Why are the sacraments so important to Catholics?

[Agnus_Dei]

I figured someone would come up with that lame argument.

Neither is theology, Christology, Angeology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Soteriology, neither any of the names of the great doctrines of the Bible. We still study theology, the study of God, even though the term isn't found in the Bible. But not only the term sacrament isn't in the Bible, the concept isn't in the Bible. Forget the church fathers, and history. Where in the Bible is sacramental grace taught. It isn't the only means of grace is Christ. God alone dispenses grace. The grace of God brings salvation to all men (Titus 2:11). That is what the Bible says. I didn't say it; God did. Take up your argument with Him. God gives grace, not man, not superstitious water such as the Hindus do, not the saints in heaven--the occult practice of necromancy.
The Catholic, anti-Biblical definition of "means of grace" is not only anti-Biblical, it is blasphemous. It smacks of working one's way to heaven--taking away from the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, in effect saying that the sacrifice on the cross wasn't good enough for you. What an insult!!
DHK

You’re a big boy DHK, whom I hope knows how to think for himself and not told what to think. A sacrament is simply defined as any rite or act instituted by Christ Himself. Baptism and Holy Communion are in deed found in the pages of Scripture and are a fact instituted by Christ and some Protestants can even argue Marriage too. So, if you have a problem with Baptism and Holy Communion being instituted by Christ, then you’re the one that has the problem and you should take that up with God.

The Catholics and Greek Orthodox has seven sacraments and we could say that after the Reformation the Protestant Church subtracted 5 sacraments from the list of seven. It’s not just the Catholics that take sacraments as a “means of grace”, many Protestant Churches do as well; Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian to name a few, look at their specific sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as a means of grace.

There’s no magic here, the grace doesn’t proceed from mere elements, or the words spoken; but from the blessings of God. The grace is conveyed by virtue of God’s faithfulness to a covenant promise in response to a covenant act.

 

[Eliyahu]

Most of the Sacraments retained by RCC started to be based on the Bible teachings. However, often they are deviated from the Truth as they lost the "Life" in them and instead maintain the human formalities and rituals.


Bible is the Words of God, God is the Word, and Ignorance of Bible means Ignorance of God.
In that sense I don't condemn RCC for the sacraments themselves. We perform Lord Supper every week, we have our sisters wearing the Head Coverings during the Services.

Baptism itself is based on Bible.
But, RCC conduct Baptism unto the infants who do not know Jesus Christ, His redemption at all. Doesn't Bible say that one should Repent before Baptism? ( Act 2:38) Doesn't Bible say this?
"What doth hinder me to be baptized?" ( Acts 8:36)
"If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may" ( Ac 8:37)

Do the infants confess that they believe with all their hearts when they are baptised?

Lord's Supper itself is very much important. But how does RCC celebrate it?
The Priests ask God to forgive the sins, then never mention that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross. Why? If so, they are in trouble next week when they ask God for the forgiveness of sins again because even the next week's sins were already forgiven at the Cross. Therefore I have never heard the Roman Catholic priests saying that all the sins were forgiven at the Cross ONCE FOR ALL.

RCC claim that the Bread and Wine turn into Flesh and Blood at Eucharist.
Jesus said this is my flesh, this is my blood. Also, He said I am the Door, then do we have to worship the door?
We take Bread as the body of Christ by faith, and Wine as the Blood of Jesus by faith, there is no magic show.
Many things in RCC is to strengthen the Priesthood of clergy system, while the Bible teaches us that We are all equally invited by the Lord Jesus, as honorable guests since we had been cleansed by His blood and by believing it. Jesus Christ is the Host of the Supper. There is no distinction of Priests and Laymen/Laywomen in the NT churches as we read 1 Peter 2:5-9. But RCC established many sacraments to establish the Clergy system.

But Bible warns about Nicolaitans ( Rev 2:15). Clergy system is nothing more than the Nicolaitan. Nico means, Victory, conquer as we know Nike, Nicolas, Nicodemos, and Laitan is the adjective for Laymen/Laywomen.
Nicolaitans oppressed the lay people claiming that only they can perform the rituals and sacraments, and that without them any church meeting cannot be held, without priests no salvation is possible, without Priests, no baptism is possible, without Priests, no Eucharist is possible.
They replaced Jesus Christ with the human priests, which is wicked and rebellious against God, and Anti-Christ.

