT--prophets and apostles.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--It is Scripture that is inspired, not the "Church" so-called, but Scripture, and only Scripture. Therefore it is Scripture that is our authority.
Note:
God gave the Bible to the church. not the Church giving the Bible to man.
The Bible came first. The apostles wrote down the words of God. God gave them to the churches. The churches (plural) kept and preserved the inspired Word of God. The "Church" so-called did not come up with the Bible. It is God's Book not the Church's Book.

The authority to interpret the Bible is given to every believer, ever person who has trusted Christ.
That is why people who are saved have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, and generally speaking have like doctrine, far more unity than you perceive, perhaps even more than what I perceive in the Catholic churches where I see some can marry and some cannot, and many other differences.

Unlike the OT, wherein every person had to go first to the priest with a sacrificial offering in order to have their sins forgiven (akin to RCC), we now have a Great High Priest, Jesus Christ, and every born again believer is a priest who can come straight before him as a priest himself. That "priestly system" (like the RCC has) is unbiblical and has been done away with.

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
--As a priest, God gives me light through the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible.[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

So what people really mean when they say “the Bible is our guide” is actually something more like “The Bible (according to my interpretations of it) is our guide” which further translates as "I am our guide."

It is called the priesthood of the believer. It also fits in with the other distinctive so important to us that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice. Thus God has given each person with a relationship with Christ the Holy Spirit that gives him light to understand the Bible.

So I do certainly believe that “early Christians” believed in the Trinity. They were, after all, making the sign of the cross on their foreheads since the earliest of days. and one more thing, by appealing to the practice of the “early Christians” as (apparently as some form of) validation for your doctrines, bear in mind the fact that I could turn around and demonstrate that these same early Christian communities believed a whole host of doctrines which you reject (according to your interpretation of the Scriptures). It also presents them as some sort of authority worthy of referencing.

There is much history to attest to it.

But if the Scriptures alone are meant to be the “sole” authority for all of a Christian’s beliefs, though, then why appeal to these communities in the first place?

There is no need to. I can base all of my arguments on Scripture as I have done in this post.

A Catholic would certainly appeal to them as holding to the faith “as it was understood” by the Apostles and delivered to the early Christians.

Faith in the Bible is understood in two ways.
The Book of Jude says to "Contend for the faith," that is the body of truth which we believe.
Faith, as have faith or believe, used here as a verb, means just that: to believe, trust, have confidence in.

And this faith wasn’t the faith that Marcion, Tertullian, Theodotus, or Arius held to.

The above men are questionable. Arius was a heretic. Tertullian changed his views near the end of his life. Marcion's views are questionable.

So in your view, does the broader witness provided by “early Christians” for the Trinity factor in or not? Does it somehow grant credibility to it, or not? If not, then why refer to them at all? If it does, well, then, again, your appeal is not only extraBiblical, it is rather ad hoc, considering the fact that these very early Christians to whose witness you appeal held to a host of "unBiblical" doctrines (in your estimation). To summarize, David Anders put it this way: "The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority.

The doctrine of sola scriptura is one of the pillars of the Reformation to put it mildly.
It is a core belief of Baptists. It is anathema to the RCC because it destroys all their doctrines which are simply inventions of men such as the assumption and so many others already referred to. It is not I that must refer to the ECF, it is you. The RCC constantly refers to the ECF and has a great distaste for the Bible. I invite you to prove the statements that you have made in this post, particularly concerning the RCC, using the Scripture. Note that you have avoided the Bible. You have simply made assertions without any Biblical authority whatsoever. I appeal to divine authority as a priest before God.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
--I don't need to go to a priest. I go boldly before the throne of grace myself.
--I don't need a priest for interpretation. The Holy Spirit dwells within me. He gives me the light to interpret the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith... By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”

The phrase "bound in heaven" you have taken out of context. It refers to local church discipline and that is all. It has nothing to do with the the transmission of the text which was given first to the apostles and then to the early Christians. The RCC did not come into existence until the fourth century. Take a look at the links I provided you, especially the second one.

That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11." So it (ironically) the Biblicist who sees himself as holding to the Bible who's waivered from the Bible's teachings... and the Catholic, in his affirmation of the authority of Christ's Church, is the one who's a held to what the Bible actually says.

You don't have the oral teaching of Jesus. You have only that which is written in the 66 books of the Bible. Everything else is not inspired.

This, like an appeal to “early Christian” consensus, represents an appeal to an extraBiblical authority of sorts. Further, I am not sure that a reference to “trinitas” (God, His Word, and His Wisdom) in 180 BC (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autoclycus) is rightly characterized as “long before” Nicaea. It’s a full century and a half both after Christ and before the Council. Upon what basis do you claim that “As a matter of basic history, it was long before the fourth century that the ECF believed the trinity.”?

