Beliefs of the Early Church

[kepha1]

No separation between “our gospel and traditions…” okay…how about assumption of Mary, praying to saints, perpetual virginity of Mary, laity only receiving one part of communion.

They are all scriptural, or infered in scripture. One part of communion is not half of Jesus.

Please try to stay on one topic at a time. The thread is entitled “Beliefs of the Early Church”. So I have a few questions for you.

1.) True or false: The Bible has a verse(s) that lists what books belong in the Bible.
If true, quote the chapter and verse______________________________

1. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition?
   A) yes
   B) no, its not by “merely human tradition” that compiled the Holy Books
   C) all traditions are to be condemned
2. If the list of Biblical books is not revealed in the Bible itself, what men drew up the list?
   A) Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli
   B) The Twelve Apostles
   C) The Jewish Council of Jamnia in the 1st century
   D) Several Bishops in 4 councils from the 2nd to the 4th century
3. Why do you trust these men?
   A) they were guided by the Holy Spirit
   B) their offices were of direct descent from the Apostles
   C) they were unanimous in faith and practice
   D) all of the above
4. Is their list infallible? (without error)
   A) yes
   B) no, Luther removed the added books 1100 years later and made it infallible
   C) no, the Jewish council of Jamnia (95 AD) had more authority about the canon of scripture than Christians, even though they rejected Christ and the message of the New Testament.
   D) No, the bible came from God, it didn’t come from man, that’s why its infallible.

continued…

 

[kepha1]

1. If the list of books in YOUR Bible is infallible, on what authority is it so?
   A) by virtue of the office of the bishops who proved which ones of the many books were inspired
   B) the power to bind and loose which was given to the Church
   C) by the authority of Christ which lives in the Church
   D) King James, who gathered the books from the Apostles, and lived to be 1600 years old.
   E) I trust the publisher
   F) A, B, C
2. True or False: Even though the list of books in the bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list.?
3. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you trust it? On what authority?
   A) God decided the list, not men. That is why I trust it, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, Who had no need of men to make the list.
   B) the list IS infallible, on the authority that Jesus gave to sinful Church leaders.
   C) the list IS infallible on the authority that the Holy Spirit gives me a good feeling about it.

1. Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitly found in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament.
2. If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”, or an extra-biblical doctrine?

I have more questions if you get at least 3 correct. Others can help ahimsaman along.

kepha1

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

kepha1:

James did not lead this council, and not one verse suggests that he does.

The Fathers of the Church certainly believe that it was James who took first place at the Council.

For example, here is Saint John Chrysostom’s commentary on Acts 15…

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. **Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. **

For the full commentary see
ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-11/Chrysostom/Acts/Acts-Hom33.html

 

[RBushlow]

kepha1:

Peter’s declaration was not based on the Scripture which existed at the time he made it and it is binding to this day. It was binding on the whole Church even before Luke recorded it in Acts; i.e. before it was written in Scripture.

I think that we have sown the seed of Truth for ahimsaman72 to receive. It is now up to the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of his heart so that he may receive the Truth. Remember, it is not up to us to convert anyone, our job is only to sow the seed. Those who have eyes, let them see.

Let us Give thanks to the Lord. It is right always and everywhere to give Him thanks.

 

[WBB]

Fr Ambrose:

The Fathers of the Church certainly believe that it was James who took first place at the Council.

For example, here is Saint John Chrysostom’s commentary on Acts 15…

“Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. **Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. **

For the full commentary see
ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-11/Chrysostom/Acts/Acts-Hom33.html

Now, don’t anathematize me, but the way I understand the Council of Jerusalem is this…Debate about the need for circumcision or not occurred, Peter stood up and proclaimed the teaching of the new Church, Paul and Barnabas discussed their experiences with Gentile converts, and James responded with discipline (not a dogma or doctrine) about avoiding pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood, in order to appease the Jewish converts who wished to still follow the Law of Moses and force it on Gentile converts to the Church.

I do like St. John Chrysostom’s homily in that he mentions that there was no fighting as to who was the greatest in the early Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

Peter’s definitive teaching is not based on scripture and remians binding, but according to you, James teaching is binding, and its irrevocation is not found in scripture, therefore you can’t enjoy a medium rare steak.

