Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

Chris W:

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?

Obviously, the early letters were not “canon” The only thing Christians had was the Old Testament writings and the new letters by Paul and others. As already discussed, there were early Christians like the Bereans who would search the Scriptures (the OT) and compare that to what they were receiving from Paul. I imagine that they would accept new letters or Scriptures as they saw the truth revealed in them.

 

[ahimsaman72]

J.R.:

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.

I can agree with that. Thanks.

 

[ahimsaman72]

J.R.:

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

The Scriptures do not need an external decree or seal of authenticity from any person or organization. It is up to us (and those who went before us) to observe, study and come to conclusions based on the evidence presented us.

Therefore, there is no sole authority that any one person or organization can make on these writings. They were given to the human race with God as the author so that all who hear or read may come to accept and acknowledge the Son of God.

 

[WBB]

For one thing, I am tired of people (including we ourselves) calling us Roman Catholics. We are Catholics who belong to the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a term that was introduced during the English Reformation to distinguish for the English those who were in communion with Rome from those who belonged to the Church of England. I am not a Roman Catholic…I am a Catholic.

And maybe I can get an answer from the protestants on this part of the forum because on other areas, this question is being avoided. You protestants always claim that the bible is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine. Where is that written in the bible?

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

For one thing, I am tired of people (including we ourselves) calling us Roman Catholics. We are Catholics who belong to the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a term that was introduced during the English Reformation to distinguish for the English those who were in communion with Rome from those who belonged to the Church of England. I am not a Roman Catholic…I am a Catholic.

And maybe I can get an answer from the protestants on this part of the forum because on other areas, this question is being avoided. You protestants always claim that the bible is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine. Where is that written in the bible?

Isn’t the designation of “Roman” Catholic used to differentiate between the “Roman or Latin” Rite as compared to other “Rites”? From what I have read and understand, the term ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’.

The term ‘protestants’ is a broad brush. I wouldn’t mind it if you used ‘Baptist’ instead of ‘protestant’, making it clear which school of thought I belonged to. I would think you would want to have the term, “Roman” used for yourself to show clearly which particular rite you belonged to.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

The Scriptures do not need an external decree or seal of authenticity from any person or organization. It is up to us (and those who went before us) to observe, study and come to conclusions based on the evidence presented us.

Therefore, there is no sole authority that any one person or organization can make on these writings. They were given to the human race with God as the author so that all who hear or read may come to accept and acknowledge the Son of God.

Who told you that? Why do you believe it?

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Who told you that? Why do you believe it?

Which part? Both parts I posted would take some detailed work to explain.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

Isn’t the designation of “Roman” Catholic used to differentiate between the “Roman or Latin” Rite as compared to other “Rites”? From what I have read and understand, the term ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’.

The term ‘protestants’ is a broad brush. I wouldn’t mind it if you used ‘Baptist’ instead of ‘protestant’, making it clear which school of thought I belonged to. I would think you would want to have the term, “Roman” used for yourself to show clearly which particular rite you belonged to.

Nope. Not me. I am Catholic. Period. Not Roman. I worship according to the Latin Rite, but I am Catholic. The term “Roman” began to be used during the English Reformation.

Now, answer my second question, please. Where does the Bible say that the Scriptures are the sole authority when it comes to faith and doctrines?

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache are extra-Biblical. They are not valid concerning official doctrine.

There are also many mentions of local authority within the individual churches throughout the epistles. There was the office of bishop (which simply means overseer, which we claim is equivalent to pastors, not bishops in the Roman Catholic tradition). There was the office of deacon also.

Peace be with you.

Actually, if you’re going to discuss the early Church, Barnabas and Didache do demonstrate the practices of the Early Church.

Actually, the Bishops were the same as in the Church today. In fact you can obtain the succession of Bishops for Antioc, Alexandria, and several other of the ancient Sees, in addition to that of Rome.

Yours in Christ.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Nope. Not me. I am Catholic. Period. Not Roman. I worship according to the Latin Rite, but I am Catholic. The term “Roman” began to be used during the English Reformation.

Now, answer my second question, please. Where does the Bible say that the Scriptures are the sole authority when it comes to faith and doctrines?

Lutherans were also given their name during the reformation which they didn’t want attached to them either. It does take away ambiguity to be more specific, though. Obviously, since the church was centered in Rome and the ‘vicar of Christ’ was there, there’s good reason to call it the ‘Roman’ church.

As for the second part of your post, this has been debated well on other threads already. I’m sure you will appreciate threads which involve poster ‘bouletheou’ in the apologetics section of the forum. I decline to answer your question.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

Peace be with you.

Actually, if you’re going to discuss the early Church, Barnabas and Didache do demonstrate the practices of the Early Church.