Your appeal above to oral history is even more frivolous. It also is extra biblical. So if you would like to stick to the Scripture I am fine with that. But as long as you go outside of the Bible, my sources are just as good as yours.

 

[BobRyan]

b

Part I

The Catholic Church doesn’t “take credit” for the Trinity. But if you’re suggesting that the Catholic Church, the very Church of St. Augustine with its Pope in Rome and its Bishops and Sacraments, etc. didn’t play an utterly indispensable role in the establishment of the doctrine *for the sake of the universal Church,* then I don’t think you’ll be able to square your position with certain uncontested aspects of the historical record. Yes, “Trinity” is simply a word we use to describe the Tri-une nature of God. The Church cannot “take credit” for that any more than it can “take credit” for creatio ex nihilo. What the Catholic Church did, though, in history, was play an instrumental role in, as an institution, discerning, recognizing, adopting, formalizing and promulgating those Christian teachings which became binding upon the faithful, the doctrine of the Trinity included. This is the process, to which I previously referred, that occurred during the 4th Century within the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church established by Christ. The Conciliar teachings, whether you see them as superfluous or not, were binding upon all of the local churches around the world, each of which was incorporated into the universal Church of St. Ignatius's letter, even though they *spoke to* rather than *created* the trinitarian nature of God.

Certainly the RCC "existed" - and "did stuff" no one doubts that. And Paul says in Acts 20 and in 1Tim 1 that error was already coming into the church in his day.

As for the 15 forged letters of Ignatius and the "Donation of Constantine"
===========================================.


The 15 forged letters of Ignatius:

They claim to be written by Ignatius in 110 AD, but were forged by another in about 250 AD that deceptively claimed to be Ignatius.

Apostolic Fathers: Dates they lived and other info.

1. All scholars reject 8 of Ignatius' alleged writings as forgeries and say the 7 remaining letters are genuine and were written in 110AD.
2. Some scholars reject them all as forgeries that were written about 250AD
3. We take the firm view that all 15 Ignatian letters are forgeries. All of the letters that claim to be written by Ignatius are fakes.
4. Almost nothing is known about the real Ignatius. See Schaff's comments below.

A. Fraudulent forgeries of Ignatius:

1. The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD. A total of 15 letters were allegedly written by Ignatius. We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius's letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the "7 Ignatian letters" are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. (We have colour coded the quotes below.)
2. We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD.
3. Within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters", is a powerful clue it is clearly a forgery from a later time. The very first historical reference to the "Catholic Church" is nestled warmly between very strong commands to obey the bishop as you would Jesus Christ and the only valid baptism or communion service is one by the bishop's authority. We feel that is it no co-incidence that the first historical reference to the church as the "Catholic Church" is contained within one of the "7 genuine Ignatius letters". Schaff comments: "been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase "Catholic Church" in patristic writings." (Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.) We feel it is proof enough to reject all as forgeries. "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father ... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.)
4. Having said this, the Ignatian letters do represent real history for the dates they were actually written. Forgeries yes, but even the forgeries prove that there was no one bishop over the church universal.
5. The first 8 letters of Ignatius do provide insights into what a the 4th-5th century author wished Ignatius had said in support of the authors current setting. The 7 letters of Ignatius being written probably around 250 AD, likewise give an insight into what was going on in 250 AD.
6. We therefore date the 8 letters of Ignatius at 300-500 AD and the 7 letters of Ignatius at about 250 AD.
7. "It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch." (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians)
8. "The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation. We have three different versions of the Ignatian Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek version, or the lately discovered Syriac. In the latter, which contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear even here" (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)
9. "Already, in the infancy of the episcopate, began the second stage of development, that of express emphasis upon its importance. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to represent this stage. Again and again, in his epistles, he urges obedience to the bishop, warns against doing any thing without the bishop, represents the bishop as standing to the congregation as the vicegerent of Christ. At the same time, he regarded each bishop as limited to his own congregation, and recognized no essential distinctions within the episcopal body. Ignatius, however, appears to have been an exception to his age, in the degree of emphasis which he put upon the episcopal dignity. He stands so nearly alone in this respect, that some have been disposed to question the genuineness of the epistles attributed to him. Baur declares it impossible that any writer of so early an age could have uttered such high episcopal notions as appear in the so-called Ignatian Epistles." (Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, Vol 1, p 147)

===================================================================

Yet that "forgery confirmed" and "forgery rich" -- "source" is where one must go to bolster claims for the RCC.

Question: Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[BobRyan]

RCC key doctrines -
1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Communion "with the Dead"
4. Mariolotry
5. Priests with the magic powers to "confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ -- Powers retained even if the priest is excommunicated.
6. Infant baptism
7. Authority to edit/change the Commandments of God.
8. Lateran IV - "Extermination" of heretics and Jews.
9. Doctrine of Discovery
10. Infallibility claimed for certain Papal statements and laws of ecumenical councils.
11. Pope as head of all Christian denominations.

