Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

Brendan:

There is little doubt that local church has SOME authority, that is substantially different from saying they were independant. I would like to see some proof about them being independant.

St. Paul was a member of the Church in Rome, for example, but took the occasion to correct the Church in Corinth on at least 2 occasions.

Did Paul then interfere with independant Church in Corinth??

We also have a historical document about Barnabas correction of the Chuch in Alexandria. What authority would Barnabas have over the Church in Alexandria??

How do the Orthodox view church structure? From what I can tell they believe in traditional church government, bishops, deacons without a superior bishop that is infallible. Their churches are independent. They have bishops which reside over their respective locales. They do not answer to some outside authority.

St. Paul was a member of the church of Rome???

Paul corrected and admonished many churches. He had authority to do so. He was an apostle.

 

[Chris_W]

ahimsaman72:

Ask your question to the Laodiceans or Colossians. When they received their respective epistles from Paul, do you think they squabbled over the truth of it or authority of it? No, they probably took it at face value. They knew Paul. They knew his ministry. They recognized his authority. The same authority Peter and the other apostles had.

Sorry to be hard headed here, but I don’t see how this answers my question. How do you know what the Laodiceans or Colossians accepted as “approved” texts? I don’t doubt for one second that the people who heard the teaching of the Apostles believed the teachings were true and authoritative. That is not the question. The question is, how do we know, some 2000 years later, which manuscripts, of the thousands that existed back then, belong in the Bible?

Please elaborate.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

But aren’t you arguing that you accept as canon what some people way back when accepted as canon? This is an odd response, considering your previous argument.

Even the poster agreed these were historical documents. Historical documents are that - historical documents. Let me be clear - I don’t think we need a “canon” to decipher the gospel message. The gospel message is clear. It is the peripherals that get in the way.

 

[Chris_W]

Perhaps I could state my question a bit more clearly:

Obviously, the earliest Christians accepted the teachings of the Apostles. It therefore stands to reason they would accept the letters written to them by the Apostles as authoritative as well. And they certainly knew what the Apostles said and wrote.

The question is, how do you know what the Apostles said and wrote? Is every document of the first century that is purported to have been written by an Apostle to be included in the Bible as the inspired Word of God? I think there were many documents that people claimed were from the Apostles back then, which were widely contested by various people of the time. So how can we decide which ones should and which ones should not be included in the Bible as authentic teachings of the Apostles?

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

Sorry to be hard headed here, but I don’t see how this answers my question. How do you know what the Laodiceans or Colossians accepted as “approved” texts? I don’t doubt for one second that the people who heard the teaching of the Apostles believed the teachings were true and authoritative. That is not the question. The question is, how do we know, some 2000 years later, which manuscripts, of the thousands that existed back then, belong in the Bible?

Please elaborate.

All of Paul’s letters make sense to me. You can tell they all have the same author. You can do the same study about a secular collection of books to decipher if they have the same author. If you have 5 that are similar in style and content and 2 that are not, then I would question the 2 and stick with the 5.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

Perhaps I could state my question a bit more clearly:

Obviously, the earliest Christians accepted the teachings of the Apostles. It therefore stands to reason they would accept the letters written to them by the Apostles as authoritative as well. And they certainly knew what the Apostles said and wrote.

The question is, how do you know what the Apostles said and wrote? Is every document of the first century that is purported to have been written by an Apostle to be included in the Bible as the inspired Word of God? I think there were many documents that people claimed were from the Apostles back then, which were widely contested by various people of the time. So how can we decide which ones should and which ones should not be included in the Bible as authentic teachings of the Apostles?

I would say they must be similar in style, context and demeanor to say that they all were from the same author.

 

[Chris_W]

ahimsaman72:

I would say they must be similar in style, context and demeanor to say that they all were from the same author.

Great. So in order for me to determine what belongs in the Bible and what does not, I need to learn Greek, the history of the Jewish culture and language, to know how they talked, learn literary critical analysis, to understnd how to critique texts for authorship, etc, etc.

Okay, say we were to do that. Would you have me believe that once we all become experts in these matters, we will all arrive at the same conclusions? Hardly. The fact is, the Bible has been studied more thoroughly by more scholars, over a longer period of time than just about any book in the history of mankind…and yet the “experts” do not agree. Nice idea, but it doesn’t work.

Furthermore, I notice your tone has changed from relying on the clarity the early Christians had about these matters, to now relying on your own personal clarity about the texts. It seems you are describing the canon accoring to your opinion, rather than providing factual evidence of what the earliest Christians believed.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

Great. So in order for me to determine what belongs in the Bible and what does not, I need to learn Greek, the history of the Jewish culture and language, to know how they talked, learn literary critical analysis, to understnd how to critique texts for authorship, etc, etc.

Okay, say we were to do that. Would you have me believe that once we all become experts in these matters, we will all arrive at the same conclusions? Hardly. The fact is, the Bible has been studied more thoroughly by more scholars, over a longer period of time than just about any book in the history of mankind…and yet the “experts” do not agree. Nice idea, but it doesn’t work.

