Beliefs of the Early Church

[theMutant]

(Continued from #100)

Showing that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and of the Church does not necessarily prove the Catholic belief about the papacy though. While it is accepted by some non-Catholics that the Pope is the direct successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome, they do not accept that the Pope is the successor of Peter’s authority over the whole Christian Church (Usually because they don’t acknowledge Peter’s authority to begin with). It also does not prove the doctrine of papal infallibility. Catholics, therefore, must be able to show that the **Early Church ** accepted the authority of the Peter’s successors over the Church and that his doctrinal teachings have always been considered as infallibly binding as those of the Apostles.

Even though the Scriptures clearly show that Peter was the leader of the Apostles and, therefore, of the Church, they do not teach us anything about who succeeded him in this role. (Paul mentioned Linus in 2 Timothy 4:21 and it is believed that this is the same Linus who was the first successor of Peter as bishop of Rome.) While Scripture does show that the successors of the Apostles are vested with their authority by virtue of their ordination, it would be plausible that, since Peter died before other Apostles, one of them would have assumed leadership and succeed him as the leader of the whole Church. The Scriptures do not discuss this either. The question here is two-fold: (1) Did someone succeed Peter as the leader of the Church, and (2) who was it? After Peter’s crucifixion, whom, if anyone, did the remaining Apostles and the rest of the Church acknowledge as their leader?

Since the Apostles did not record the answer to this question in writing for us, we must turn to the writings of those whom they instructed. We must refer to the earliest extra-Scriptural writings of the Church, where we find that the undisputed leader of the entire Church was the successor of Peter as the bishop of Rome. It is important to keep the time frame of these writings in perspective. Jesus died around A. D. 30. The writings of the early Church for the next 30 to 40 years are those contained in the New Testament; with the exception of John’s writings which were written later. This brings us up to around A. D. 60 to 70. By this time, the Apostles had already spread the Faith into distant lands. Peter died somewhere around 64 to 67. The Church had already encountered and corrected some errors which had arisen, as is demonstrated by the writings of Paul. The Apostle John lived until around the year 100 so he would certainly have corrected any erroneous teaching which arose during his life. Many Christians were dying rather than deny even one aspect of their faith in horrible persecutions which lasted around two-hundred and fifty years. These Christians left us writings testifying what they believed. These Christians, and also many who escaped death, did not tolerate any erroneous teachings which arose within the Church. This brings us up to around the year 300. The writings from this period include many which correct heresy. The following Church writings from this period of time demonstrate that the Apostles taught their followers to accept that the successor of Peter in Rome is also the successor of his primacy over Christ’s Church.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #101)

In the year 96, while John the Apostle was still alive, Pope St. Clement of Rome ( the fourth Pope, the third successor of Peter) warns certain disturbers among the Corinthians not to disobey what Christ had commanded through him, thus claiming clearly the authority of Vicar of Christ, and the right to command the whole Church as the successor of St. Peter. Not only did the Corinthians not object to his claiming the authority to make such commands, there is no record of John doing so. Clement was responding to requests from the Church at Corinth to settle a dispute they were having. Since John was still alive, why did they not make the request to him? The answer is that, even though John was one of the chosen Apostles, Clement was the head of the Church as the successor of Peter.

St. Ignatius the Martyr (died in A. D. 110), writing to the Church in Rome, wrote “…to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” He wrote to other Churches as well but did not give them the kind of praise he gives here to the Church in Rome. He does not declare any of the others to hold a place of presidency.

St. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies (around A. D 180-199), in which he stated, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” Irenaeus not only points out that authority within each Church (diocese) is entrusted to its bishop based on apostolic succession but that the Church in Rome is the head of the whole Church.

Pope St. Victor (189-198) commanded the bishops of Asia to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Church of Rome, threatening them with excommunication if they refused obedience. The bishops of Asia appealed to Victor showing that their custom of celebrating Easter on the fourteenth of Nissan originated with the Apostle who founded their Church. Victor accepted their appeal. The date on which Easter is celebrated is not a matter of doctrine. This shows both that the Pope claimed to have authority over the other Churches, even in non-doctrinal matters, and that those Churches accepted that authority.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #102)

Tertullian, writing around the year 200, responded to the claim that the Church had fallen into error: “Grant, then, that all have erred; that the Apostle was mistaken in bearing witness; that the Holy Spirit had no such consideration for any one Church as to lead it into truth, although He was sent for that purpose by Christ (John 14:26), who had asked the Father to make Him the Teacher of truth (John 15:26); that the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ (i.e., the Holy Spirit) neglected His office, and permitted the Churches for a time to understand otherwise and to believe otherwise than He Himself had preached through the Apostles: now, is it likely that so many and such great Churches should have gone astray into a unity of faith?” (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, XXVIII. 1.)