About the only thing that church did right as a denomination after their failed attempt at sustaining the dark ages - was that in the 18th century they forever "extinguished" the Jesuit order according to Pope Clement XIV

Again, you have taken what I said and drawn an inference from it which I never intended to relay. Christ was worshiped by the first Christians (Matthew 28:9). Their understanding wasn’t one that was developed, though. It was thorough and steadfast, yes. But over time as the Church grew, confusion and disagreement certainly worked its way in as it does in any community but the Holy Spirit was there to guide and direct the Church's pastors. We both believe the God is superintending things here. You believe He's doing this through the Scriptures alone (solely). Whereas, I say that even the Scriptures don't suggest such a thing, but rather record Christ Himself doing the most surprising of things

"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul) were SO" Acts 17:11
"Though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you with a different Gospel - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9

Turning to Peter he said TO PETER "get thee behind me Satan!" Matt 16.

. New ideas are formalized as heresies. Heresies are wielded by the disobedient.

Which is how we got the RCC in the first place.

.
And there is only that one Institution on Earth which is impervious to complete corruption by virtue of its divine founding and superintendence: The Catholic Church.

Just not in real life.

Ask the 50-100 million saints that they killed.

Or better yet - ask the Catholics who died fighting wars with fellow Catholics as Papal army fought Papal army to see who would be the 'last pope standing'.

Still, though, it’s here 500 years after Wittenburg and 2,000 years after Calvary. This Catholic Church is still preaching the Empty Tomb. It’s still preaching the Blessed Trinity. It’s still preaching the Incarnation of the Son of God. It's still preaching that one way to Heaven, through Christ.

Wouldn't it be a nice fiction to claim that those doctrines are all the RCC teaches and that none of the gross errors as listed previously were taught?

Were that fiction true - then no killing of the saints by the RCC for those who rejected the mountain of false teaching they were promoting at the risk of death to those that insisted on reading the then-banned-Bible which was on the forbidden list of books.

The Scriptures themselves are very clear in their presentation of the qualities and characteristics of Christ’s Church under the New Covenant. The New Testament presents a Church which is bound to its Head

Which is Christ according to the Bible.

Col 1:18"Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead."

Col 2
8 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

my Church couldn’t possibly be the Church described in the New Testament.

Then I have good news for you - you have free will -- choose another one.

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry, Herbert, I didn't know you had addressed me. If you hit either Quote or Reply it will give me an alert to let me know your addressing me or a post of mine.

Hello, Darrell C.-

I am a bit confused. It seems as though, because of my poor formatting, you took some quotes that I was reviewing with DHK (which were things he'd originally written) and mistook them for my statements and then responded to them!

No, I understood your list, I simply commented on them in hopes of stirring up conversation, lol.

When I ask, "Do you disagree," that is the opener for the discussion, and any of the topics will suffice.

If this is what happened, I'd encourage you to go back and track down the origins of those statements so that you might recognize their original context.

Not what happened, and still encourage you to pick one of the issues if you like.

Also, are you still visiting this site with hopes of discussing these topics?

Yes! lol

I actually extended my stay in hopes of engaging you in discussion. I have had a number of discussions with Catholics, and sometimes they can be great. You have been very polite in your posting, and an antagonist like that can be a rarity, lol.

I was under the impression that you were "signing off" for a time.

I will be, and actually need to, because I need to find another/new forum to visit and need to get myself centered back on my business as well.

At this point I will be staying through Saturday. If you would like to pick one topic that distinguishes Catholic Doctrine from other denominations that would be great. I have raised a few issues that I personally take issue with in regards to Catholic Doctrine and Practice, but any topic you feel sets the Catholic Church apart or "above" other denominations will do. I prefer to keep it doctrinal, so have broached the Authority of Scripture. I think both if us will acknowledge reverence for the Word of God, and can consider whether, in light of a general Catholic sentiment, my interpretation is a private one, or if the issue in view is actually what Scripture teaches. Everyone "proof texts," even Catholics, so we can bypass the tendency to dismiss interpretations as private and concentrate on the Word itself.

If you are so inclined, that is. If not, hey, that's okay too. I wish you the best in your time here, and hope that time will be blessed. I take the view that any time we get together to discuss God's Word it is always beneficial for both sides, regardless of who thinks they have "won" a debate, or claimed victory in discussion. It's about growing in understanding, and the first thing we need to do in order to minister to each other is to simply...understand our antagonist first. If I don't know what it is you, Herbert, actually believe, and why you believe it...I am not going to be able to discuss those beliefs.

