A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[bwmnstar]

You are dead wrong! Augustine is not the one who heavily influenced the deutorcanonical books,not apocryphal books as Protestants mistakenly claim. By the way, even Luther included the deutorcanonical books.

You highlighted by quotation everything I wrote, but you dealt with none of what I said. None of the patristic sources I cited were engaged by your rebuttal.

Also, simply saying I’m wrong without providing evidence doesn’t make it so. You need to refute all of the quotations from the Fathers I presented, most of which expressly deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, deal with those references. You have to deal with them. You can’t just say I’m wrong and expect that to fly as evidence in support of your assertion. My assessment was both honest and charitable, and I think many of the Catholics on this forum would agree.

We’re supposed to be honest and sincere seekers. Don’t dismiss what I wrote as inadequate simply because it goes against what the RCC teaches. That’s the whole point of dialoguing on this forum–to interact with another’s views.

Blessings, bwmnstar

 

[JRKH]

You highlighted by quotation everything I wrote, but you dealt with none of what I said. None of the patristic sources I cited were engaged by your rebuttal.

Also, simply saying I’m wrong without providing evidence doesn’t make it so. You need to refute all of the quotations from the Fathers I presented, most of which expressly deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, deal with those references. You have to deal with them. You can’t just say I’m wrong and expect that to fly as evidence in support of your assertion. My assessment was both honest and charitable, and I think many of the Catholics on this forum would agree.

We’re supposed to be honest and sincere seekers. Don’t dismiss what I wrote as inadequate simply because it goes against what the RCC teaches. That’s the whole point of dialoguing on this forum–to interact with another’s views.

Blessings, bwmnstar

You are right in much of what you say here about interacting and doing so charitably.

That said though - I would disagree that we need to “refute all of the quotations from the Fathers…presented” by you.
You see, the bishops and other great men of the Spirit guided Church - having access to the exact same information you, and others, are presenting - have already sorted through these matters both by informal communications and then through prayerful and Spirit protected council.
All you need do is read the teachings of the Church to see the — Well not refutation — but rather the correct understanding of these various items within the fuller context of the Gospel Truth.

Just my 2 cents…

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

 

[Nicea325]

You highlighted by quotation everything I wrote, but you dealt with none of what I said. None of the patristic sources I cited were engaged by your rebuttal.

Also, simply saying I’m wrong without providing evidence doesn’t make it so. You need to refute all of the quotations from the Fathers I presented, most of which expressly deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, deal with those references. You have to deal with them. You can’t just say I’m wrong and expect that to fly as evidence in support of your assertion. My assessment was both honest and charitable, and I think many of the Catholics on this forum would agree.

We’re supposed to be honest and sincere seekers. Don’t dismiss what I wrote as inadequate simply because it goes against what the RCC teaches. That’s the whole point of dialoguing on this forum–to interact with another’s views.

Blessings, bwmnstar

My dear brother in Christ,

I have an MBA and a Masters in History,so in all fairness, I have been through this a million times with others. I have no need to rebuke the ECF because what you are merely doing is called proof-texting, sorry but it is. I have dealt with Bible-only Christians doing the exact thing with the ECF’s trying to tell me someone like Augustine believed and defended the Bible-only. And how? By presenting a slice of an entire work to try to prove an agenda or bogus doctrine. Sorry,one cannot get a selected quote and truly believe it will prove their point. One has to read,comprehend and analyze the entire ECF’s work in its entirety.

Case in point, you quoted Tertullian to prove he opposed infant baptism? Right? I asked you if Tertullian said it when he was an orthodox Christian or when he joined the Montanist sect? You did not answer me.

So that being said, I am done with the: prove me wrong or rebuke me quote by such and such ECF. Been there…done that. Sorry,but nothing you post or present is going to convince me otherwise that orthodox ECF were Protestant or belonged to some other Protestant denomination.

 

[pablope]

You highlighted by quotation everything I wrote, but you dealt with none of what I said. None of the patristic sources I cited were engaged by your rebuttal.