You will never “see the truth” by dissecting, compartmentalizing, segmentalizing and abusing scripture in this manner. Put away the microscope and get out some binoculars. You have to consider the Word of God in its entirety, spoken and written, and who is authorized to prove inspiration of, compile, preserve, teach and proclaim it. And it is not any individual on earth but for a living, teaching Church, the pillar and ground of truth.

kepha1

Have not church theologians (both Catholic and protestant) dissected Scripture piece by piece to form the whole? If you look at something as basic as dissection of a frog in biology class you will find my approach to Scripture. You have a chart on the wall that identifies all the inner parts of the frog. You see it, but until you cut the frog open and look at the parts and interact with them you really can’t say you know the frog’s inner parts. There’s the chart and there’s the frog. Both are profitable to knowing the frog.

Scripture is the same way. You look at the outside. You see the divisions of books. You see the division of testaments. You see the variety of literature contained. You can observe all these things. But, you really don’t know the Bible until you delve into it deeply and personally - book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. There is deductive study, inductive study, topical study. The choices are limitless.

Don’t sell it short.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Because Scripture describes local leadership - elders and bishops, not popes.

…

The council at Jerusalem did not proclaim the many ordinances and traditions that the Roman Church has proclaimed. The council gave general guidelines. What appears in the New Testament is foreign to what you see as the Roman Church today.

You’re absolutely wrong on this point. The decision delcared by Peter was absolutely binding; it was not a general guideline. It was binding by his declaration as the head of the Church. Paul was an Apostle who argued against requiring circumcision but that didn’t end the debate on the topic. Peter’s declaration did.

Additionally, the additional ordinances of James at that council were authoritative and binding on the entire Church.

 

[theMutant]

1 Peter 5

1. The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

I’m afraid the Roman Catholic Church holds Peter to a higher esteem than he ever claimed for himself.

No, the Church teaches that the Pope is a bishop as are all of the bishops of the Church. He can exhort all of his brother bishops as an equal in the episcopal college. However that fact does not negate his ability to make an authoritatively binding declaration as Peter did in the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Moving on to Mt. 28: 18-20 (NIV)

Jesus came to the the disciples and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”. (Christ is the foundation. He is the ultimate authority). "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations" (did He say make rules and laws or make disciples?). "…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (to obey what Christ had already told them and taught them. What did He teach them? You will find that in the four gospels.)

But you seem to be assuming that the four Gospels contain everything that Christ taught them over an entire three year period! However, the Gospel of John makes it clear in Chapter 21 verse 25 that this is not the case Therefore, there were clearly other things - many other things - which Jesus taught that are not recorded in the Gospels but which the Apostles still would have passed on. Since these additional teachings cannot be found in Scripture but were passed on in the oral Tradition, we can look to that oral Tradition as authoritatively binding because the Scripture reveals to us that the Church is the pillar and foundation (bulwark) of truth. (c.f. 1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Now, moving on to Luke 10:16…

What puzzles me is why this one is used here. Here Jesus sends out the 72 disciples (not the 12) into every town and place where he is about to travel to. Why did He send them out before Him? To prepare the way. To prepare their hearts to receive Him when He came. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel.

And what puzzles me is how you think that this invalidates the Catholic position in any way. For the mission of the Catholic Church is to preach the gospel. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel!

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

Jesus is speaking to His Apostles and only His Apostles in John 14, the whole chapter, and in John 13, the whole chapter. It is at the Last Supper, yet you want to believe that Jesus is talking to each individual believer?

Let’s look at verse 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

So therefore you can tell me all the Jesus said and did, which the whole world could not contain the books thereof. Don’t you think there is more to what Jesus means than your interpretation of individualism and relativism? I am not saying you don’t have the Holy Spirit, I am saying you are not an Apostle, nor are you a “man of God” as described as being called directly by God or an ordained successor, as the bible makes clear. Nor do you represent all the Apostles and their successors. Jesus is talking to the leaders of His Church, not each and every individual believer. If 3 whole consecutive chapters isn’t enough proof that Jesus is talking only to His Apostles, then no amout of scriptures will do.I don’t know about Mutant, but I would be happy to point out the novelties of your other posts. For instance:

James did not lead this council, and not one verse suggests that he does.

So, you are saying the apostles only were indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Hmmmm…let’s look at some more verses if you persist.