So it's up to you, my friend, as to whether you would like to engage in discussion, as well as what topic you think important to share with this forum. All of us are, to some degree or another, missionaries of the beliefs we hold. You are at this time a representative of Catholicism, and an actual member of that faith. How your beliefs align with Catholic Doctrine remains to be seen. An example of what I mean is that in the Baptist Only Boards, we might see those who claim to be "Baptist" but hold to views no Baptist faith has ever taught. I have seen this to some degree with those calling themselves Catholic, who teach extreme doctrines that many Catholics might take issue with.

For example, a person that calls himself a Catholic here professes he never sins anymore. Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? That we can live sinless lives of perfection in this body?

Anyway, my time is about up for the morning, so give consideration as to whether you would like to discuss a particular topic. I am not a Protestant, just a Christian Bible Student. I say that just to head off any assumptions you might have about non-Catholic believers. I am a Baptist, but the Baptist fellowships I have been a part of take a more "independent" approach, rather than what we might see historically among Baptists.

In Him,

Herbert

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

RCC key doctrines -
1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Communion "with the Dead"
4. Mariolotry
5. Priests with the magic powers to "confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ -- Powers retained even if the priest is excommunicated.
6. Infant baptism
7. Authority to edit/change the Commandments of God.
8. Lateran IV - "Extermination" of heretics and Jews.
9. Doctrine of Discovery
10. Infallibility claimed for certain Papal statements and laws of ecumenical councils.
11. Pope as head of all Christian denominations.

About the only thing that church did right as a denomination after their failed attempt at sustaining the dark ages - was that in the 18th century they forever "extinguished" the Jesuit order according to Pope Clement XIV





"They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by the APOSTLE Paul) were SO" Acts 17:11
"Though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you with a different Gospel - let him be accursed" Gal 1:6-9

Turning to Peter he said TO PETER "get thee behind me Satan!" Matt 16.



Which is how we got the RCC in the first place.



Just not in real life.

Ask the 50-100 million saints that they killed.

Or better yet - ask the Catholics who died fighting wars with fellow Catholics as Papal army fought Papal army to see who would be the 'last pope standing'.



Wouldn't it be a nice fiction to claim that those doctrines are all the RCC teaches and that none of the gross errors as listed previously were taught?

Were that fiction true - then no killing of the saints by the RCC for those who rejected the mountain of false teaching they were promoting at the risk of death to those that insisted on reading the then-banned-Bible which was on the forbidden list of books.



Which is Christ according to the Bible.

Col 1:18"Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead."

Col 2
8 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

Eph 5:23
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.




Then I have good news for you - you have free will -- choose another one.

Just wanted to say hello, Bob, haven't seen you much this time around. Hope all is going well for you, and see you around.


God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Just wanted to say hello, Bob, haven't seen you much this time around. Hope all is going well for you, and see you around.


God bless.

Darrell - nice to be seen and hope you are doing well. I have been over on the ChristianForums board - lots of theistic evolution discussion there and also a zillion other topics.

Nice to see things are going well here too.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell - nice to be seen and hope you are doing well. I have been over on the ChristianForums board - lots of theistic evolution discussion there and also a zillion other topics.

Nice to see things are going well here too.

I spent some time on that forum a while back, and I think that is the one I left because Moderation was biased in regards to Baptismal Regeneration, and wanted to keep anyone from discussing it unless it was pitched as they believe.

Good luck over there, Bob.


God bless.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You know, it's hard to find a post without 100 replies already... lol

To answer the original OP, I do not believe the Papacy is the Vicar of Antichrist. I believe it is Antichrist.

 

[DHK]

You know, it's hard to find a post without 100 replies already... lol

To answer the original OP, I do not believe the Papacy is the Vicar of Antichrist. I believe it is Antichrist.

We tend to move fast around here. , at least some of the time.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

Again, I will have to follow up with all of the new topics you're introducing later. For now, here is a bit more of what I'd already been writing in response to you before you presented those simplified points:


Part III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
--You are definitely wrong here.