Actually, the Bishops were the same as in the Church today. In fact you can obtain the succession of Bishops for Antioc, Alexandria, and several other of the ancient Sees, in addition to that of Rome.

Yours in Christ.

And peace be with you.

They may demonstrate the practices, but for doctrine sake they should be kept as non-canonical. My definition of early church would begin after Christ’s death at pentecost. I could be wrong, but my recollection of the epistle of Barnabas and the Didache is that they come after any of the epistles and gospels were written.

I realize that the bishops in the catholic church are the same as in the beginning of the church. Obviously, since the reformation the role of bishop has changed in the reformed churches, especially the evangelical churches. The office of bishop is recognized as being identical to the pastoral office which each individual pastor holds for his congregation.

Blessings…

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

As for the second part of your post, this has been debated well on other threads already. I’m sure you will appreciate threads which involve poster ‘bouletheou’ in the apologetics section of the forum. I decline to answer your question.

Very well then. You have answered my question by your very silence, because there is no place that the bible speaks of itself as the sole authority of faith and doctrine. Ironically, that is a protestant tradition which has no basis in scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition of the early church.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Very well then. You have answered my question by your very silence, because there is no place that the bible speaks of itself as the sole authority of faith and doctrine. Ironically, that is a protestant tradition which has no basis in scripture or in the Apostolic Tradition of the early church.

Time is precious. No need to waste repeating it when there are other threads dealing with the same issue. I was involved in a sola scriptura thread a few weeks ago and exhausted myself in it. I suggest you do a search for sola scriptura and see the comments there.

Peace…

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

Time is precious. No need to waste repeating it when there are other threads dealing with the same issue. I was involved in a sola scriptura thread a few weeks ago and exhausted myself in it. I suggest you do a search for sola scriptura and see the comments there.

Peace…

Nope. If it is not there, it’s not there. No where does it say the bible is the sole authority. Been there and checked that. Peace to you as well.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Not the Roman Catholic Church. I’ve repeated this on other threads. The claim that the Roman Church is responsible for Christians having the Bible is false.

Point 1: Jews wrote the Old Testament. It was already revealed. The catholic church wasn’t even in existence.

Point 2: The canon needed no validation from any council to define what is true canon and what is not. Please view the link to the thread I posted a minute ago. I addressed this same issue there.

Actually, you didn’t address it at all. To begin with, there was dispute in the earliest years of the Church as to what writings were valid and which were not. Many of the writings you accept were NOT universally accepted; which proves that they are NOT self-validating. This problem was not resolved within the early Church by the collective communities eventually coming to an informal consensus on which of the disputed writings were truly Scripture, it was solved by a formal council attended by bishops (overseer’s, as you pointed out) and submitted to the bishop of Rome for approval.

You say that the Jews handed down the scriptures of the Old Testament, which is true, but you completely fail to mention the disputes regarding which Jewish writings were accepted. This dispute existed within the Jewish community in the early days of the Church and they settled the question (for themselves, anyway) in a council held over 50 years after the death of Christ. However, no Christian at that time continued to view the Jewish religious leaders as still having the authority to determine what constitutes Scripture because that authority had been passed on the the Church of Christ’s New Covenant. Therefore, it is up to that Church to determine what the canon of BOTH the Old and the New Testaments.

You claimed that you declare the writings you accept as Scripture on your own authority. Well, I don’t accept you as an authority and you clearly have not demonstrated that you can be relied upon as one.

You have also claimed that extra-biblical writings are not doctrinally authoritative. I assume that you do so on your own authority again because there is no place in Scripture that says that only Scripture is authoritative; and certainly no place that prophecies your arrival for us.

What the extra-biblical writings of the early Church do show (regardless of whether or not they are doctrinally authoritative) is what the early Church - the Church led by the Apostles and by their immediate successors - actually believed and you clearly do not believe what they did.

Have you never found it interesting that, in all of the creeds formulated by the early Church, a belief in the Church was included but not a belief in Scripture? This is important because it shows that, while the writings of the early Church clearly show that they believed in the authority of Scripture, they also believed in an authoritative Church. Is this because belief in the Scripture was so self-evident that it need not be mentioned? No, otherwise there would be no mention of belief in God - certainly a self-evident belief among the early Christians and included in every one of the creeds.

No, the only Church that holds to all that is taught in Scripture is the Catholic Church. The only Church that belives all of what the early Church taught is the Catholic Church. That is because the Catholic Church is the same Church as was the early Church. It is the same Church which was origianlly headed by the Apostles of Christ and which Christ Himself founded.

