A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[david_ruiz]

Divid, my brother, why do you mercilessly contradict yourself like that?
Here is what you said earlier:

If you can’t you see the contradiction, then I have to start worrying.

placido

Perhaps. I did say someone is to proclaim,pronounce the gospel ,to preach (not teach).That is evangelism ,I think ,but if you say that is the magisterium ,well that is different.Everyone I thought is to proclaim His goodness. I also said Jesus ,and Polycarp spoke to the people as if they could understand without a middle man (magisterium.),that there is a personal responsibility in “understanding”. Now if you want , I can say Jesus and Polycarp,and Paul and Sacred Scriptures seem to be the magisterium - they teach and preach and proclaim -evangelize AND teach.I did say there seems to be a nice harmony between scripture and oral pronouncements by church “elements” with Polycarp.And as discussed earlier Jesus trusted the father to enlighten the people personally as to which magisterium was correct ,for one was definitely astray ,and the other one pefect (Jesus vs the rabbi community/tradition). Jesus seemed to elevate the individual soul to be able to determine or see when truth was being spoken ,even if you not a rabbi ,or Pharisee. In fact, the only qualification for insight to determine the proper magisterium, was a broken and poor spirit…But thank-you for putting me back on track ,for I have said in other threads ,we believe the same on many things :that there are sacraments,and magisterium/teaching, and scripture and tradition and bishops and elders.

 

[david_ruiz]

but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures."

There is the beautiful balance - the Church and the Lord’s scriptures. No tie into “tradition”. I see it as the church being carriers ,holders of Sacred Scriptures-that was it’s magisterium, in my opinion.Anything else would be weak to fight another tradition (beginnings of gnosticism-and deeper special truths ,perhaps extra-biblical).Scripture is the rule of faith for the church ,or so it seems here.

Yeah, you mentioned Clement and here is what he wrote:
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] THROUGH US, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.
According to Clement, Jesus speaks “through us”. Can you tell me who this “us” refers to?

placido

Again,it would seem that scripture is rule of faith for the Church .For indeed the Church at Rome (us) relates oodles and oodles of Sacred Scripture before this quote of yours. “Since we know well we were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teaching God” Clement 62:3 …"(like Augustines’ ,"He (God) teaches us “…written by us thru the Holy Spirit”. See the beautiful balance of Scripture and gifted teachers/preachers,the Church and the Holy Spirit ?.The “us’ is " the Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth”, according to the letter, and does not bear the name of Clement (Hermas says Clement was the official who wrote it on behalf of the Roman Church).The "magisterium"puts forth scripture to make their case, and trusted in the Holy Spirit to enlighten their letter,both in the writing of it and in the receiving of it by the Corinthians.

 

[placido]

I also said Jesus ,and Polycarp spoke to the people as if they could understand without a middle man.

But what you say contradicts what you do. You say people could understand without a middle man, but immediately tell us what to believe as if we could not understand without you acting as a middle man.

placido

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi David, lets do just that. Let’s go back a few decades.

Compare this verse Luke wrote in Acts:

 

[david_ruiz]

But what you say contradicts what you do. You say people could understand without a middle man, but immediately tell us what to believe as if we could not understand without you acting as a middle man.

placido

Howdy .If I am a middle man (proclaimer-in the Body/Church)),it is with the understanding I am not authoratative , but that the Holy Spirit and Scripture is authoratative.and I say, “see if it ain’t so for yourself”(as Jerome and Luther, I believe said in their scripture commentaries) .If you concur with me , it is not because you realize I have authority ,but that God has taught you , as he has taught me , to which I testified , and now you will testify also , in power ,because it is now personal , between you and the Father .not because someone (me/church/magisterium) said so. Hence , in the final analysis, God teaches (Augustine and Polycarp verbatim) . Preaching ,teaching, the Body ,the magisterium ALL have their part.

 

[Mark01]

David
Who was Jesus refering to in John Chapter 17 in the following verse

John 17:20
I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

 

[JustaServant]

Howdy ,been a while , sorry. Thanks , agree with your quotes.

 

[JustaServant]

Also, Justin’s writings on the subject of Baptism:

Born Again� Means Water Baptism

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well�And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone�And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

Infant Baptism

“And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years…” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

 

[placido]

Howdy .If I am a middle man (proclaimer-in the Body/Church)),it is with the understanding I am not authoratative

But that strange condition that “one can a middle man as long as he does not claim to be authoritative” is nowhere in the Bible. You fabricate as you go.