As a result RCC invented many tricky theories like Purgatory.
The most of RCC members are going to Purgatory instead of Heaven, without knowing how long they have to serve there. Their destiny depend on the human prayers and almsgiving by their relatives and descendants, about which we can find no ground in the Bible. Instead we find no human effort can satisfy God ( Rom 3:20-23). How can the human prayers and alsmgiving satisfy God so that God may deliver the people from Purgatory if it exist? Nothing but the Blood of Jesus can satisfy God!
We, true Protestant Christian believers, go to the Paradise directly as the Robber at the Cross did, by virtue of Jesus Christ and His blood and death at the Cross, freely by Grace! Amen!

We confess our sins to God, not to the priest! as we read 1 John 1:9.

EXtreme Unction which anoint the oil onto the person at the deathbead is another meaningless ritual unless the person repent truly and thereby converted wholeheartedly.

Many sacraments of RCC are human fabricated rituals without Holy Spirit inspired, life changing power. That's the problem!

 

[BobRyan]

First, I don't adhere to this theory of Sola Scriptura it's not taught in the bible or the Early Church. Yes, the deity of Christ can be found within the pages of Scripture, but that wasn't debated in the Early Church...

Almost everything is "debated" within the Christian church today - so we have to have some authorotative basis for "proving" doctrine - simply saying "Well my church leader differs with your church leader historically" proves nothing.

Secondly - the point made in Acts 17:11 where even non-Christians are able to test the Words of the first order Apostles themselves (such as Paul himself in this case) by "scripture to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Thirdly - if the deity of Christ is established sola scriptura -- then what points are "needed" for tradition to "Supply"?

What is missing?

In fact - what doctrines would fall if it were not for RCC tradition?

Purgatory?

Indulgences?

The use of images in worship?

Prayers to the dead?

Veneration of Mary as "sinless" or "Mediatrix"??

Various regulations regarding Sunday?

The exact words (the formula) used to turn bread into god? The teaching that priests "retain their power" to forgive sins and turn bread into god even after they are excommunicated for heresy?

The doctrine that the "New Covenant" is confined strictly to the practice of the Catholic Mass and that non-Catholics can not be saved via the "New Covenant" but must be saved by some kind of "prevenient grace" outside the New Covenant?

Ok fine -- but what other doctrines would fail without RCC tradition?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

If we say Jehovah's Witness is a small grocery store, RCC is a big shopping mall with the variety of Department Stores.
It has all the products such as:

- Salvation by Grace + Works ( Attendance at the Rituals, so-called Sacraments)
- Salvation by baptism
- Infant Baptism
- Idol making for Mary or Joseph or Jesus
- Idol worshipping for those statues
- Immaculate Conception of Holy Mother Mary
- Perpetual Virginity of Mary
- Assumption : Ascension of Mary
- Theotokos : calling Mary Mother of God, meaning God is the Son of Mary. ( Conflict with Trinity as they admit that Mary is not the mother of God the Father while they believe God teh Father is God and Mary is Mother of God)
- Mary as Mother of Church
- Queen of Heaven
- Clergy system with hierarchy
- Compulsory Celibacy
- Papacy
- Papal infallibility
- Inquisition
- Whorish Tradition of so-called holy tradition
- No Salvation outside Roman Catholic Church
- Excuses on Crusade
- Purgatory
- Limbo
- Mass which is ever asking forgiveness of the sins without bringing the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross.
- Transubstantiation ( Magic performance by Catholic Priests)
- Confession to priests
- Extreme unction, Extreme Unction after death
- Prayer to the dead
- Prayer for the dead
- Prayer to Mary
- Pray with Rosario
- all the signs of pagan origin such as ankh cross, mark of IHS, threefold hats for the pope, etc.
Inquisition
Indulgence
Proxy wars


To justify those things, RCC need various rituals and sacrament which are not mentioned in Bible

 

[BobRyan]

To justify those things the RCC needs two things --- "Tradition" AND "the kind of person that will accept them as equal to God's Word" -- to the point that in practice "in the place of God's Word".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Almost everything is "debated" within the Christian church today - so we have to have some authorotative basis for "proving" doctrine - simply saying "Well my church leader differs with your church leader historically" proves nothing.