Rom 8:9-11
I Cor 3:16
Eph. 3:17 (Christ dwells)
2 Tim 1:14
1 JN 4:12-15 (God dwells)

:tiphat:

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

And what puzzles me is how you think that this invalidates the Catholic position in any way. For the mission of the Catholic Church is to preach the gospel. To preach the gospel. To preach the gospel!

I didn’t say it invalidated it. I’m quite surprised that it’s used to prove it.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Now, moving on to John 14:16-17…

Here the passage speaks of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer and being recognized as the Spirit of truth. This actually helps prove the protestant position that the Holy Spirit is truth and indwells the believer and is authoritative for the believer. How else can you understand this passage?

But, Jesus was not saying this to all of his disciples. He was saying this to the Apostles at the Last Supper. The Holy Spirit can only be “authoritative” for the individual believer if the individual believer receives personal revelation or the gift of infallibility. Catholics also believe that the Holy Spirit indwells in everyone but that verse cannot be looked at in isolation of all the others. The entire Scripture is the truth and it clearly reveals an authoritative Church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

But you seem to be assuming that the four Gospels contain everything that Christ taught them over an entire three year period! However, the Gospel of John makes it clear in Chapter 21 verse 25 that this is not the case Therefore, there were clearly other things - many other things - which Jesus taught that are not recorded in the Gospels but which the Apostles still would have passed on. Since these additional teachings cannot be found in Scripture but were passed on in the oral Tradition, we can look to that oral Tradition as authoritatively binding because the Scripture reveals to us that the Church is the pillar and foundation (bulwark) of truth. (c.f. 1 Timothy 3:15).

I realize the passage in John. Isn’t it odd that any of the gospel writers would leave anything essential out of their writings though?

What are these other things that are not contained in the Bible that we know only by tradition? I would like to know. If they are essential I need to know. Which ones? Is this some secret that only an elite group can have or supposed to have?

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Moving on to 2 Thess. 2:15 and let’s include verse 14, shall we?

“14. Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

Well, first the gospel is mentioned here. And note the first word in verse 15 - “therefore”. What does therefore stand for? Whatever precedes it. So, God called the Thessalonians to Him by the gospel of the apostles - why? so the Lord could get the glory. Therefore, the brothers (as Paul calls them, not subjects) are told to hold on to what they had been given whether it was by their spoken word or epistle. Okay, so would you say this spoken word and epistles would contradict or match each other? I would say that these traditions (NIV calls them teachings) are the gospel message (as other verses make clear). If you notice the preceding verses going back before verse 14, you see the reason Paul is saying these things. It’s because Paul spoke of deception and the man of sin (I’m surprised you even want to go to this passage). He’s telling them to remain faithful to what he preached and taught - which was the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, we must hold fast to the entire gospel as it has been passed on to us orally or in Scripture. However, I just responded a few posts ago showing that the entire gospel message was not recorded in Scripture. You are assuming that the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church somehow contradicts the written Scripture but you have not succeeded in showing that to be the case. The Catholic Church teaches that the gospel message, whether in the oral Tradition or in the Scriptures, cannot be contradictory because their source is God - who is Truth. Therefore, Catholics have no problem in using these verses (or any other) to defend our beliefs. We absolutely believe in the Bible as our supreme guide to our faith. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

My break is over and I have to get back to work. I’ll be back later.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

But, Jesus was not saying this to all of his disciples. He was saying this to the Apostles at the Last Supper. The Holy Spirit can only be “authoritative” for the individual believer if the individual believer receives personal revelation or the gift of infallibility. Catholics also believe that the Holy Spirit indwells in everyone but that verse cannot be looked at in isolation of all the others. The entire Scripture is the truth and it clearly reveals an authoritative Church.

See #247. Scripture does indeed clearly reveal the church that belongs to Christ. Let me quote some Scripture to give you an idea of who belongs to Christ who is the head of the church.

1. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
2. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
3. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
4. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

If your tradition disagrees with this Scripture, then your tradition is false.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Yes, we must hold fast to the entire gospel as it has been passed on to us orally or in Scripture. However, I just responded a few posts ago showing that the entire gospel message was not recorded in Scripture. You are assuming that the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church somehow contradicts the written Scripture but you have not succeeded in showing that to be the case. The Catholic Church teaches that the gospel message, whether in the oral Tradition or in the Scriptures, cannot be contradictory because their source is God - who is Truth. Therefore, Catholics have no problem in using these verses (or any other) to defend our beliefs. We absolutely believe in the Bible as our supreme guide to our faith. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

My break is over and I have to get back to work. I’ll be back later.

Hahaha…I know the feeling. I use down time here at work, lunches, breaks, etc to get on here and rev it up with you guys and gals. God bless you friend.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

I realize the passage in John. Isn’t it odd that any of the gospel writers would leave anything essential out of their writings though?

What are these other things that are not contained in the Bible that we know only by tradition? I would like to know. If they are essential I need to know. Which ones? Is this some secret that only an elite group can have or supposed to have?

You misunderstand what Tradition is. Tradition is not a set of beliefs that are not written down. It is not like the Apostles said, “Ok, we will write this down but not that. We will simply call that Tradition.” Tradition was the explanation of the faith as taught by the Apostles. Tradition can not stand alone because it is what focuses the writings of the scriptures and explains them. Without the scriptures, Tradition is insufficient. In the same way, scripture can not stand alone because for it to be properly understood as the Apostles taught requires Tradition to explain it. Tradition and Scripture are inseparable. Even in protestant interpretation there is Tradition. Protestants understand the scriptures in the tradition of those who taught them whether it be Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Cranmer. Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[kepha1]

ahimsaman72

So, you are saying the apostles only were indwelt by the Holy Spirit? Hmmmm…let’s look at some more verses if you persist.

I said no such thing. That is why you didn’t quote me in any specific manner. I even declared you yourself have the Holy Spirit, so this amounts to a ridiculous conclusion. Jesus is the Church on earth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in her teachings, and Jesus promised He would be with her always, or He is a liar. It always comes down to authority, doesn’t it? And I see you didn’t touch my questions. Your just here to argue, right?

kepha1

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

1. If the list of books in YOUR Bible is infallible, on what authority is it so?
   A) by virtue of the office of the bishops who proved which ones of the many books were inspired
   B) the power to bind and loose which was given to the Church
   C) by the authority of Christ which lives in the Church
   D) King James, who gathered the books from the Apostles, and lived to be 1600 years old.
   E) I trust the publisher
   F) A, B, C
2. True or False: Even though the list of books in the bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list.?
3. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you trust it? On what authority?
   A) God decided the list, not men. That is why I trust it, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, Who had no need of men to make the list.
   B) the list IS infallible, on the authority that Jesus gave to sinful Church leaders.
   C) the list IS infallible on the authority that the Holy Spirit gives me a good feeling about it.

1. Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitly found in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament.
2. If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”, or an extra-biblical doctrine?

I have more questions if you get at least 3 correct. Others can help ahimsaman along.

kepha1

Let me be quite candid here. First, you are assuming that I don’t accept the Catholic Bible. Second, you are assuming that I throw away all theological works of catholic theologians and scholars. Third, you are assuming that my belief is that nothing outside of accepted Scripture is profitable.

1. I have a NAB Bible at home. I have read some of the books and portions of others. I find them quite unlike the rest of the Bible, though. They seem to not flow or have an air of authority in their writing. There is nothing in the 7 books that I can find that contradicts the rest of Scripture, so I accept them.
2. I appreciate the valuable work of people like Augustine and Origen. I have read some of their work and it’s very admirable. I tend to veer towards Origen in his beliefs, actually. I’m a closet universalist and find Origen’s thoughts convincing.
3. I can appreciate and find valuable material in modern teachers, scholars and fellow brethren. I’ve attended church all my life and listened to many men preach the gospel and share their intimate experiences with Christ. I take them for what they are. Many articles, books and speeches I consume are very helpful, insightful and uplifting for my Christian walk. I just don’t consider them authoritative or binding on my conscience.

I’m afraid I’ve spent so much time answering your posts that I have neglected my promise to Mutant to pour over his many posts from a while back - back to page 11. I will continue to trudge away at replying to his posts as I promised.

I will try to answer you as much as possible, but with the heavy traffic it may be near impossible to do so. I was away for almost a week due to work responsibilites and just now getting back here. Please be patient.

God bless…