Pope St. Callistus (217-222) declared against the Montanists that, by virtue of the Primacy, which he held as the successor of St. Peter, he had the power to forgive even the greatest sins.

St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote The Unity of the Catholic Church (ca A. D. 251-256). In it, he states, “…but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? …The Bride of Christ [the Church] cannot be defiled. She is inviolate and chaste. She knows but one home, and with a chaste modesty she guards the sanctity of one bedchamber. It is she that keeps us for God, she that seals for the kingdom the sons whom she bore. Whoever is separated from the church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church; nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother. …Whoever holds not fast to this unity holds not to the law of God; neither does he keep faith with the Father and the Son, nor does he have life and salvation.”

Pope St. Stephen I (254-257) commanded the Asian and African Churches, under pain of excommunication, not to rebaptize heretics. Those Churches stopped the practice.

In the early fourth century, Pope St. Julius I (337-352) taught that difficulties arising among the bishops were to be decided by himself as the Supreme Judge.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #103)

These writings clearly show that the Bishops of Rome, from the very beginning of the Church, believed that they held authority over the whole Church and that the reason that they believed this is that they were the successors of St. Peter. The acceptance of this authority is revealed in these writings as well. The rejection of this authority was the founding principle of every heretical group in those times.

There is now one last belief concerning the papacy which must be addressed; infallibility. I have shown that the teaching authority of the Church is infallible and that the Church, from the very beginning has acknowledged that this authority is particularly vested in the Church in Rome. Must we also accept that the Pope is personally infallible? Within the limitations of the general infallibility of the Church; yes. The writings of the early Church reveal that the teaching authority in each particular Church is manifested in its bishop. If the teaching authority of the Church in Rome is infallible, then that infallibility is manifested in its bishop personally. If every particular Church and all of the faithful of the whole world are bound to remain in unity with the Church in Rome, then we are also bound to Rome’s bishop. This infallibility a special gift from God to the whole Church and is granted to the Pope, not because he has earned it, but because he has been chosen to succeed Peter.

God gave the entire Church authority over the faithful (the authority to bind and loose) but He gave a separate authority to Peter. It is clear from the writings of the Early Church that the Apostles taught their followers that their successors received their authority. Since Peter had special authority, his successors also received this special authority as the testimony of the Early Church affirms. The successors of Peter claimed both to have this authority and that their judgments on doctrinal matters were given from the Holy Spirit which was sent by Christ to lead us to all truth (John 14:16-17). Therefore, it is clear, that the Pope, when declaring a teaching of faith or morals intending to bind all of the faithful to accept it by his authority as the successor of Peter as the bishop of Rome, is protected by the Holy Spirit from error.

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #104)

It is clear from the above that the Early Church held the same view of the structure of the Church Christ established that the Catholic Church maintains to this day. There are other beliefs that the Early Church held that are not accepted by Protestants today so let’s take a look at those.

Baptism (cf: Matthew 28:16-20; John 3:1-22; Acts 2:37-38, 41; 8:36-38; 10:47-48; 16:32-33; 18:8; 19:1-5; 22:16; Romans 6:3-11; 1 Corinthians 1:16; 12:13; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-12; Titus 3:3-7; Hebrews 10:22)

Mark 16:14-16 “[But] later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. He said to them, ‘Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.’”

1 Peter 3:18-22 “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.”

Saint Justin the Martyr, writing around 148-155, teaches the following: “Whoever is convinced and believes that what they are taught and told by us is the truth [is] led by us to a place where there is water; and there they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive the washing with water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ …The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles. since we had no awareness of our first birth, but were compelled to be born of the moist seed through the mutual union of our parents, and were raised in bad habits and in evil training, and so that we might not remain as children of necessity and ignorance, but rather of deliberate choice and knowledge, and in order to obtain in the water the remission of past sins, there is invoked over him who wishes to be reborn and who has repented of his sins, in the name of God, the Father and Master of all.” (St. Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 61.)

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #105)

Confirmation (cf: Luke 24:48-49; Acts 19:5-6; Hebrews 6:1-2)

Acts 8:14-17 “Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Tertullian, writing around 200-206, says the following regarding confirmation (which follows baptism): “After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which in the priesthood they were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. …So also with us, the unction runs on the body but profits us spiritually, in the same way that Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. After this, the hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit.” (Tertullian, Baptism, VII. 1.)