Also, simply saying I’m wrong without providing evidence doesn’t make it so. You need to refute all of the quotations from the Fathers I presented, most of which expressly deny the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

 

[bwmnstar]

My dear brother in Christ,

I have no need to rebuke the ECF because what you are merely doing is called proof-texting, sorry but it is. I have dealt with Bible-only Christians doing the exact thing with the ECF’s trying to tell me someone like Augustine believed and defended the Bible-only. And how? By presenting **a slice **of an entire work to try to prove an agenda or bogus doctrine. Sorry, one cannot get a selected quote and truly believe it will prove their point. One has to read, comprehend and analyze the entire ECF’s work in its entirety.

Time out. What is your definition of prooftexting? I accurately presented all of the views cited, even when they included an apocryphal work. How is that prooftexting? Perhaps you should show me the proper way to interpret the quotations I presented. Was my assessment wrong? You asked for individuals; I gave you four of the earliest representatives. That is in no way prooftexting, my friend. Unless of course, by prooftexting you mean “presenting evidence contrary to what you believe.”

Augustine??? Huh??? Sola Scriptura??? No offense, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue you raised was over the apocryphal (or as Catholics call them–deuterocanonical) books. Red herring at its finest. But we can talk about this later.

Case in point, used quoted Tertullian to prove he opposed infant baptism? Right? I asked you if Tertullian said it when he was an orthodox Christian or when he joined the Montanist sect? You did not answer me.

If it’s okay with you, let’s finish discussing the apocryphal books before we get back into infant baptism.

So that being said, I am done with the: prove me wrong or rebuke me quote by such and such ECF. Been there…done that. Sorry,but nothing you post or present is going to convince me otherwise that orthodox ECF were Protestant or belonged to some other Protestant denomination.

Okay, if you’re already firmly convinced in your beliefs, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion. You may have “been there [and]…done that” with others, but what’s doing it one more time going to hurt. Maybe since you’ve “been there and done that” so often, you can copy and paste one of the numerous responses you’ve written to someone else and let other individuals judge who has the stronger argument. You never know, perhaps you can convince me that I’m wrong.

We should both be willing to follow truth wherever it leads us, even if we have to give up beliefs we’ve held for our entire lives. It’s not about winning an argument; it’s about searching and following God-given truth.

Blessings, bwmnstar

 

[bwmnstar]

How do we know that that are only thirty-nine books in Old Testament and only twenty-seven books in New Testament? There is no single verse in the entire Bible, whether that of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox and Protestant, states which books belong to the Bible. This should pose a serious problem to Protestants and “Bible only” Christians who declare that (their) Bible is the only and highest authority. Unknowingly to them, the number of books of their Bible depends on their church statement of faith, or on their presumption, or their church councils, or, perhaps, “because my pastor told me so”. In other words they depend on authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible. Then they make the Bible, with those predetermined books, the only and highest authority. This should imply we cannot have authority outside the Bible to determine which books belong to the Bible! This is a self-contradicting circular argument! Well, do Catholics have the same reason to know which books belong to the Bible, i.e. they were decided by the Catholic Church?

The birthday of the Church was the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended, as recorded in the book of Acts (Acts 2:1-4), which was not written in that time. We cannot know for sure when each book of New Testament was written. According to scholars the first one (2 Thessalonians) was written, perhaps, in c. 50 or 51 AD and the first Gospel was written after 70AD. This means the Church had been in existence for around two decades before we had the first written New Testament book; and around four decades before the first Gospel was written and, as we will see later, before the Jews closed the canon of their Scripture.

Christ’ words were first circulated orally and later, some were put in written form in the Gospels. Thus from the Gospel according to Matthew we know that Christ intended to give His apostles authority over His Church. He gave Peter (Matthew 16:19) and later all apostles (Matthew 18:18) the authority to bind and to loose. Whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In Greek “bound and loosed in heaven” is in (passive) perfect tense, while “bind and loose on earth” is in (active) aorist tense. Unlike that of English, Greek perfect tense indicates continuity of completed past action. This means what Peter and the apostles bind or loose shall follow the ones that have already been bound or loosed in heaven, obviously by God – it is not in reverse as some might think.