Furthermore, I notice your tone has changed from relying on the clarity the early Christians had about these matters, to now relying on your own personal clarity about the texts. It seems you are describing the canon accoring to your opinion, rather than providing factual evidence of what the earliest Christians believed.

Somebody obviously came to the same conclusions. We have the Old Testament compiled by Jews and the New Testament compiled by Christians.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

Furthermore, I notice your tone has changed from relying on the clarity the early Christians had about these matters, to now relying on your own personal clarity about the texts. It seems you are describing the canon accoring to your opinion, rather than providing factual evidence of what the earliest Christians believed.

Let’s compare: early Christians received letters from apostles. They accept them because, well, they are from the apostles.

Now, we accept apostolic letters that early Christians accepted.

I accept the canon as it has been delivered, just as my forefathers.

I don’t accept the claim that catholics make about “giving me the Bible”, “catholics gave you the Bible”. No, they didn’t.

Jewish scribes gave us the Old Testament. Christian scribes gave us the New Testament.

 

[gmk]

I am coming into this late, so please forgive me if I have missed some detail.

I think the point that Chrisw is trying to make is that you do in fact accept what was delivered to you, just as your forefathers. That in itself, is a very Roman Catholic position.

In order to justify accepting the Canon without full research yourself, you must forego the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

As you have said, you accept what was delivered to you. Whether or not you believe it was the Roman Catholic Church that handed it down, you are in fact accetpting a Tradition (The Canon) as the foundation for your sole authority.

In short, the fact that there was debate in the early church about which writings were actually Inspired, is some what irrelevent. Simply because you are already saying that you accept the authority of Tradition to identify Scripture itself.

 

[puzzleannie]

the Church started without a Book, it started with the Word of God, made flesh, the only begotten Son of God, who became man, suffered, died, was buried, rose again, ascended to heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the nascent church He founded. God did not send us a book, He sent a person, HIs Son, Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity. We worship a personal God, not a book. We listen to the Word of God, contained in a book transcribed by humans for human understanding under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We also listen to the Word of God in all our encounter with Jesus through the sacraments, flowing from the Eucharist, and all the ways He makes himself manifest to us in the community he creates among us through the Eucharist. Read the book in order to know the Person. Do not try to limit the Person by what is recorded in the book.

to anticipate the reply, quoting Paul on the efficacy of Scripture for teaching, reproof all good things etc., since the new testament had not yet been written and compiled at that point, and he was writing specifically to those asking if we should still adhere to the teachings and writings of the Old Testament (since the church had already determined dietary and other Mosaic laws were not binding), he was reminding us not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[1962Missal]

ahimsaman72:

By my own.

Just so you are honest with yourself and do not insist that the Bible is your ultimate authority.

Justin

 

[oriel36]

This wonderful excerpt from Augustine is a reminder that the early church was much more dynamic in its expression of what constitutes an active faith.Being less concerned with doctrinal adherence than contemporaries,it is worthwhile to reproduce the excerpt to demonstrate the the divisions between Catholics and Protestants is an artificial one emerging from the failure to recognise two complimentary type of Christians within a Church.

Augustine wrote ;

"The Church knoweth of two different lives which God hath revealed and blessed: one is the life of faith,the other the life of knowledge ,one the life of this pilgrimage ,the other the life of the eternal mansions one the life of work,the other the life of rest one the life of journey,the other the life of home one the life of action,the other the life of contemplation. The one escheweth evil and does good :the other hath no evil to eschew and only exceeding joy to enjoy.

The one strives with the enemy,the other hath no enemies and reigns. The one succoures the needy:the other is where there is no needy to succour. The one forgiveth them that trespass against it,that its own tresspasses may be forgiven;theother neither hath trespasses to forgive nor be forgiven.The one is chastened with evil,lest it be exalted above measure by good; the other enjoyeth such a fullness of grace that it feeleth no evil,and cleaveth so firmly unto the Highest Good that it had no temptation to pride.

Wherefore the one is good,but still sorrowful;the other is better and perfectly blessed. And of these two lives there are types,of one in the Apostle Peter ,of the other in John. The one laboureth here unto the end,and find its end hereafter; the other stretches out into the hereafter,and in eternity findeth no end."

 

[Chris_W]

ahimsaman72:

Let’s compare: early Christians received letters from apostles. They accept them because, well, they are from the apostles.

Now, we accept apostolic letters that early Christians accepted.

I accept the canon as it has been delivered, just as my forefathers.

I don’t accept the claim that catholics make about “giving me the Bible”, “catholics gave you the Bible”. No, they didn’t.

Jewish scribes gave us the Old Testament. Christian scribes gave us the New Testament.

GMK is right, ultimately, about the point I am intending to make (although I hadn’t got to that point yet).

You say, and I agree, that we accept the letters that the early Christians accepted, and that we accept the canon as it has been delivered to us.

The problem is, and the question that has yet to be answered by you is this: What letters (canon) exactly did the early Christians accept? And how do you know they accepted that canon?