Penance (cf: Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21)

John 20:21-23 “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’”

The Didache, which was written somewhere between 65 and 140, teaches us to: “Confess your offenses in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.” (Didache, IV. 14.)

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, writing in the year 251, says: “The Apostle likewise bears witness and says. ‘You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. You cannot be a communicant of the table of the Lord and of the table of devils.’ And again he threatens the stubborn and perverse and denounces them saying: ‘Whoever eats the Bread or drinks the Cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.’ But they spurn and despise all these warnings; and before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony at the hand of the priest, before the offense against an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, they do violence to His Body and Blood; and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied Him.” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Lapsed, 15.)

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #106)

Eucharist (cf: Genesis 14:18-19; Leviticus 24:1, 5-9; Malachi 1:11; Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22:14-20; 24:30-31; John 6:27-63; Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 10: 16-17, 21; 11:23-29)

John 6:51-56 “[Jesus said] ‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, 'Truly truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Mark 14:22-24 “And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured our for many.”

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the year 110, said the following regarding the Eucharist: “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions of the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. …They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, VI. 2; VII. 1.)

(continued…)

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

Would I kid my favorite catholic in the world? .

Okay, let’s look at this. We discussed this on another thread, but let’s face it again briefly.

Paul had at least three missionary journeys. He traveled extensively after his conversion to Christianity. He spent alot of time in Antioch with Barnabas for example. Would you say he was a member of the church at Antioch? To me it’s unclear as to what “church” he belonged to. It doesn’t matter. He spent time in different places, sometimes short stays and sometimes long stays. If you want to claim he was a member of the church of Rome, you must also claim he belonged to all the other churches he visited or spent time in. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?

Sure it would. If I move to Cincinnati, I’ll belong to the church (diocese) of Cincinnati. If I move to St. Louis, I’ll belong to a church in the diocese of St. Louis. When a bishop moves from one diocese to another, he becomes bishop of that diocese – unless he moves upon retirement as a private citizen, then he becomes a member of whatever parish he belongs to there.

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #107)

Matrimony (cf: Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 5:31-32; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Romans 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39; Ephesians 5:31-33)

Mark 10:6-9 “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.’ So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the year 110, says the following regarding marriage: “It is proper for men and women who wish to marry be united with the consent of the bishop, so that their marriage will be acceptable to the Lord, and not entered upon for the sake of lust. Let all things be done for the honor of God.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Polycarp, V. 2.)

Tertullian, writing between 200 and 206, asks: “How shall we suffice for the telling of that happiness of that marriage which the Church arranges, which the sacrifice strengthens, on which the blessing sets a seal, which the angels proclaim, and which has the Father’s approval?” (Tertullian, To My Wife, II. viii. 6.)

Holy Orders (cf: Luke 22:19; John 22:21-23; Acts 14:22; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5)

Acts 6:2-6 “And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, ‘It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.”

Acts 13:2-3 “While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work which I have called them.’ Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.”

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #109)

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the year 110, teaches: "Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, and such is your practice, that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him. (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, II. 1-2.)

Saint Hippolytus of Rome, writing around the year 215, describes the practice of ordination used in the early Church:

When ordaining a Bishop: “Then one of the bishops present shall, at the request of all, impose his hand on the one who is being ordained bishop, and shall pray thus, saying: [God] pour fourth now that power which comes from you, which [Jesus Christ] bestowed upon His holy Apostles … Grant to this your servant, … by the Spirit of the high-priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accordance with your command…”

When ordaining a Priest: “When a presbyter is to be ordained, the bishop shall impose his hand upon his head, while the presbyters touch the one to be ordained; and the bishop shall [pray]: God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon this your servant and grant him the Spirit of grace and the counsel of a presbyter, so that he may support and govern your people with a pure heart, as also you looked upon your chosen people and commanded Moses to choose presbyters, whom you filled with your Spirit, which you gave to your servant.”

When ordaining a Deacon: “When a deacon is to be ordained he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. He does not receive that Spirit which the presbytery possesses and in which the presbyters share. He receives only what is entrusted to him under the authority of the bishop. For this reason, then, the bishop alone shall ordain a deacon. On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive, and has not the power to give. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains. Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: 'O God, …grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests…” (St. Hippolytus of Rome, The Apostolic Tradition, 2-3, 8, 9.)