Catholics believe that the apostles passed the same authority to their successors, the bishops – the so called apostolic succession. Both (Western) Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox Churches claim apostolic succession. Apostolic succession belongs to what is known as Tradition (with capital T) – you cannot find it in the Bible. But we know Christ promised His apostles to be with them to the end of age (Matthew 28:20), to send the Holy Spirit to be with them forever (John 14:16), to teach them all things and to remind them whatsoever He said to them (John 14:26); and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). New Testament nowhere says those divine promises are valid only in the first three hundred years, i.e. until Roman emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD or in the first fifteen centuries, i.e. until Reformation. Having the same authority, the Pope and the bishops (in union with Him) have the power to bind and to loose and whatever they bind or loose does not come from themselves but it has been already bound and loosed in heaven. No wonder Paul referred the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) – certainly he was not writing about church (or churches) that came into existence in sixteenth century or later. This is the reason why Catholics believe it is the Church with the apostolic origin has the power to determine which books belong to the Bible. The Church is not above the Bible but is under the guidance of Holy Spirit promised by Christ Himself!

Why it took the Church sixteen centuries to promulgate Canon (list of inspired books) of the Bible? The same canon was declared in provincial council in Hippo, North Africa in 393 AD, reaffirmed at Councils of Carthage, also in North Africa, in 397 AD and in 419 AD. Christians in the first three centuries did not have closed canon – they disagree with each other on which books belong to the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The so-called disputed books of Old Testament were Esther and deuterocanonical books while those of New Testament were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation. The earliest list with the same twenty-seven books as in present day Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant’ New Testament appeared in 367 AD [7]. List of Old Testament books which agrees with Catholic Bible appeared in 382 AD [8] while the one that agrees with Protestant Old Testament appeared in 391 AD [9]. Council of Trent in 1546 is the ecumenical council that explicitly promulgated canonicity of seventy-three books of Catholic Bible, though the same list of Old Testament books also appeared in ecumenical council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (Session 11 on 4 February 1442). The Eastern Orthodox Church declared their canon of Bible in their synod held at Jerusalem in 1672. For Protestants who belong to Reformed Church, Belgic Confession Article 4 (in 1561) and Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 1 (in 1647), declared canonicity of sixty-six books of their Bible.

vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/who-has-the-correct-number-of-books-in-the-bible/

An excellent and very well constructed response. If it’s alright with you, I’d like to respond to others that posted and get back to you. Answering your post can in no way be done quickly, and I want to give it the attention, time, and thought it deserves. But I promise to get back to you. Thanks for taking the time to write this.

God bless you,

bwmnstar

 

[Nicea325]

Time out. What is your definition of prooftexting? I accurately presented all of the views cited, even when they included an apocryphal work. How is that prooftexting? Perhaps you should show me the proper way to interpret the quotations I presented. Was my assessment wrong? You asked for individuals; I gave you four of the earliest representatives. That is in no way prooftexting, my friend. Unless of course, by prooftexting you mean “presenting evidence contrary to what you believe.”

My definition? Sorry,but I am not the one that developed the definition of proof-texting. Other words used are “contextomy” or “quote mining”. What is it? A passage or selected statment is removed from its entire surrounding matter. Does that make sense? You are merely grabbing a select quote because you believe it supports your position,but have you taken the rest of material into consideration? What about all the material before or after the selected quote/passage?

Augustine??? Huh??? Sola Scriptura??? No offense, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue you raised was over the apocryphal (or as Catholics call them–deuterocanonical) books. Red herring at its finest. But we can talk about this later.

Red herring? Not all all. And it is relevant because Sola Scriptura advocates do the exact thing.

If it’s okay with you, let’s finish discussing the apocryphal books before we get back into infant baptism

.

First of all, the original argument dealt with a historical matter,not with doctrinal issues such as infant baptism or biblical books. So you should really stop going off on other tangents. You alone are the one claiming the Churches of Christ have a right to claim itself as the True Church. As of today, I am waiting for your historical evidence by ANY ECF stating he did not belong to CC or EO churches,but to your 19th century churches. Do you ever intend to present such evidence?

Okay, if you’re already firmly convinced in your beliefs, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion. You may have “been there [and]…done that” with others, but what’s doing it one more time going to hurt. Maybe since you’ve “been there and done that” so often, you can copy and paste one of the numerous responses you’ve written to someone else and let other individuals judge who has the stronger argument. You never know, perhaps you can convince me that I’m wrong.

Sorry my brother in Christ, I really do not want to go down the same path I did for many years. Perhaps one here can go in-depth with you,but I did it for to long and no longer have the desire to do so.

We should both be willing to follow truth wherever it leads us, even if we have to give up beliefs we’ve held for our entire lives. It’s not about winning an argument; it’s about searching and following God-given truth.