I don’t see that I am wrong here because the things you think I got wrong are things I never said. Rather, they are things which you wrongly inferred. I never said that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t present among the Apostles (indeed, I believe it was part of the deposit of faith once delivered for all the saints). Further, even though the doctrine was there since those early days, it is, again, a matter of settled history that there were many early Christians whose understanding of God’s divine nature became twisted, particularly according to the misdirection of a Catholic Priest by the name of Arius (whom I mentioned above). It was Arius who saw Christ as subject to the Father, as a creation of God the Father. He appealed to various Scriptural passages to substantiate his view such as John 14:28, Luke 18:19, Proverbs 8:22, and others. His “heresy” spread verey aggressively and it took the workings of the institutional Church to put it down. It was, as a matter of history put to rest through the process of conciliar discernment, which is a lot like making sausage. It’s ugly. Even Constantine himself died an Arian (337 BC) and not a Trinitarian. It took the authority of the Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome to bind the universal (Catholic) Church’s doctrine in favor of the Trinitarian reading of Scripture. Without that Church there, acting as an institution, the early faith would have been lost in that ancient sea of demonic and polytheistic madness despite the presence of the doctrine their in the God-breathed texts. What principle of unity would exist among the Christians? Yes, the Scriptures were there with the material of the doctrine itself. But just as the Jews of Christ’s day sat under the Authority of those in Moses’ Seat and were thus able to be recognized as objectively obedient or disobedient, so is it that in the New Testament Church, we recognize the Stewards’ Authority held by the Apostles and their Successors. And just as God brought about the Incarnation through the *cooperation* of a human girl, so does God patiently operate, at work among us, in all our human frailty, to bring about what is really a furtherance of the Incarnation, in a sense, through the Church, which is one with the Lord. As Ephesians 1 says, the church is the fullness of Him who fills all in all. And yes, it took the Scriptures in the able and graced hands of St. Athanasius to combat the heresy, confusion, and impure doctrine which was gaining ground because of the teaching of ignorant and unstable men. The Church, then, with Scripture, and the Apostolic authority maintained through Christ’s Sacraments (i.e. the three-fold principle of unity instituted by Christ), for the furtherance of the faith through the centuries, had its way in establishing those doctrines among us which God saw fit to establish. Your zeal for Christ’s truths is commendable. But, I suggest, you’ve attached that zeal to a philosophical system built upon a particular *approach* to the Bible rather than the Bible itself. The principle of unity, the thing to which a Christian is, by Christ’s design, supposed to link his faith is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which He established to reached the ends of the world with His Gospel according to the Holy Spirit’s divine guidance.

There is too much to list all at one time, and much of it is pure superstition without any Biblical authority whatsoever.

Again, DHK, what you consider to be “superstition” is determined according to your unBiblical test for a doctrine’s veracity. Arians considered the Trinitarian doctrine to be “superstition.” Remember, if your initial tests for doctrinal purity are themselves somehow subtly flawed, then they’re unreliable and you may just be wrongly condemning truly Christian doctrines for the sake of mistaken “traditions of men which nullify the Word of God.” And what is too much to list? Why not just list it? Take your time. There is no timer running here. If there were, I’d sure be in trouble! 8^)

It must be within Biblical guidelines. All of our doctrine and faith is measured by the Bible. It is our sole authority.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Again, DHK, this is your fundamental misstep. I agree that things must be within Biblical guidelines. But be careful because if you don’t qualify that statement you’re going to undo your own system of belief. Consider the following “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” A Jehovah’s Witness can turn this passage on you and accuse you of disregarding the “clear teaching” of Scripture. And the JW is wrong. On the other hand, I’ll be the one who may remind you of Christ’s very own “This is my body.” At that point, it becomes quite clear that your appeal isn’t to the bald presentation of Scripture, but the “rightly interpreted” understanding of Scripture. And that’s where the “philosophical tradition” or lens through which you access the Scriptures is what is truly doing your heavy lifting. And that is the very thing that puts you in the same boat as a Catholic. The primary difference, though, at that stage of the discussion, is that the Catholic has a principled system of faith by which doctrines can avoid being historically ad hoc and through which he may be supernaturally united in faith to the 1.27 billion Catholics in the world. Whereas, a non-Catholic, having become separated from that sacramental unity of Christ’s Church (either knowingly or out of ignorance) appeals to his interpretation of Scripture as though it is Scripture itself. He may also appeal to notions of “early Christian consensus” or “historical validity” while he’s at it. For him, then, Christian unity is a local thing. It’s something he might enjoy in his own basement with the other three Oneness Pentecostals with whom he agrees. The very unity that Christ prayed for in the Scriptures, though, isn’t even possible within his system. For though Christ prayed for a unity among His followers that would provide a witness for the sake of the unbelieving world, the Biblicist has a unity which stops at the doors of his local congregation’s meeting place. And the unity in faith he experiences is a unity predicated not on a sacramental bond maintained by Christ’s love and which transcends reason, but upon a bullet point list of “fundamentals of the faith,” which vary from denomination to denomination and which is ephemeral, ad hoc, and utterly lacking the means for its principled, consistent, objective, application.

 

[herbert]

Darrell C.,

I am doing what I can to keep organized as far as the conversation with DHK goes. For now, I'd say it would be quite impossible to respond to him and manage another conversation. If you want to dive in with the interaction that's already taking place between us, that would be great (rather than have me trying to manage two distinct conversations with their own subject matter).

Thanks for the reply!