If you concur with me , it is not because you realize I have authority ,but that God has taught you , as he has taught me

In other words, any one disagreeing with you it is because he is not being taught by God. And you are so confident in this “authoritative” claim of yours …

not because someone (me/church/magisterium) said so.

In other words, Augustine was wrong, wrong, very wrong when he said he would not have believed the gospel if not convinced by the Catholic Church.

placido

 

[david_ruiz]

But that strange condition that "one can a middle man as long as he does not claim to be authoritative"

 

[david_ruiz]

David
Who was Jesus refering to in John Chapter 17 in the following verse

John 17:20
I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Hi Mark 01.Thanks for encouraging me to read Mark 17. It is quite a universal concept of those who believe in Christ thru the Word (from God-vs 8,17 ,from Jesus- vs 14, from the apostles-vs 20 -down to those who evangelize us-vs 20 -“for by the foolishness of preaching he chose that man should be saved”). We are one in this. We love God ,we love Jesus ,we love our foundation-the Apostles ,and we love the Word from subsequent evangelizers, to those who evangelize us, and we are no longer in this world but are one in Him -This is much more universal , than our Catholicism, Protestantism or Orthodoxy- we all have known that God has sent Jesus-vs 25…Do you still want to focus in on “their word” of vs 20 outside the beauty of all the other verses ? True universalism/catholicism, harmonizes the Father, the Word ,The Holy Spirit working thru man -the apostles down to and thru believers(the Body /the Church) of today, to reveal that Jesus is our Savior…Do you see how Jesus avoids sectarianism of His day in ch 17 (Pharisees,Saducees ,Zionists and others) ? I think we should do the same today with this ch. 17.

 

[placido]

The point was in the authority of the Word and the revealer of the Word ,the Holy Spirit,not the man.

Now tell me: If the Church was authoritative in Acts 15 when did it stop being authoritative and how do you know that it is no longer authoritative? Why did “middle men” authoritatively tell the believers that circumcision is no longer necessary if “middle men” are not needed? Why did the Holy Spirit not reveal this directly to every individual believer?

You show constant need to have something else being authoratative other than the Word or the Holy Spirit. I am not authoratative.

Yes, I know you are not authoritative but that does not mean no one is authoritative.

Thanks for totally misconstruing my points.

How did I do that? Did you not tell us that while acting as de facto “middle men”, Paul, Polycarp and Augustine were opposed to any one acting as “middle man”? Come on now!

I make a statement with several or more elements and you separate the elements and put them out of my context-totally.Very frustrating. I did not say Augustine was wrong,but you refuse to harmonize all the elements of his statements that appear to be “universal”, that is agreeable to both Protestant ,Orthodox and Catholic.

Sorry, but that is a cheap cop-out. You repeatedly and persistently told us the magisterium (what you call “a middle man”) is not needed, and when I show you that without that “middle man” Augustine would not have believed the gospel, you jump left and right saying “no, that is not what I said”.
Very frustrating indeed!

placido

 

[JustaServant]

David, if you are out there would you respond to my post please?
Thank you.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7544718:

David I want to first thank you for your concentration on the OP. You have been one of the few Protestants to do so since I introduced this subject over a year ago. Again, thanks. The fact that you are reading these wonderful ancient Christian works is encouraging.

Lets fast foward to the last fellow on the timeline: Justin Martyr.
He was born around A.D. 100 (67 years from the Ressurection), converted to Christianity about A.D. 130. Two “Apologies” bearing his name and his “Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon” have come down to us. Long works that can be read online. But lets look at what Christianity looked like at the end of the first 100 years:

Weekly worship of the Christians

The Eucharist

.Justin also wrote the following4-5 statements:
“The bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of his being made flesh for the sake of his believers, for whom he also suffered, and the cup which he gave us to drink,in remebrance of his own blood, with giving of thanks”"…"Do not suppose that Isaah or other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar of his second advent ,but a true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks’…“giving of thanks…the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God”…“The eating of flesh is a shameful deed”…To Typhro that the flour in O.T. was in remembrance to be received but the sacrifice is prayer and thanksgiving…I guess he had quite a few sentences on the eucharist,and if you take them in entirety, I would say he leans towards protestant views.Yours is very close to catholicism,but his other statements shed more light that it is not.Certainly ,he gives no call for a priest ,or that He must be contained in gold ,or what to do if “He” is spilled,dropped,or that He must be adored in the monstrance.Indeed ,it is food for our flesh to be shared /distributed with others .Does not say this eating is effectual to our spiritual lives ,other than in :thanksgiving ',which is always effectual-any kind of thanksgiving. But thank-you , I could see from your two statements one would lean your way. But like I say , given his other comments and scripture , I am not persuaded. Scripture is clear that God gave us His sacrifice .We receive and give thanks.I think the words of the mass offer the sacrifice(cup and bread-body and blood)) back up to God.