My dearest brother in Christ, if you are searching for the Truth, I will pray that you find it,but I for one know where it lies and have no intentions of questioning my convictions.

God Bless

 

[bwmnstar]

My definition? Sorry,but I am not the one that developed the definition of proof-texting. Other words used are “contextomy” or “quote mining”. What is it? A passage or selected statment is removed from its entire surrounding matter. Does that make sense? You are merely grabbing a select quote because you believe it supports your position,but have you taken the rest of material into consideration? What about all the material before or after the selected quote/passage?

Red herring? Not all all. And it is relevant because Sola Scriptura advocates do the exact thing.

.

First of all, the original argument dealt with a historical matter,not with doctrinal issues such as infant baptism or biblical books. So you should really stop going off on other tangents. You alone are the one claiming the Churches of Christ have a right to claim itself as the True Church. As of today, I am waiting for your historical evidence by ANY ECF stating he did not belong to CC or EO churches,but to your 19th century churches. Do you ever intend to present such evidence?

Sorry my brother in Christ, I really do not want to go down the same path I did for many years. Perhaps one here can go in-depth with you,but I did it for to long and no longer have the desire to do so.

My dearest brother in Christ, if you are searching for the Truth, I will pray that you find it,but I for one know where it lies and have no intentions of questioning my convictions.

God Bless

Okay, thanks for dialoguing. Because of what you’ve written, I’ll direct my conversation elsewhere for now. Many have asked for claims about the Churches of Christ. So when I respond to others, feel free to jump back in.

Peace

 

[Nicea325]

Okay, thanks for dialoguing. Because of what you’ve written, I’ll direct my conversation elsewhere for now. Many have asked for claims about the Churches of Christ. So when I respond to others, feel free to jump back in.

Peace

likewise

 

[MarkInOregon]

Mark,

I don’t hold that the Didache is an infallible document that has to be followed in everything it teaches. For instance, it is not necessary to be baptized in living or running water. The meaning of baptism is to plunge, or immerse. The Eastern Orthodox has held on to this tradition. The RCC baptizes adults by immersion, but children by pouring water on the head.

Not only do I find infant baptism problematic, but the image of a burial is significanctly diminished when alternative methods are introduced. We see an excellent depiction of baptism in Romans 6. Also noteworthy is that John baptized where water was plentiful. See also how the Philip and the eunuch came up out of the water in Acts 8.

The Church of Christ teaches baptism via immersion because it is an acceptable and ecumenical practice. Virtually no church, not even the RCC, would deny an individual baptism by submersion. Several churches, however, including the EOC, Baptists, etc, would object to baptism by other methods. Do you think it’s wrong to baptize only by immersion? If so, why?

Also, it seems as if you consider the Didache to be binding in all that it teaches. The Didache made exceptions for extreme cases. “If you do not have running water, baptize in warm. If you do not have either, pour out water three times on the head…” Can any church in America claim to have an insufficient water supply to immerse? I don’t think so.

Blessings, bwmnstar

I did not imply that you held the Didache as an infallible document. I simply pointed out that you referenced it in support of your churches structure–i.e. you used it to argue for your churches claims and validity. I simply pointed out that it presents a picture of how the early church baptized–and that it conflicts with your churches claim–and I inquired about that.

I have no idea why you would think I hold the Didache as binding on all it teaches–I simply took a source you used to support your churches practice–and pointed out at least one area where your churches practice differs from that of the early apostolic church as presented in the Didache. It is beyond me how we get from that to I hold it binding in all that it teaches.

Why would you think any of us here have a problem with immersion baptism? We have said nothing against it. I think you have at least implied that baptism by other means is invalid–if that is not your position then I apologize–and so we have defended baptism by other than immersion–that is all.

Romans seems to be rather a description of the affects of baptism on the individual rather than a depiction of baptism. I don’t think anyone here would argue that immersion does not offer a more symbolic representation of the affects of baptism but that has nothing to do with the grace one receives through baptism whether by sprinkling, pouring, dipping or immersion.

If I am standing in a river or stream in water up to my knees and I walk out of the river and up the bank to the road–am I not “coming up out of the water”? The passage is not as clear cut as you think.

The meaning of the word baptize is not as simple and clear as you make it out to be in its usage in the NT.