I agree to a certain extent, just look at the thousands of different Protestant denominations. Granted many splits are merely sociopolitical matters dressed up in doctrine, but still thousands of splits have occurred over interpretational differences. Even then, if these splits were less about doctrine, what does it say about our ability to maintain unity on a singular Scriptural interpretation? It seems to me that something more is needed.

Secondly - the point made in Acts 17:11 where even non-Christians are able to test the Words of the first order Apostles themselves (such as Paul himself in this case) by "scripture to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".

Scripture meaning the Old Testament, right, not the New Testament. And that being so, still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura, due to the fact that someone had to interpret the Old Testament and who’s job was it to interpret the Old Testament to the Hebrews? And that being said, Jesus was condemning the human tradition in Matthew 15.

Thirdly - if the deity of Christ is established sola scriptura -- then what points are "needed" for tradition to "Supply"?

For one, there was no New Testament, as we know it today until at least the fourth century. By the mid 90 A.D. all the Epistles and Gospels were written, but still it wasn’t until the fourth century until the N.T. was clarified. As I said in my previous post the deity of Christ was NOT an Early Church issue. It was Tradition as passed down from the Apostles that safeguarded the proper belief of the deity of Christ; the problem was exactly HOW the 3 persons of the Trinity coexisted together as one.

But even then what Scripture was available to the early Church wasn’t a guarantee against heresy, hence the Arian heretics that took a different interpretation of Scripture, just as the Jehovah’s Witness of our time.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

To justify those things the RCC needs two things --- "Tradition" AND "the kind of person that will accept them as equal to God's Word" -- to the point that in practice "in the place of God's Word".

In Christ,

Bob

I'd say that's a common misunderstanding of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and how the two coexist. Both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go perfectly hand in hand and you can't have one without the other.

Like it or not, we all interpret Scripture within the Traditions of our individual Protestant denominations. You Bob, interpret Scripture within the Seventh Day tradition as put forth by E.G. White. I have relatives that are Adventists and they agree that her interpretation is on the mark. Hence a Catholic interprets Scripture based on the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[saturneptune]

The reason sacraments are so important in the RCC is that they are a part of the salvation process, in addition to faith in Jesus Christ. Hebrews addresses this. This is why I am a Baptist for one reason.

 

[DHK]

For one, there was no New Testament, as we know it today until at least the fourth century. By the mid 90 A.D. all the Epistles and Gospels were written, but still it wasn’t until the fourth century until the N.T. was clarified.

Get a grasp of Scripture and what made up the NT canon, and when. It certainly had nothing to do with the RCC and any of its councils. The canon was completed by the end of the first century with the completion of the book of Revelation and Bible-believing Christians, by the authority of the Apostles themselves, knew which books were inspired and which were not. Confuson came later on when various gnostics and other heretics tried to influence the purity and integrity of God's revelation to mankind in the inspired canon of the NT accepted by all of the Bible-believing churches of that era. Paul and the other apostles warned of false prophets that would come--even perverting the very Word of God, and so they did.

If the canon wasn't ratified until the fourth century, what on earth did the Waldenses use in their Itala version, translated into Old Latin in 150 A.D. from the Received Text. I guess they were ignorant of the non-existent RCC which didn't exist until the 4th century, and their silly declaration that they had the "real Bible" God has never left Himself without a witness. He didn't have to wait until the fourth century to tell the Christians of the first four centuries: "Hey, we've decided which books you can read now!"

What did the Syrians from Antioch use. The Antioch church was second only to the church at Jerusalem. Rome (at that time in history) would have been a dwarf in comparison. The Syrian Peshitta was another translation made from the Received Text in 150 A.D. This is fify years or less from the death of John, and from the Book of Revelation. These may be apographs--that is copies from the originals. The Antioch church is the church where the Apostle Paul was a member. All three of his missionary journeys began and ended from that church. It was very missionary-minded. It was a church that spread the word of God. The Syrian Peshitta was spread quickly. A church of around 300,000 to 500,000 would have no problem making copies and spreading them afar.
150 AD?? But you say that the canon wasn't ratified until the fourth century! What on earth did they use then? What was their canon composed of?

The Gothic Version went out to the Germanic tribes about 350 A.D.
None of these Bibles contained the apocrypha. They all contained the same books that we have today. They were all translated from the same Greek textual base that our KJV comes from. The canon had absolutely nothing to do with the RCC or any of its councils. It came: first through the Apostles, and then through the Bible believing churches of every era since then.