 

[david_ruiz]

Now tell me: If the Church was authoritative in Acts 15 when did it stop being authoritative and how do you know that it is no longer authoritative? Why did “middle men” authoritatively tell the believers that circumcision is no longer necessary if “middle men” are not needed? Why did the Holy Spirit not reveal this directly to every individual believer?

Yes, I know you are not authoritative but that does not mean no one is authoritative.

How did I do that? Did you not tell us that while acting as de facto “middle men”, Paul, Polycarp and Augustine were opposed to any one acting as “middle man”? Come on now!

Sorry, but that is a cheap cop-out. You repeatedly and persistently told us the magisterium (what you call “a middle man”) is not needed, and when I show you that without that “middle man” Augustine would not have believed the gospel, you jump left and right saying “no, that is not what I said”.
Very frustrating indeed!

placido

Placido ,I recanted on my contradiction already,much earlier .I have allowed for a type of magisterium ,which has two prongs: as a teaching element and where we disagree, as authoratative element.Please do not say I say “middleman” is not part of the equation .I will say it once more .Scripture ,the holy spirit ,the teacher ,the apostle ,the Body/church ,the evangelist all have their part.One more example from justin martyr, “Let us cite a few scriptures used by Jesus, His word was power of God…Jesus Christ our teacher” Just like Augustine who cites the church ,the teachers (jerome/ambrose) and God himself as the teacher ,his word authoratative. I believe he hit all the bases. So does Martyr with the “us”-teachers /leaders, the “word” and Jesus/Holy Spirit. When Martyr comparing christianity to greek mythology: Jupiter, the father, has son “Mercury” who is the interpreting word and teacher of all"…ALL the bases were authoratative in Acts 15-God himself ,scripture,apostles-what God said ,did and wrote and whom He enlightened were authoratative. Just saying the "church ’ was authoratative is lean on the truth regarding ALL the elements of the new testament dispensation.

 

[placido]

Placido ,I recanted on my contradiction already,much earlier .I have allowed for a type of magisterium ,which has two prongs: as a teaching element and where we disagree, as authorataive element.

Okay but … that is an unnecessary disagreement. Acts 15 (and Matthew 18:18 for instance) show a magisterium as authoritative element. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the magisterium eventually ceased to be an authoritative element.

Scripture ,the holy spirit ,the teacher ,the apostle ,the Body/church ,the evangelist all have their part.

100 % true!

One more example from justin martyr, “Let us cite a few scriptures used by Jesus, His word was power of God…Jesus Christ our teacher” Just like Augustine who cites the church ,the teachers (jerome/ambrose) and God himself as the teacher ,his word authoratative. I believe he hit all the bases. So does Martyr with the “us”-teachers /leaders, the “word” and Jesus/Holy Spirit. When Martyr comparing christianity to greek mythology: Jupiter, the father, has son “Mercury” who is the interpreting word and teacher of all"

I see … you sometimes agree with what Justin Martyr says – mostly if it can be used to support your position but inconsistently relegate him to irrelevance when what he says refutes your position.

placido

 

[david_ruiz]

Okay but … that is an unnecessary disagreement. Acts 15 (and Matthew 18:18 for instance) show a magisterium as authoritative element

 

[david_ruiz]

Also, Justin’s writings on the subject of Baptism:

Born Again� Means Water Baptism

Infant Baptism

Again ,given your quote Justin connects being born again ,illumined with water baptism .However ,other quotes show a person is made new in Christ ,and believes and desires to be holy,dedicates himself to God in baptism. For sure being born again , illumined, has a connection to baptism .Most people who, as adults, testify to the new birth , being enlightened , hence have the desire and are then baptized . That it is “effectual” might be backed by your quote but not by other quotes -“I will relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new thru Christ as many as were persuaded and BELIEVE that what we teach and say is true,and undertake to live accordingly,pray ,fast…for remission of sins…are brought to water and regenerated in same manner as we were.” It seems to say a person is illuminated BEFORE baptism, else how could he “believe” …As far as infant baptism ,beyond a shadow of a doubt he says nothing of it and speaks of baptism in terms of a consenting individual ALWAYS- this despite much talk of baptism ,circumcision etc. In fact he contrasts a child who is born with no choice in sin nature, with the choice one has to be baptized or not. By this time you have many Christian families and no mention of infant baptism.Your quote of disciple from childhood has context only of remaining pure thru life. A child is not an infant.Childhood is what, 3-4 to 11-12 years old ?- certainly they can make a choice for Christ and be baptized .However , I would agree with you , to be a disciple one is usually baptized. But , I do not think catholic teaching says an infant is a disciple of Christ.One thing is baptism by proxy ,but discipleship by proxy ? For the most part Martyr gives nothing new that scripture gives us also .He does write enough to continue the debate of the need to baptized to be saved, or is it symbolic/obedience to the Lord’s command. I would say he comes close to baptism being effectual in one quote but not another .But no to infancy baptism ,and no that born again also happens at Confirmation,or that it is sealed,affirmed at Confirmation…So thru Clement ,Polycarp and Martyr I see a universal faith, and o.k. to protetstant understanding.

 

[david_ruiz]

Read Mathetes (120 A.D.?)-Pretty good stuff,Will not cite anything from ch 11,12 ,for some think it is spurious,though I found nothing different in them .I enjoyed his epistle ,felt quite akin to it. Again it is very general , that is universal . He implores God for ability to speak and “hear”…I will quote some things which may apply to some denominational differences…“but to those who imagine, by means of blood, smoke of sacrifices and burnt offerings, they offer sacrifices to Him who stands in need of nothing…this is same as those destitute of sense” Ch 3,4 on gentile and Jewish false practices. His context is not the eucharist or "incense " , however , I personally apply his writing to them -mostly that we do not offer anything to God except sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving. Ch. 5 is beautiful .Christians are to be found in every country, language, native customs but live normally having marriage, and children, working, obeying laws of land, yet they are "sojourners / foreigners " - citizens of heaven, " because, “God Himself, placed among men, Him who is the Truth and Holy and incomprehensible Word and firmly established Him in their hearts…they trust in His kindness, esteem Him as their Teacher, Counselor, Light ,Wisdom…” (Ch10)- "If you desire this faith, you shall receive knowledge of the Father, He gives reason and understanding…Again ,good stuff.

 

[david_ruiz]

read the seven letters of Ignatius. Apparently there has been much controversy over his epistles, 8 being found spurious ,and the others 7 having two versions, long and short .I read mostly the short. I guess many question him for his strict adherence to heirarchy of bishop, presbyter , deacon, quite unlike other contemporaries thus far. One letter does interpose deacon with bishop. I did find the subject ok at first , but I could not help at times feel uncomfortable to his engraciating statements towards church officials. I thought was he trying to butter them up , did he want them to speak well of him, was it slightly pompous ? But overall I took it at face value , adherence to the church and it’s “makeup”, in the wake of tribulation, persecution and heresy. At times I couldn’t help but feel that eminent death can make you see things simple and straight, as Ignatious. I do not know the difference totally in scripture as to deacons,elders, bishops. Scripture does interchange elders (presbyters) and bishops. Ignatius seems to show them distinct (except once). Regardless, I took it to mean be one with your pastor, and many protestants have elders/bishops and presbyters to be one with. So ,overall, I had no real problem with this .I did find it interesting that every city was autonomous - they elected their officials (as he admonished Philadelphia to do). I gathered by some of his statements that the Lord , His Spirit was overall shepherd of all the churches (Ephesus, “ye…being under guidance of the Comforter, in obedience to the bishop…” Magnesians- “yield him (bishop) reverance, submit to him , rather not to him , but to the father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all” ) .If protestants must give way to Ignatius 's heirarchy , then Catholics must give way to the Lord being overall shepherd ,that theer is no head bishop over all, no pope at this time .He does not address any bishop of Rome, as he does all the other churches (for there were too many bishops to name in Rome ? ). In Traccians , “bishop has all authority” yet “presbyters assess (judge) bishop”…So overall, I would say this topic is still within our christian universality…to be cont.