Now:

From post 38:

1. I am still waiting for the scriptural references forbidding the baptism of infants. I think you have been given numerous cites where whole households were baptized and you have failed to address your understanding of those passages.
2. Regarding church structure you’ve been asked about your understanding regarding the correction administered by the apostles to the various communities–and how this does not undermine you assertion for autonomous churches. And other posters brought up the Council of Jerusalem–the seeking of the approval of the apostles by one of these autonomous communities. I have yet to see you address these questions.
3. I am still waiting for cites regarding the NT worship singing and music to support your churches position as I take it you brought up the issue to advocate for the authenticity of your church.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[contritespirit]

I’ll answer the first two questions since I feel I am qualified to do so.

1) How you came to the conclusion that whatever religious body you are a part of is in fact the one true church?

I am currently searching for the true church. I am a member of the church of Christ who is unconvinced that they are anything but a late upshooting denomination.

2) Why you feel/don’t feel that the Church of Christ is the one true church.

There are a number of reasons why I don’t feel it is the one true church.

1. The churches in the first century were not autonomous as we claim. Acts 15 records the first ecumenical council of the churches. The Jerusalem patriarchs and representatives of Antioch met as a collegiate and discussed Gentile membership and further regulations. The meeting concluded with consensus, “It seemed well to the Holy Spirit AND us…” Letter’s got penned up with litmus rules and they were sent to the newly formed Gentile churches. This was a decree, by two churches, given for the rest of the churches in the diaspora. A similar convention happened in Samaria, without delving too deeply, I believe the lapse in charisma (Baptism of the Spirit) was timed and planned. In order that the Samaritans wouldn’t segregate further and become “autonomous” with the Spirit and His gifts, Peter and John came down to confirm them and rope together a stronger thread—for the one they had was frizzy (Acts 8:14-19). Others have shown that Paul and Peter and other writers wrote from once church to another and expected them to obey the instructions.
2. Akin to reason number 1. Reason number two goes like this. The gospel preacher of the churches of Christ is the residue of the Catholic priests and bishop. In an attempt to dodge Catholic and protestant influence, we have created, no, concocted a makeshift position. A pastor-teacher-evangelist all wrapped under one head, minister. Now that the point is assumed, it must now be proved (that is how our hermeneutic works). Churches of Christ then go and ransack scriptures for anything that looks like our modern evangelist (anachronism). Timothy and Titus fit the bill. Problem. Timothy was not a Gospel Preacher, he was an envoy representing Paul. The same goes for Titus. He didn’t preach twice on Sunday and then teach a class on Wednesday, he set thing in order “in Crete” (Titus 1:5-6) an entire city and he went town by town setting things straight—this is NOT autonomy, this is one man being set over a city under the hierarchy of another man, who is setting up a hierarchy in churches, episcopacy.

If churches of Christ didn’t claim to be Bible alone then this wouldn’t be a problem. It’s purely fanciful to change the name of the clergy and give him a neck tie instead collar, and call it Biblical. Next, keeping with the sola scriptura motif, they add all sorts of rules that are not find in the Bible. Wednesday night bible class? Sunday Night? Gospel meetings? Sunday Collection? Church Buildings (don’t try the expedient argument its lame). None of these things are NT, yet they are taught as if they are part of the faith, NT churches met in homes and were more organic, Bible alone should lead you that direction, not halfway. If you are not sola scriptura this is not a problem for you.