As I said in my previous post the deity of Christ was NOT an Early Church issue.

Actually it was. Gnosticism was attaking the humanity of Christ, and thus his Messiahship itself. One of the chief aims of Johns first epistle is an apologetic against gnosticism. If that wasn't enough Origen, a supposed church father, raised his head in defence of Arainism denying the deity of Christ.

It was Tradition as passed down from the Apostles that safeguarded the proper belief of the deity of Christ; the problem was exactly HOW the 3 persons of the Trinity coexisted together as one.

There was no tradition that the Apostles handed down by the apostles. This is where the Catholics like to have a dichotomy in their word-definitions endiing up with confusion for the readers. They are not better than neo-orthodoxy in that respect. Take a term, use it, but give it a different meaning other than the traditional meaning of the word. You love to play semantics. Is this a game or what. Actually it is the wolves in sheep's clothing trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheep!

Here is a good example:

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

The Catholic encyclopedia defines tradition as knowledge accumulated orally or written over a long period of time, usually centuries.
That is a part of the definition that is given. Notice the part about "long period of time...centuries"
Obviously this is not what Paul was referring to in 2 Thessalonians. From the death of Christ (29 AD) to the time that Paul wrote that epistle (ca. 58 AD) is a period of only about 30 years. This is not centuries. How do you get tradition, "in the traditional" sense of the word out of this verse?? It is an impossibility! Paul is talking about the truth of the Word which he has taught them. "Hold the truths which you have been taught, whether by word or by our epistle." There (very obviouosly) was no Catholic tradition! It was the preaching of the cross, the teaching of the Word, and his epistles, that they were to hold to. This was not tradition as it is defined today. You are neo-orthodox in your ways. You give different meanings to Biblical words to confuse the reader.

But even then what Scripture was available to the early Church wasn’t a guarantee against heresy, hence the Arian heretics that took a different interpretation of Scripture, just as the Jehovah’s Witness of our time.

You do err not knowing the Scripture, neither the power of God.
Have you read 2Peter 3 which refers to the writings of the other apostles, and singles out the epistles of Paul in particular as Scripture. They certainly did have New Testament Scripture. Why do you think that Paul wrote letters to them?

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
DHK

 

[Agnus_Dei]

DHK:

First, just so we’re on the same page, I’m not saying that there were no Epistles, Gospels or Old Testament available in the first century. We know from early Church History that when Christians met on the first day of the week, the congregations would read aloud what Gospel or Epistle they had, so that should answer what the Syrians from Antioch used…etc.

What I am saying is that what one congregation had in terms a Gospel or Epistle another congregation may not have had. ALL of these Epistles and Gospels that were written were scattered about in various parts of the world were Christians gathered.

The question is when were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make-up what we call the Bible. And a fact of history is that the Council of Carthage held in 397 AD settled the NT Canon. Only the romaphobic Protestants deny this fact.

Second, it’s also historical fact from the Early Church history that there were spurious books floating about in the Early Christian Church, books that brought about many heresies and that brought about the first 7 ecumenical counsels, through these counsels, before the NT was settled, we find that these books were divided into classes. Books that were acknowledged as Canonical, books that were disputed and books declared false or spurious. Hence we have Arianism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism heresies arise from these spurious books or a simple misinterpretation of what Epistles that were available. Out of these counsels our Creeds were born, proof that the early Church did in fact believe in the Trinity for they continue to define and defend what had always been believed from Sacred Tradition in regard to the Trinity.

 

[DHK]

DHK:

First, just so we’re on the same page, I’m not saying that there were no Epistles, Gospels or Old Testament available in the first century. We know from early Church History that when Christians met on the first day of the week, the congregations would read aloud what Gospel or Epistle they had, so that should answer what the Syrians from Antioch used…etc.

Just what part of the "first" century are you talking about, and should you be talking about the first century at all. Christ lived in the first century, died in the first century. All of the Apostles lived in the first century. John died after the first century was over, that is to say, he died in the second century. So what is your point in talking of the first century? The early Christians of the first century were taught directly by Christ and then by the Apostles themselves. Do you by chance mean the 2nd century?

What I am saying is that what one congregation had in terms a Gospel or Epistle another congregation may not have had. ALL of these Epistles and Gospels that were written were scattered about in various parts of the world were Christians gathered.