The obvious reason I ask this question is, I believe, the same reason I have yet to get an answer from a non-Catholic: The only place anyone can point to in describing what the early Christians accepted as the canon, is the earliest known recorded canon, which was determined by the authority of the Catholic Church (the Papacy).

If you cannot provide a list of what was and what was not accepted by the earliest Christians, then your decision is completely arbitrary and subjective, and you therefore cannot claim to adhere to the same Apostolic writings as the earliest Christians, and the canon you accept would therefore be reduced to modern day guesswork.

I then compare that to Catholics who also claim to adhere to the Apostolic writings accepted by the earliest Christians and handed down to us. The rather large difference is that I can show you what the earliest Christian accepted, by pointing you to the earliest known recorded canon. I can point you to that canon without contradicting myself, because I do not reject the authority that determined that canon (the Papacy).

 

[Chris_W]

oriel36:

This wonderful excerpt from Augustine is a reminder that the early church was much more dynamic in its expression of what constitutes an active faith.Being less concerned with doctrinal adherence than contemporaries,it is worthwhile to reproduce the excerpt to demonstrate the the divisions between Catholics and Protestants is an artificial one emerging from the failure to recognise two complimentary type of Christians within a Church.

An interesting quote, but I cannot see how this demonstrates in any way the lack of need for doctrinal adherence. Both Peter and John were taught by Jesus, and had no question as to the proper understanding of divine truths. Can the same be said for Christians in the year 2004? Modern day Christians do not even agree on what the Word of God is (Bible canon), much less what to understand from the Word of God.

I think it is a serious mistake to triviolize the doctrinal differences between Christians.

 

[J.R]

ahimsaman72:

All of Paul’s letters make sense to me. You can tell they all have the same author. .

I don’t want to sound course but with the statement above doesn’t in a way that make you soul authority of Scipture?

 

[J.R]

ahimsaman72:

I don’t accept the claim that catholics make about “giving me the Bible”, “catholics gave you the Bible”. No, they didn’t.

In a way you are correct, Catholics did not give you the Bible, the Holy Spirit did. Catholics did perserve the Bible for all those years when most of the world did not know how to read and write. Thank God for all the Monestaries (which happened to be Catholic) in keeping the word of God around for all these centuries.

So Catholics did not give you the Bible, but the did preserve it for us.

God Bless.

 

[oriel36]

I apologise in advance if I made a mess of the ’ Quote’ feature of this forum as I am new to it.

Chris W wrote; An interesting quote, but I cannot see how this demonstrates in any way the lack of need for doctrinal adherence. Both Peter and John were taught by Jesus, and had no question as to the proper understanding of divine truths. Can the same be said for Christians in the year 2004? Modern day Christians do not even agree on what the Word of God is (Bible canon), much less what to understand from the Word of God.

I think it is a serious mistake to triviolize the doctrinal differences between Christians.

Perhaps the passage from Augustine (in one of his more contemplative moods) is a bit too strong for contemporaries however there are many instances of similar thinking in the early apostolic Church such as the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite which are even more dynamic than Augustine’s.The doctrinal differences of Catholics and Protestants do indeed look trivial in the light of the writings of the early Christians and their dynamic outlook on Christ and Christianity.

“Thus the blessed Bartholomew asserts that the divine science is both vast and minute, and that the Gospel is great and broad, yet concise and short; signifying by this, that the beneficent Cause of all is most eloquent, yet utters few words, or rather is altogether silent, as having neither (human) speech nor (human) understanding, because it is super-essentially exalted above created things, and reveals itself in Its naked Truth to those alone who pass beyond all that is pure or impure, and ascend above the topmost altitudes of holy things, and who, leaving behind them all divine light and sound and heavenly utterances, plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as the Oracles declare, that ONE who is beyond all.”

esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html

 

[Chris_W]

oriel36:

I apologise in advance if I made a mess of the ’ Quote’ feature of this forum as I am new to it.

Perhaps the passage from Augustine (in one of his more contemplative moods) is a bit too strong for contemporaries however there are many instances of similar thinking in the early apostolic Church such as the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite which are even more dynamic than Augustine’s.The doctrinal differences of Catholics and Protestants do indeed look trivial in the light of the writings of the early Christians and their dynamic outlook on Christ and Christianity.

I guess what I’m saying is that what Augustine said makes sense and is true, if there is agreement in doctrine. That is to say, there are different ways of looking at or living out the Christian life. However, if people do not agree doctrinally, I cannot see how these passages apply. I think it would be reading too much into what Augustine (or the others) said, if we take that to mean all Christians are just living out the same faith in different ways, regardless of whether or not they agree on the basics (the reason for and result of Baptism, for example). This is not what they were saying, in my opinion, and to infer such is to triviolize the significant differences of faith among Christians today…some of which are so significant as to affect the salvation of souls.

 

[mercygate]

If the Church was such a loose organization of independent bodies, why does Peter address his first epistle to churches that had been planted by Paul?