I provide a full explanations with extensive biblical and historical references in posts 37 through 60 of the following thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=249396#post249396

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

Actually, you didn’t address it at all. To begin with, there was dispute in the earliest years of the Church as to what writings were valid and which were not. Many of the writings you accept were NOT universally accepted; which proves that they are NOT self-validating. This problem was not resolved within the early Church by the collective communities eventually coming to an informal consensus on which of the disputed writings were truly Scripture, it was solved by a formal council attended by bishops (overseer’s, as you pointed out) and submitted to the bishop of Rome for approval.

You say that the Jews handed down the scriptures of the Old Testament, which is true, but you completely fail to mention the disputes regarding which Jewish writings were accepted. This dispute existed within the Jewish community in the early days of the Church and they settled the question (for themselves, anyway) in a council held over 50 years after the death of Christ. However, no Christian at that time continued to view the Jewish religious leaders as still having the authority to determine what constitutes Scripture because that authority had been passed on the the Church of Christ’s New Covenant. Therefore, it is up to that Church to determine what the canon of BOTH the Old and the New Testaments.

You claimed that you declare the writings you accept as Scripture on your own authority. Well, I don’t accept you as an authority and you clearly have not demonstrated that you can be relied upon as one.

You have also claimed that extra-biblical writings are not doctrinally authoritative. I assume that you do so on your own authority again because there is no place in Scripture that says that only Scripture is authoritative; and certainly no place that prophecies your arrival for us.

What the extra-biblical writings of the early Church do show (regardless of whether or not they are doctrinally authoritative) is what the early Church - the Church led by the Apostles and by their immediate successors - actually believed and you clearly do not believe what they did.

Have you never found it interesting that, in all of the creeds formulated by the early Church, a belief in the Church was included but not a belief in Scripture? This is important because it shows that, while the writings of the early Church clearly show that they believed in the authority of Scripture, they also believed in an authoritative Church. Is this because belief in the Scripture was so self-evident that it need not be mentioned? No, otherwise there would be no mention of belief in God - certainly a self-evident belief among the early Christians and included in every one of the creeds.

No, the only Church that holds to all that is taught in Scripture is the Catholic Church. The only Church that belives all of what the early Church taught is the Catholic Church. That is because the Catholic Church is the same Church as was the early Church. It is the same Church which was origianlly headed by the Apostles of Christ and which Christ Himself founded.

I provide a full explanations with extensive biblical and historical references in posts 37 through 60 of the following thread.

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=249396#post249396

Well, we can at least agree on one point. You don’t accept my authority (which you shouldn’t) and I don’t accept yours or your church. I guess that makes us even.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Well, we can at least agree on one point. You don’t accept my authority (which you shouldn’t) and I don’t accept yours or your church. I guess that makes us even.

Not quite even. I didn’t just reject your own personal authority to declare what writings constitute Scripture, I also addressed your specifc claims on the beliefs of the Early Church and provided a link to posts that provide the Scriptural evidence to back my position. You argued two points from a historical perspective which cannot be supported by logic (or by history) and then just ignored the response that shows your position unsupportable. It is one thing for you to say that you don’t accept the authority of the Church, it is quite another to say that you accept the authority of Scripture and then fail to address claims based on the Scripture you say is authoritative.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

I realize that the bishops in the catholic church are the same as in the beginning of the church. Obviously, since the reformation the role of bishop has changed in the reformed churches, especially the evangelical churches. The office of bishop is recognized as being identical to the pastoral office which each individual pastor holds for his congregation.

So, you admit that the Reformation (and the churches that were established by the Reformers and subsequent Protestants)changed the very structure of the Church established by Christ and the Apostles? While that is refreshingly honest, it doesn’t begin to address the justification or authority for making the change.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

The Scriptures do not need an external decree or seal of authenticity from any person or organization. It is up to us (and those who went before us) to observe, study and come to conclusions based on the evidence presented us.

Therefore, there is no sole authority that any one person or organization can make on these writings. They were given to the human race with God as the author so that all who hear or read may come to accept and acknowledge the Son of God.

In many ways, this is similar to the arguments that Mormons use to “prove” that the Book of Mormon is Scripture.

 

[rjmporter]

ahimsaman72:

By my own.

Having read the gospels, epistles and many of the extra-biblical texts. I believe that Paul’s epistles are not scripture. They may be useful historical documents, but Paul was not a witness to the life, death and resurrection of Christ and is therefore not a reliable sources of dogma. Only the apostles who wrote Matthew and John can be counted on for first had accounts of the life of Christ and therefore, only these gospels are acceptable. 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1,2 and 3 John and Jude are apostolic and therefore scriptual. Paul is only called an apostle in his own writings.

On whose authority do I make such claims? By my own as a Christian, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Anybody ready to join my “Apostles’ Gospel Only Full Gospel Church?”

You laugh, but these are not absurd claims, many people subscribe to this very notion. Absent a divinely ordained reliable authority, I make myself that authority.