Herbert

 

[herbert]

1. Purgatory
2. Indulgences
3. Communion "with the Dead"
4. Mariolotry
5. Priests with the magic powers to "confect the body soul and divinity" of Christ -- Powers retained even if the priest is excommunicated.
6. Infant baptism
7. Authority to edit/change the Commandments of God.
8. Lateran IV - "Extermination" of heretics and Jews.
9. Doctrine of Discovery
10. Infallibility claimed for certain Papal statements and laws of ecumenical councils.
11. Pope as head of all Christian denominations.

Hello BobRyan,

You've said a lot here. Obviously as I attempt to continue my responses to DHK I will not be able to field what you've presented at this point. I could in the future, certainly. But as I just said to Darrell C., if you wish to join in on the conversation here which is already taking place primarily between me and DHK, that would be great! It is important to me, though, as a lifelong Baptist (until the age of 30) that I treat everyone here with charity, patience and respect in hopes. For I am deeply indebted to my family and the commitment to the Bible of the faith community in which I grew up (a faith community within which I'd place many of the people here on this site).

For now, though I encourage you to chime in with DHK as we discuss these issues together, I'll just say this about what you shared above:

Everything you shared above indicates to me that you're operating from within a philosophical tradition of men which looks airtight from your perspective, that is, from the inside. And like DHK, you've mistaken your interpretations of Scripture for Scripture itself. It is, then, by your interpretations of Scripture that you dismiss others, and not by Scripture itself. You've also adopted an anachronistic reading of history which suits your philosophically Biblicist outlook. David Anders, an adult convert to the Catholic Faith recently wrote the following. I think it applies to everything you shared above:

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith.

By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11."

That statement well-summarizes the position I came to adopt and which I'd be happy to take time discussing with you in charity. Please be patient with me, though, as these topics are complex!

In Him,

Herbert

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Again, I will have to follow up with all of the new topics you're introducing later. For now, here is a bit more of what I'd already been writing in response to you before you presented those simplified points:

I see you are trying to keep me focused on the trinity. I will try to do that.

Part III
I don’t see that I am wrong here because the things you think I got wrong are things I never said. Rather, they are things which you wrongly inferred. I never said that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity wasn’t present among the Apostles (indeed, I believe it was part of the deposit of faith once delivered for all the saints). Further, even though the doctrine was there since those early days, it is, again, a matter of settled history that there were many early Christians whose understanding of God’s divine nature became twisted, particularly according to the misdirection of a Catholic Priest by the name of Arius (whom I mentioned above). It was Arius who saw Christ as subject to the Father, as a creation of God the Father. He appealed to various Scriptural passages to substantiate his view such as John 14:28, Luke 18:19, Proverbs 8:22, and others. His “heresy” spread verey aggressively and it took the workings of the institutional Church to put it down. It was, as a matter of history put to rest through the process of conciliar discernment, which is a lot like making sausage. It’s ugly. Even Constantine himself died an Arian (337 BC) and not a Trinitarian. It took the authority of the Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome to bind the universal (Catholic) Church’s doctrine in favor of the Trinitarian reading of Scripture. Without that Church there, acting as an institution, the early faith would have been lost in that ancient sea of demonic and polytheistic madness despite the presence of the doctrine their in the God-breathed texts.

Hindsight is usually better than foresight. But in this case we don't know. Constantine never became a Christian in the first place. There is no evidence in history to say that if said Council never took place that "the early faith would have been lost in that ancient sea of demonic and polytheistic madness..."
That is not so. In fact that is an accusation against God that He is powerless to keep his promises to preserve His Word. It is not the RCC that preserves the Word of God; it is God.
There were plenty of debates and plenty of apologists and theologians that defended the Word against this heresy. It didn't need a Council. The Council was demanded by a pagan emperor. He was trying to unify Christianity. It was a politic ploy. When the Donatists refused to comply with this Council, and boycotted it, then Constantine turned his wrath upon them and persecuted them. So much for the unity of the "Church." They didn't believe any such unity existed in one who allowed paganism in the "Church." so-called.
There are many extant writings by Augustine who wrote extensively against Arianism.
Many of the other ECF wrote both against this error and in favor of the trinity.
From early on they were called to "Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints."
No Council was needed for these early Christians to defend their faith against early heresies.
Paul had already warned them, as did Jesus and every other NT writer, about soon-coming heresies.

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
--They came, and they came soon.

What principle of unity would exist among the Christians? Yes, the Scriptures were there with the material of the doctrine itself. But just as the Jews of Christ’s day sat under the Authority of those in Moses’ Seat and were thus able to be recognized as objectively obedient or disobedient, so is it that in the New Testament Church, we recognize the Stewards’ Authority held by the Apostles and their Successors.

You are misusing Scripture here, or not understanding Scripture. What do you think "Moses Seat" is?
The phrase "Moses' seat" is not found in the OT. It is only found once in the NT, and thus it is used only one time in all the Bible. That is hardly enough to build an entire doctrine on. But what does it mean?