(continued…)

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from #110)

Extreme Unction (Mark 6:13)

James 5:14-15 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

Aphraates the Persian sage, writing between 280 and 345, taught that: “Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse passed on to all his progeny. …But a gate has been opened for seeking peace, whereby the mist has lifted from the reason of the multitude; and light has dawned in the mind; and from the glistening olive, fruits are put forth in which there is a sign of the sacrament of life, by which Christians are perfected, as well as priests and kings and prophets. It illuminates the darkness, anoints the sick, and leads back penitents in its secret sacrament.” (Aphraates the Persian sage, Treatises, XXIII. 3.)

There, I have not addressed sola Scriptura. I have only addressed the beliefs of the Early Church as revealed in Scripture and the writings of the Early Church.

 

[theMutant]

Note on post #93:

Since you have asserted that the New Testament represents the beliefs of the Early Church and that the Early Church also believed in what was written in the Old Testament. It is certainly within the scope of the topic of this thread to present a case on what the Early Church believed about the Church itself from the Old and New Testaments.

I have done my best to expunge all references to sola Scriptura from the posts. If I missed any, I apologize.

 

[RBushlow]

(Continued from #110)

Extreme Unction (Mark 6:13)

James 5:14-15 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

Aphraates the Persian sage, writing between 280 and 345, taught that: “Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse passed on to all his progeny. …But a gate has been opened for seeking peace, whereby the mist has lifted from the reason of the multitude; and light has dawned in the mind; and from the glistening olive, fruits are put forth in which there is a sign of the sacrament of life, by which Christians are perfected, as well as priests and kings and prophets. It illuminates the darkness, anoints the sick, and leads back penitents in its secret sacrament.” (Aphraates the Persian sage, Treatises, XXIII. 3.)

There, I have not addressed sola Scriptura. I have only addressed the beliefs of the Early Church as revealed in Scripture and the writings of the Early Church.

Awsome. This is magnificent. Do you have this written down, or how can I get this?

Yours in Christ.

 

[theMutant]

RBushlow:

Awsome. This is magnificent. Do you have this written down, or how can I get this?

Yours in Christ.

I have responded in a private e-mail message to you.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Sure it would. If I move to Cincinnati, I’ll belong to the church (diocese) of Cincinnati. If I move to St. Louis, I’ll belong to a church in the diocese of St. Louis. When a bishop moves from one diocese to another, he becomes bishop of that diocese – unless he moves upon retirement as a private citizen, then he becomes a member of whatever parish he belongs to there.

The early Scriptural churches were not established that way. Each church was responsible for its own “upkeep”. That’s why local church government was instituted having pastors, deacons and elders.

With all due respect, Paul was not a bishop. He was a traveling apostle/evangelist.

 

[ahimsaman72]

(Continued from #110)

Extreme Unction (Mark 6:13)

James 5:14-15 “Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

Aphraates the Persian sage, writing between 280 and 345, taught that: “Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse passed on to all his progeny. …But a gate has been opened for seeking peace, whereby the mist has lifted from the reason of the multitude; and light has dawned in the mind; and from the glistening olive, fruits are put forth in which there is a sign of the sacrament of life, by which Christians are perfected, as well as priests and kings and prophets. It illuminates the darkness, anoints the sick, and leads back penitents in its secret sacrament.” (Aphraates the Persian sage, Treatises, XXIII. 3.)

There, I have not addressed sola Scriptura. I have only addressed the beliefs of the Early Church as revealed in Scripture and the writings of the Early Church.

Okay…considering the vast amount of material you have posted, I stopped looking after the first 4 posts. I will try as much as possible to look at the information you posted as I respect your work in posting this work here. I can’t promise to reply to it all as that would take some time. I hope that you had this typed into a document already and merely pasted into here. This is alot of work, I gotta tell ya!

Peace…

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

With all due respect, Paul was not a bishop. He was a traveling apostle/evangelist.

No, Paul was ordained a bishop by the laying on of hands.

Acts 13:2-3 “While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work which I have called them.’ Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.”

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Note on post #93:

Since you have asserted that the New Testament represents the beliefs of the Early Church and that the Early Church also believed in what was written in the Old Testament. It is certainly within the scope of the topic of this thread to present a case on what the Early Church believed about the Church itself from the Old and New Testaments.

I have done my best to expunge all references to sola Scriptura from the posts. If I missed any, I apologize.

:tiphat: Yes, I agree, it is within the scope. Although, I’m afraid our definitions of church will certainly not agree from the onset. Nonetheless, why not give it a shot, eh?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

No, Paul was ordained a bishop by the laying on of hands.

Show me where he was ordained a bishop. Don’t even think about citing his conversion. He was baptized and had hands laid on him as was custom for all believers.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

No, Paul was ordained a bishop by the laying on of hands.

Show me. Don’t even think about citing his conversion. He was baptized and had hands laid on him as was custom for all believers.