Having clarified our reference to time in history, I assume then we are speaking of the second century--that period of time between 100 and 200 AD. Did I just not give you reference in my previous point that those peoples living in northern Itay and stretching to South Eastern France, known as the Waldenses had a complete Bible, OT and NT, such as we have today. It was called the Itala version. Translations are one thing that modern day text critics (including [or especially] the RCC) refuse to look at. Their evidence is irrefutable. It render such councils as the council of Carthage as moot, or useless. The early churches already had a bonafide inspired Bible, and knew what books were in it. The Syrian churches did as well. They had the Peshitta. Both of these translations were made within 50 years of the writing of the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation. Both were translated in 150 AD. That renders the Council of Carthage moot, except to confirm what the churches already knew. The early churches already knew what the canon was and were already using it. They didn't need the Catholics to tell them. How arrogant the RCC is in assuming such a position.
How arrogant in assuming that the early Christians were a bunch of "dumb-bells" so to speak that they were unable to discern truth from error and had to have the Catholic Church there to tell them which was truth and which wasn't. What arrogancy is displayed here.
How arrogant of the RCC to say that they discovered the doctrine of the trinity. What else are you going to claim--the deity, perhaps the incarnation of Christ, maybe that Christ is our creator, what else??
Perhaps you want to deny the authorship of Paul's epistles and give to some Catholic?

The question is when were these separate works gathered together so as to form a volume, and added to the Old Testament to make-up what we call the Bible. And a fact of history is that the Council of Carthage held in 397 AD settled the NT Canon. Only the romaphobic Protestants deny this fact.

The decisions made at the Council of Carthage concerning the canon of Scripture were moot. The churches were already using the inspired Scriptures. As I have stated, long before that council ever took place a number of complete translations of the New Testament were already in circulation throughout both Europe and Asia. How do you account for this if you say that the canon wasn't confirmed until 397. Your position is Catholic revisionism at its best (or worst) depending upon your opinion. Your position is completely untenable according to the facts of history. The churches already had a Bible in their possession. You are a Catholic, right? Search out the history of the Greek Orthodox Church. Find out when they first started using the NT, and what NT it was. What was it called? Where was it from? I will guarantee you that the NT they used--in its completed form was used long before the council of Carthage. It was the Greek Orthodox Church that helped in the preservation of the Word of God.

Second, it’s also historical fact from the Early Church history that there were spurious books floating about in the Early Christian Church, books that brought about many heresies and that brought about the first 7 ecumenical counsels, through these counsels, before the NT was settled, we find that these books were divided into classes. Books that were acknowledged as Canonical, books that were disputed and books declared false or spurious. Hence we have Arianism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism heresies arise from these spurious books or a simple misinterpretation of what Epistles that were available. Out of these counsels our Creeds were born, proof that the early Church did in fact believe in the Trinity for they continue to define and defend what had always been believed from Sacred Tradition in regard to the Trinity.

Your tradition comes from the early church fathers who promoted many of these heresies. Origen for example is known by some as the "father of Arianism." A century later Arius had that famous debate with Athansius concerning the deity of Christ. But Arius was highly influenced by Origen. Origen baptized infants for the forgiveness of sins--another heresy. Even by Catholic standards Origen was a heretic.
Both Origen's predecessor, Clement of Alexandria, and his successor, Eusebius--all three of them were gnostics. That was one of the most prevalent heresies of the day, and the school at Alexandria was rife with it. Yet you put your faith in these church fathers from whence comes much of your so-called tradition. Is it any wonder that the RCC is filled with heretical doctrines--doctrines of men and not of God. Christ condemned such "traditions"; the traditions of men and not of God.
He challenged his followers to use the doctrine of sola scriptura.
That is what it means when he said:
You do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
--They were to search the Sciptures. They testified of Christ. They were to come to their own conclusions to see whether or not the Scriptures testified of Christ. That was Christ's challenge to the Jews, especially to the Pharisees. It is sola scriptura, using the Scriptures as your foundation. It was that way in the OT, and it is that way in the NT.