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
--He is speaking of the scribes and the Pharisees, the Jewish leaders. Those that sit in Moses's seat are those that taught the law to the nation of Israel. They are Jews. They were the prophets, the judges, kings at times (like Josiah), priests, and others. They were teachers of the law who existed pre-cross. There is not "Moses' seat" today.
The Jewish religion is just as apostate as Islam. It is another religion. Both a Jew and a Muslim must be saved the same way. The must come through Christ by the blood of Christ. Salvation is not through a Church or the Church. It is by grace through faith in Christ.
To be more accurate: Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Both Islam and Judaism are false religions now. To think that the RCC or any form of Christianity is an extension of Judaism or Israel is wrong. There is no "Moses seat."

Secondly, there are no successors to the apostles. Turn to Acts chapter one.
The problem: Judas was never truly saved. After betraying Christ he went out and hung himself:
Acts 1:18 (Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

The solution: Another apostle must be chosen to take his place:
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.
--Note that all of this is not only according to Scripture, but a fulfillment of prophecy.

The method: A divine method of the OT, and prayer,
Acts 1:23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,

The conclusion:
Acts 1:26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
--Matthias was chosen by the Lord and was numbered with the eleven.
There are only 12 apostles.

Furthermore:
Acts 6:2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--Now these verses are those that are post cross. "The twelve" is used a number of times in the gospels. In fact the phrase "the twelve" as they refer to the apostles is used 24 times in the gospels alone. There are 12 apostles, and when Matthias took the place of Judas that "office" was completed. There is no further office of "the apostles" that continues on today.

 

[DHK]

And just as God brought about the Incarnation through the *cooperation* of a human girl, so does God patiently operate, at work among us, in all our human frailty, to bring about what is really a furtherance of the Incarnation, in a sense, through the Church, which is one with the Lord. As Ephesians 1 says, the church is the fullness of Him who fills all in all. And yes, it took the Scriptures in the able and graced hands of St. Athanasius to combat the heresy, confusion, and impure doctrine which was gaining ground because of the teaching of ignorant and unstable men.

Again, just because there were heretics at that time doesn't mean sound biblical doctrine couldn't survive without a Council. This is simply an assumption on your part. Even the Jews of Christ's day knew of Christ's miraculous birth. They refer to it in John 8, although in a veiled and and in a derogatory manner:

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

--They knew of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, and of the half brothers and sisters of Jesus which are clearly explained in Matthew 13:54-56. Here they accuse Christ of being born out of wedlock, a reference to Joseph not being his father, which was true. For his only earthly mother was Mary. They knew that.

The Church, then, with Scripture, and the Apostolic authority maintained through Christ’s Sacraments (i.e. the three-fold principle of unity instituted by Christ), for the furtherance of the faith through the centuries, had its way in establishing those doctrines among us which God saw fit to establish.

By definition, there are no sacraments in the Bible. This is another error of the RCC.

Your zeal for Christ’s truths is commendable. But, I suggest, you’ve attached that zeal to a philosophical system built upon a particular *approach* to the Bible rather than the Bible itself. The principle of unity, the thing to which a Christian is, by Christ’s design, supposed to link his faith is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which He established to reached the ends of the world with His Gospel according to the Holy Spirit’s divine guidance.

Please provide scripture. We want Biblical evidence not philosophical beliefs presented.

Again, DHK, what you consider to be “superstition” is determined according to your unBiblical test for a doctrine’s veracity.

This is what the Jews of the OT did (Isa.8:20). It is what the early believers in the NT did (Acts 17:11). It is what Christ admonished us to do (John 5:39). It is what Paul commanded us to do (2Tim.2:15).

If the prophet's prophecy did not come true 100% of the time he was to be taken out of the camp and to be stoned to death. Furthermore he would receive the same punishment if his prophecy went contrary to the Word of God. The Word of God was always the only rule of faith and practice--ALWAYS!!

Arians considered the Trinitarian doctrine to be “superstition.” Remember, if your initial tests for doctrinal purity are themselves somehow subtly flawed, then they’re unreliable and you may just be wrongly condemning truly Christian doctrines for the sake of mistaken “traditions of men which nullify the Word of God.” And what is too much to list? Why not just list it? Take your time. There is no timer running here. If there were, I’d sure be in trouble! 8^)

What Arians believe about Christians is not important just like what ISIS believes about Christians is not important. We have the truth. We believe the truth. We have a basis for the truth. We know what we believe and why we believe what we believe.

Islam, for an example, does not know that.

What guarantee, for an example, does a suicide bomber have of getting to paradise. On what basis does he base that belief. He has no guarantee, unlike the Christian who rests upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Again, DHK, this is your fundamental misstep. I agree that things must be within Biblical guidelines. But be careful because if you don’t qualify that statement you’re going to undo your own system of belief. Consider the following “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” A Jehovah’s Witness can turn this passage on you and accuse you of disregarding the “clear teaching” of Scripture. And the JW is wrong. On the other hand, I’ll be the one who may remind you of Christ’s very own “This is my body.” At that point, it becomes quite clear that your appeal isn’t to the bald presentation of Scripture, but the “rightly interpreted” understanding of Scripture.