1. Their hermeneutic is Lockian, so, late-staged. Command, example and necessary inference, is a start but not a complete thorough going aid for reading literature correctly. And no consensus exists on what is a matter of fellowship and what aint, or which examples are binding and which aint even with the help of Thomas Warren and his PHD in Philosophy and preaching schools. Fatal to their reading is insisting on prescriptively reading ever ledger with atomistic scrutiny, when it suits their purposes. So “sing and make melody in your hearts to the Lord” means sing, but only single acapella because instrumental music is not authorized by we Apostles and Jesus. To do so is “going beyond what is written” (out of context). Instead of a more natural, sing musically, or sing with joy in your hearts: Paul is simply describing what a Spirit-filled person does, not prescribe what a Spirit-filled person must do to the T as if being Spirit-filled is controlled like a science experience with its formulas.
2. This is obviously a broad brush, but when you are refurbishing an old barn, you need the biggest brush you can. The fruit of the Spirit seems lacking, many vie for prestige in lectureships, lord it over the brethren, hurl flaming bolts from the celestial pulpit, and are down-right self-righteous. This self-righteousness is not an accident, because it flows naturally out of how we talk about ourselves as the “one true church,” the uniqueness draws in the unsuspecting, like a stranger offering candy to a child. JW’s do the same thing; paint everyone else as dishonest, or fools, or sincere but sincerely wrong, and you measure up as a pretty good group of folks, who got their eggs about them. It’s like being in an interrogation room, all you see is yourself and the people sitting around you, and when you look out, you see yourself staring back. While the people looking at the other side see it for what it is, people trapped in a very small room that can see nothing but themselves.
3. There are some good things going for it, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think holding up scripture is a bad idea. It’s not. Restoration as a theory is pleasant on paper but before you know it the Gestapo is rapping at your door like communism. It’s got the claim going for it. It has no history though. I used to use an illustration in my preaching, if during the days of Noah people started building Ark’s exactly as God described it to Noah, do you think they would float? The question is met with heads scanning from side to side, robotically as if they were surveillance camera, are they? Ol’Mrs. Dean may even sound the word no with her lips, and if the sermon is hitting, it’ll be audible. Ok, if that analogy is true, then why should a restoration church be met with the same robotic surveillance-scan head turning? After all, imitations may look exactly like the real thing but they never sell for nearly as much, and that may be why people aren’t buying it!

What Catholics and Orthodox claim, and I don’t know if it’s true, I have my own question that have gone unanswered, is that they are historically linked to the first century. That a curtain did not drape down on the stage of history and neatly partition the first century church from the second. That there was no need for restoring, because floating their majestically through the sea of time, there she is in all her rich bulk, and golpher brown. And I may slightly believe her.

Now, you raise an interesting question: whether or not the RCC or the OC have been faithful to the teachings, maybe, maybe not. What does that have to do with anything? The assumption is that a church must catalog every rule with encyclical attention in order to be the NT church, no scandal or deviation will do. But if we view the church as an ontological institution then the discussion has to be reframed. Why? Because Israel was God’s son even when she was in the grips of idolatry, (wasn’t Corinth?) The Israelites were to submit to their leaders, even if they were banging the door-keepers of the tabernacle and stealing portion of the meat offered.

They could not just move the tent pegs and restore the tabernacle or temple, or form a new Israel. No, only God could do that, they were to sit on their hands and “see the salvation of the Lord”—only he could remove bad leaders. So I don’t buy it, just like I don’t buy imitation leather. The church of Christ has no historical, ontological, linear story before the 1800’s. And if the church was never to be destroyed by human hands and was to grow from a small seed to a great tree; it should be great, it should be worldwide, it should be universal. The church of Christ is none of those things and that’s why I simply cannot believe it is what we claim it to be.

 

[JRKH]

contritespirit,

An Excellent post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Peace
James

 

[Link0126]

contritespirit,

An Excellent post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Peace
James

yes, very interesting and well written.

 

[kwortham]

Since there are so many who responded, I can only focus on the latter portion of your question at the moment. But if you give me time, I will answer the first portion also.

You asked for a list of books.

Melito of Sardis:…

(Please click the arrow above to see his complete post and listing or scroll up)

I appreciate the difficulty in trying to find a canonical listing of scripture that matches what you use in your church. Some of your listings of OT are close, but they do not match the 39 books used by protestants today. Therein, lies my point.

If you are going to follow sola scriptura, then you must find a source of authority for the scriptures you have, and only those scriptures. History is not your friend in this task. Individual bishops had their own choices for canon, but no universal declaration of canon existed before 382 AD. It was then, that the canon of scripture (The Bible) was defined and it contained the deuterocanonical books. This formal declaration lasted until Martin Luther and others started trying to strip books out, because they contradicted Christianity as Luther thought it should be.

Now, we have the authority of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, that told us which books are canonical.