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.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, I've tried googling for the Itala Bible and so far have come up with a motley collection of the usual suspects of Landmark Baptists and KJVonly-ist nutjobs espousing its existence; it does of course have the very convenient consequence of negating the need for the Council of Carthage of those 'nassty cruel Catholicses' (although your marvellous Greek Orthodox were also 'nassty cruel Catholicses' until 1054), but unless you can come up with a shred of evidence for its existence from a reputable neutral scholar, historian or archaeologist who doesn't have a theological agenda for its existence, I remain wholly unimpressed.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I've tried googling for the Itala Bible and so far have come up with a motley collection of the usual suspects of Landmark Baptists and KJVonly-ist nutjobs espousing its existence; it does of course have the very convenient consequence of negating the need for the Council of Carthage of those 'nassty cruel Catholicses' (although your marvellous Greek Orthodox were also 'nassty cruel Catholicses' until 1054), but unless you can come up with a shred of evidence for its existence from a reputable neutral scholar, historian or archaeologist who doesn't have a theological agenda for its existence, I remain wholly unimpressed.

First, I don't need the internet to find my information.
Second, I tried your way. I "googled" it, and found over 70 hits on the Itala version--so what is your problem?
Third, Your bias "the usual suspects of Landmark Baptists and...nutjobs" is showing. Shall we put my bias down as the usual bias of the nutjobs of the Catholic revisionist historians which deny the real history of Bible believing history. A neutral historian to you is a Catholic isn't it? So why not consider a Landmark historian? Or are they just as "nutty" as the Catholics? What is your problem? Why the religious discrimination? This is plain research of history, and we don't have to take the Catholic's word for it.

We have it now revealed how Constantine's Hexapla Bible was successfully met. A powerful chain of churches, few in number compared with the manifold congregations of an apostate Christianity, but enriched with the eternal conviction of truth and with able scholars, stretched from Palestine to Scotland. If Rome in her own land was unable to beat down the testimony of apostolic Scriptures, how could she hope, in the Greek speaking world of the distant and hostile East, to maintain the supremacy of her Greek Bible? The Scriptures of the apostle John and his associates, the traditional text, the Textus Receptus, if you please, arose from the place of humiliation forced on it by Origen's Bible in the hands of Constantine and became the Received Text of Greek Christianity. And when the Greek East for one thousand years was completely shut off from the Latin West, the noble Waldenses in northern Italty still possessed in Latin the Received Text.

http://members.aol.com/dwibclc/waldbib.htm

That was the first of over 70. do you want me to paste and copy from the more than 70 others? There is plenty of information out there for those who really want the truth.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Oh, I got plenty of hits alright. The neutral ones (ie: not Catholic or Landmark), plus the Catholic and Orthodox sites which refer to it all acknowledge its existence, but as a second-century Latin translation of the LXX - ie: the Old Testament only; not a page from the NT still less the complete canon. No, only the lunatic fringe of Landmarkism makes that absurd claim. Oh, and I clicked on your link - it's yet another Landmark site!! Hardly neutral, now is it??!! This is in no way religious discrimination but just a desire for the honest unvarnished truth, so show me a link to an article by a reputed Bible scholar and academic, and I might take it a bit more seriously. Until then, I remain decidely unimpressed

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Just what part of the "first" century are you talking about, and should you be talking about the first century at all. Christ lived in the first century, died in the first century. All of the Apostles lived in the first century. John died after the first century was over, that is to say, he died in the second century. So what is your point in talking of the first century? The early Christians of the first century were taught directly by Christ and then by the Apostles themselves. Do you by chance mean the 2nd century?

Actually DHK, you told me in your #69 post that: The canon was completed by the end of the first century…

My position was that what Epistles and books that make up our New Testament were written by the end of the first century, actually by the mid 90 A.D. and were scattered about the various parts of the world. Still, no definitive volume of collected works, with a table of contents, were gathered to form a volume and added to the NT until the fourth century.

…known as the Waldenses had a complete Bible, OT and NT, such as we have today. It was called the Itala version.

I have to echo Matt Black, I’ve searched Yahoo the words “Itala Bible” and nothing by way of creditable authors who weren’t preachers claiming to be historians using the Itala Bible as a soapbox to bash the Catholic Church. When I included Catholic or Orthodoxy, again I also found a number of sites all acknowledging its existence, but still it wasn’t the completed canon as we have today.

I also ran across the Muratorian Canon the oldest known collection of NT Biblical books, written around 180-200 AD in Rome, but still, books / Epistles were lacking and some were still in dispute.