I am not following you. Christ alone is good. We are not.

When Christ said, "This is my body," in context, he was using a metaphor, the same type of metaphor that he used when he said, "I am the door." But he isn't a literal door is He?

And that’s where the “philosophical tradition” or lens through which you access the Scriptures is what is truly doing your heavy lifting. And that is the very thing that puts you in the same boat as a Catholic. The primary difference, though, at that stage of the discussion, is that the Catholic has a principled system of faith by which doctrines can avoid being historically ad hoc and through which he may be supernaturally united in faith to the 1.27 billion Catholics in the world. Whereas, a non-Catholic, having become separated from that sacramental unity of Christ’s Church (either knowingly or out of ignorance) appeals to his interpretation of Scripture as though it is Scripture itself.

The evangelical allows the Holy Spirit to guide him for he has the Holy Spirit dwelling within. See 1Cor.2:11-13. The RCC goes contrary to Scripture and forces its own "private interpretation" of the Bible upon its adherents (2Pet.1:20). Catholics are not united.

http://classroom.synonym.com/difference-between-catholic-orthodox-veneration-mary-9570.html

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...he-roman-catholic-and-greek-orthodox-churches

There is a lot if difference between the various Catholic schools of thought, perhaps more differences than what exists between evangelicals.

He may also appeal to notions of “early Christian consensus” or “historical validity” while he’s at it. For him, then, Christian unity is a local thing. It’s something he might enjoy in his own basement with the other three Oneness Pentecostals with whom he agrees.

Oneness Pentecostal is a cult, not part of true Christianity. Anyone who denies the trinity does not belong in the realm of Christianity. Thus those that deny the very fundamentals of our faith we do not accept as Christian. If you ask Muslims, those who claim to be Muslim and yet deny some of the basic tenets of Islam are not accepted as Muslims. The same applies here.

The very unity that Christ prayed for in the Scriptures, though, isn’t even possible within his system. For though Christ prayed for a unity among His followers that would provide a witness for the sake of the unbelieving world, the Biblicist has a unity which stops at the doors of his local congregation’s meeting place. And the unity in faith he experiences is a unity predicated not on a sacramental bond maintained by Christ’s love and which transcends reason, but upon a bullet point list of “fundamentals of the faith,” which vary from denomination to denomination and which is ephemeral, ad hoc, and utterly lacking the means for its principled, consistent, objective, application.

1. There are no sacraments. Check your Bible.

2. There is no "The Church." Check your Bible.

3. Christ prayed for unity among the disciples. The application of that unity may go further. But he wasn't praying for the organization of the RCC.

4. The divine authority that God has ordained upon this earth for today is the local church which has Christ for its head and the Bible for its foundation.

 

[herbert]

DHK,

I appreciate what you've shared. But before I send any of my other responses your way, let me say this: I will substantiate everything I say to you solely from the Bible once you show me a Bible passage that says I must substantiate everything I say to you solely from the Bible. Again, I stand with the assessment of the situation recently presented by David Anders:

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith... By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11."

Until then, I will continue operating according to the Principle of Unity instituted by Jesus Christ personally: His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Again, though, I do appreciate what you've shared and will read it again and then re-read it probably a few more times before I begin formulating a response (which I will do after I begin responding to that distilled list of topics that you created).

Thanks again for your time,

Herbert

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"The Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is not an article of faith in the Christian religion because it has not been revealed by divine authority. Stated differently, no divine authority – Not Christ, not a prophet, not God himself, and not even the Bible – has identified the canon of scripture (whatever that might be) as the Church’s Rule of Faith... By contrast, Christ entrusts the transmission of divine revelation to the apostles and promises to be with them “to the end of the age,” guaranteeing that “what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That deposit of faith clearly includes the oral teaching of Jesus, and the liturgy he established – something St. Paul recognizes in 1 Cor. 11."

This is a contradiction in itself, nullifying itself, ridiculing itself as it does your arbitrary decision thereupon, "~Until then, I will continue operating according to the Principle of Unity instituted by Jesus Christ personally: His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ~"

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

2. There is no "The Church." Check your Bible.
. . .
4. The divine authority that God has ordained upon this earth for today is the local church which has Christ for its head and the Bible for its foundation.

"~There is no "The Church"~", but there is "~the local church~"?

Didn't God "give Christ as Head to the Church" in Paul's day just as "~to the...local...Church...today~"?

Then there must be the 'catholic' viz., 'general', 'universal', 'Church of all time', which---today---includes even the OT Church.