 

[contritespirit]

Thanks. I’ve had some forgotten steam hemmed up, whenever that gritty cigaratte smoke wafts by, or an abusive fathers or husbands colonge, throws it’s ugly scent that you whiff even though you held your breath, then all sort of thinking awaken. I would not say I was beaten purple, though I’ve thrown a few licks myself! Not anymore though. God, I hope not anymore. At first I felt bad about not wanting to discuss the Bible and religion. Now, I realize that the cologne isn’t the problem. Naw, It’s the memory of the colonge smell that lingers after a beating, or that intesifies when you kiss in a way reserved for someone special. I’ve kept hush for a bit now, but I felt it was time to make my confession. To break the heavy silence.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks. I’ve had some forgotten steam hemmed up, whenever that gritty cigaratte smoke wafts by, or an abusive fathers or husbands colonge, throws it’s ugly scent that you whiff even though you held your breath, then all sort of thinking awaken. I would not say I was beaten purple, though I’ve thrown a few licks myself! Not anymore though. God, I hope not anymore. At first I felt bad about not wanting to discuss the Bible and religion. Now, I realize that the cologne isn’t the problem. Naw, It’s the memory of the colonge smell that lingers after a beating, or that intesifies when you kiss in a way reserved for someone special. I’ve kept hush for a bit now, but I felt it was time to make my confession. To break the heavy silence.

Good to get it out in the open…
It will be interesting to see if bwmnstar responds.

Peace
James

 

[contritespirit]

If he does I won’t be alarmed. He was me. There is a logic that we use. It’s neat, smooth, and eternal like a circle. But as Chesterson would say, “it’s a small circle” and if only we could see that their is more going on.

 

[kwortham]

What do you mean “lost its way and became extinct from the very stary?” “The Bible was not completed until the late 4th century.”

No sir. The Bible was completed by the end of the first century. Virtually all scholars accept that John penned Revelation circa 90 AD. So, what holes in logic are you referring to? But perhaps that’s not what you meant. I’m going to assume that what you meant was that an official list of canonical books was not produced until the fourth century (at Councils Hippo and Carthage).

There is no evidence for an individual or Church having a Bible in the first century with the exact books that appear in anyone’s Bible today. Copies of certain books were passed around, some of which made the cut in the Bible, along with other books not canonized. Early Christians relied on the teaching authority of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth. This authority continues to this day. I would not believe anything written in the Bible, except for the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church created and authorized the Bible. The Bible did not authorize the Church.

The Bible was completed by the end of the first century.

All of the writings that ended up in the Bible were written by 96 AD. However, they were not collected together until 382 AD.

To suggest that the Bible was present at the end of the first century because all of the later defined word was there would be equal to me proclaiming that I have the year 2020 New York Times bestselling book in my hands, since I have all the defined words to be used in my dictionary. That is a specious argument at best. Which scriptures belonged and in what order? No! The Bible did not exist in the late first century just as I do not have a copy of the 2020 NYT bestseller even though I have a dictionary containing the words. Therefore, it is wrong to claim the existence of the Bible in the late fist century.

Continuing to address this fallacy, you have yet to provide a canonical listing of scripture which matches your bible before the last several hundred years. It does not exist. Since it does not exist, then your bible did not exist. If it has not existed before the 16th or 17th century, then how can it be the sole authority and rule of faith for you? Is Christ going to damn everyone before Martin Luther started creating your version of the bible? No!!!

Christ told us to listen to the Church. If we do not, then we are to be considered as infidels. Christ left the Church in charge. Paul confirms this in 1 Tim 3:15. It should also be noted that there is no record of Christ ever commanding that a bible be written. To be certain, it was prophesied:

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Nowhere is there a statement in the Bible that the Bible was to be written and it alone was to be the sole source for authority.

 

[kwortham]

No protestant/evangelical church can trace its history further back than Luther, less than 500 years ago. This makes them all recent inventions.

It is not logical to believe that someone founding a church 2000 years after the Resurrection has stumbled on the Truth while the Church which has been around since Christ founded Her on Peter has gotten it wrong, in spite of the promise of the Christ that the Holy Spirit would protect His Church.

If the Catholic Church has gone astray, then Christ’s promise to protect His Church is empty.

If Christ’s promise was empty, then He does not exist and the whole of Christianity is a myth and no amount of reinventing Christ through new churches will make Him real.

If you believe that He abandoned His Church and allowed it to go astray, how can you believe any of His promises?

He also promised eternal life. If the Church has gone astray, contrary to His promise, then eternal life is also an empty promise and faith in Christ is futile.

To suggest that Christ and the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to fall away is the quintessential definition of blaspheme. There is no forgiveness of an unrepentant blasphemer.