 

[DHK]

Oh, I got plenty of hits alright. The neutral ones (ie: not Catholic or Landmark), plus the Catholic and Orthodox sites which refer to it all acknowledge its existence, but as a second-century Latin translation of the LXX - ie: the Old Testament only; not a page from the NT still less the complete canon. No, only the lunatic fringe of Landmarkism makes that absurd claim. Oh, and I clicked on your link - it's yet another Landmark site!! Hardly neutral, now is it??!! This is in no way religious discrimination but just a desire for the honest unvarnished truth, so show me a link to an article by a reputed Bible scholar and academic, and I might take it a bit more seriously. Until then, I remain decidely unimpressed

The following are quotes from reliable sources, no doubt all Baptist--but Baptists who have done their homeworik and have researched their topic well. There is no such thing as someone who is perfectly neutral. Everyone has some bias. The question is: how honest are you in your research? Are you a person of integrity? I believe that the persons that I am quoting from are.
They are researching a topic because they are interested in it, because they want the truth of the matter, not because they have anything to hide.

There remains to us in the ancient Waldensian language, "The Noble lesson" (La Nobla Leycon) , written about the year 1100 AD which assigns the first opposition of the Waldenses to the Church of Rome to the days of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester was Pope.Thus when Christianity, emerging from the long persecutions of pagan Rome, was raised to imperial favor by the Emperor Constantine, the Italic Church in northern Italy - later the Waldenses is seen standing in opposition to Rome. Their Bible was of the family of the renowned Itala. It was that translation into Latin which represents the Received Text. Its very name, "Itala", is derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Vaudois.
Of the purity and reliability of this version, Augustine, speaking of different Latin Bibles (about 400 AD) says:
"Now among, translations themselves the Italian (Itala) is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression."
The old Waldensian liturgy which they used in their services down through the centuries contained "texts of Scripture of the ancient Version called the Italick."(Allix, Churches of the Piedmont, 1690)
The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 AD from the apostles. The Latin Bible, the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than l57 AD. We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the statement that the Italic Church dated from 120 AD. From the illustrious group of scholars which gathered round Beza, 1590 AD, we may understand how the Received Text was the bond of union between great historic churches.
That Rome in early days corrupted the manuscripts while the Italic Church handed them down in their apostolic purity, Allix, the renowned scholar, testifies. He reports the following as Italic articles of faith: "They receive only, saith he, what is written in the Old and New Testament. They say, that the Popes of Rome, and other priests, have depraved the Scriptures by their doctrines and glosses."
It is recognized that the Itala was-translated from the Received Text (Syrian, Hort calls it); that the Vulgate is the Itala with the readings of the Received Text removed.
Quoted from “Forever Settled in Heaven” found in D. Cloud’s Fundamentalist Library

This century was likewise very active in THE REVISION AND CIRCULATION OF THE SCRIPTURES IN SEVERAL LANGUAGES. Jerome, the crabbed monk of whom we have already spoken, devoted his life chiefly to the revision of the already existing Latin versions. known as the Ante-Hieironymian, that is; those made before his time, as the word denotes. This most learned of all the Latin fathers,A. D. 331-420, undertook his work at the request of Damasus, the Bishop of Rome. Much of the Old Testament he translated from the original Hebrew, but his revision of the New was based upon the old Latin version known as the Itala, compared with the Greek text. His work is now known as the Vulgate,
From “A History of the Baptists,” Thomas Armitage, chapter 4

The Evidence of the Ancient Versions. The ancient versions are translations of the Greek Bible from the early days. For instance, the Peshitto Syriac, second century, about 150 A.D., is mostly based on the Received Text. The Curetonian Syriac, third century, is basically the Received Text. The Old Latin, or Vetus Itala, second century A. D. is from the Received Text. In the other versions we have, some take the Received Text, some do not. But these are evidences.
From D.A. Waite. “The King James Version Defended.

The earliest Latin version of the Old Testament was a translation not from the Hebrew, but the Greek OT. Scholars think that this translating was probably done at Carthage in North Africa during the later part of the second century AD. The importance to us today of the Old Latin Version or Vetus Itala as it is called to distinguish it from the later version of Jerome, is much greater in the New Testament than the Old. In the former, it is one of the earliest translations of the Original Greek which we possess, and is an important witness for the kind of text used in the second century.
A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, by Jack Moorman

The Latin Itala translation which was made in the second century "contained all the books that now make up the New Testament" (John Hentz, History of the Lutheran Version, p. 59). A list of New Testament Scriptures dating to the latter half of the second century was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy, in 1740. This second-century list contained all of the books of the New Testament canon (Ibid., p. 60).

DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks. That's a bit more like it. It seems then that the authorities cited from various sources agree that a Latin translation or at least a MS existed in the mid-second century called variously the Itala or Vetus Itala which was at the least a Latin translation of the LXX. Where the sources disagree is as to the extent to which it contained any or all of the NT, the extent to which it influenced or was rejected by Jerome in the compilation of the Vulgate, and the extent to which a rather tenuous link can be established between it and the Waldensians, whom most scholars and historians (Catholic, Baptist, secular and otherwise) agree didn't exist before the 1160s.

So, I'm persuaded that we've moved a bit from 'way-out-wacky' to 'inconclusive' at best. Still not nearly enough though for me to hang a doctrine and practice on...

 

[Chemnitz]

No offense but I trust KJVO's about as far as I can throw my heavy wood desk. Doing a quick search of reputable canon scholars such as F.F. Bruce, Carson, Hummel, and Steinmann it would appear that the Itala is so vital it isn't even worthy of mention in their books on the history of the canon. Besides what does the Itala text have to do with the importance RCC'ers place on the sacraments?

 

[Matt Black]

I think it's in the context of a wider and characteristic anti-Catholic sweep: the Catholic argument is that the Church was in existence before the Bible (or at least the NT) was completed and that indeed the Church determined what was in the canon of the NT at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo; DHK's counter-argument is, I believe, that the NT had been determined in its complete form as early as the mid-2nd century in the form of the Itala Bible which was preserved by the True Christians(TM) (Waldenses, apparently, in this particular version of events) over and against the Catholics and Orthodox who were too stupid or heretical to work out what was in the NT until the end of the 4th century, and that therefore the 4th century Catholics because they couldn't get it right about the Bible were wrong on everything else including the sacraments...or...um...something

 

[DHK]

I think it's in the context of a wider and characteristic anti-Catholic sweep: the Catholic argument is that the Church was in existence before the Bible (or at least the NT) was completed and that indeed the Church determined what was in the canon of the NT at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo; DHK's counter-argument is, I believe, that the NT had been determined in its complete form as early as the mid-2nd century in the form of the Itala Bible which was preserved by the True Christians(TM) (Waldenses, apparently, in this particular version of events) over and against the Catholics and Orthodox who were too stupid or heretical to work out what was in the NT until the end of the 4th century, and that therefore the 4th century Catholics because they couldn't get it right about the Bible were wrong on everything else including the sacraments...or...um...something

The argument stems from "The Church" vs. "the churches." There is a big difference. I too believe that it was the "church" small 'c' meaning collectively all the Bilble-believing local churches like the hundred or so that Paul alone established on his missionary journeys preserved the Word of God. Historically the Bible came through the churches, not the RCC or The Church, as it has been referred to. The Apostles directed to the early churches which books were inspired. They knew. The early churches knew. These manuscripts were kept and passed on from church to church. It didn't take a council to decide what books had to be in the canon. The early churches knew already. That is what I am trying demonstrate.
The Itala may be unknown to many, but the Peshitta is not. It is one of the best known ancient documents in Biblical history. It also dates back to 150 A.D. It is a Syrian translation of the New Testament as we have it today. As I said originall there is evidence from Italy in the Itala, from Syria, and the parts surrounding in the Peshitta, and into Germany with the Gothic translation by the fourth century. The church came into existence on the Day of Pentecost long before any book of the New Testament had been written. But at that time they had all the apostles, and they had the apostles with them to the end of the first century, and the benefit of their teaching. By the end of the first teaching all those believers now had at least access to the complete canon, and knowledge of the books that composed it (according to the Apostles). Not everyone today has a complete Bible. Don't think it unusual. When Carey went to India he translated the Scriptures into about 26 different languages. But I beleive that only a few of those were complete Bibles. Most were New Testaments. And some may have been just the gospel of John or parts of the Bible. There are so many languages in India, Carey couldn't get to them all. Be certainly did a good jjob trying.
Not everyone today has a complete Bible either.
DHK