Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

Let’s look at the state of Christianity today. Basically, we have hundreds, if not thousands of churches(not local churches, denominations) in existence. All claim to be Christian. Then we have the various “sola scriptura” churches and branches of Protestantism. The interesting thing is that all claim to believe in the Bible alone, and that you can personally interpret the Bible for yourself with the power of the Holy Spirit. However, these churches can’t even agree on what the Bible says!!! One church/individual says that the Bible says that God is one, not a trinity, while the other says that God is a Trinity. One person says that the Bible says that Jesus is God, while the other says that Jesus isn’t God! Yet they all claim to believe that the Bible told them this, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is where the confusion occurs, and clearly why the Bible alone is not the sole authority or the sole place from where doctrine is derived. Clearly the early Church didn’t rely on the Bible alone, and the Bible itself never says that it is the sole authority. Rather, it tells us that the CHURCH is the “pillar and ground of Truth”(1 Timothy 3:15)

Out of all churches in existence today, the Catholic Church(and to an extent, the Orthodox Church) is the oldest, most ancient Church, that can historically trace its beliefs and authority back to the Apostles.

Let’s look at this first part of your argument above. Nobody can agree…some believe this, some believe that…some believe Jesus was God, some don’t, etc. etc.

First, as far as I know, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only ones who deny the divinity of Christ. Even if there are 10 others just like them, and there are 30,000 plus denoms that catholics claim exist, then you do the math. 10 out of 30,000 don’t agree. .01% of 30,000 would yield 300 denoms that can’t agree out of 30,000. Let’s take it further. Since that’s not the case, let’s get it closer. .001% would yield 30 denoms out of 30,000 that don’t agree that Christ was divine. We still need to go further, don’t we? Okay, so if we go with .0001% out of 30,000 that can’t agree that Christ is divine and the trinity is real, then that’s a pretty small number. Look at the 29,998 that agree with everything in the Apostles Creed and not the one or two or three fringe groups that are just plain nuts.

 

[JRJ26]

the problem here is that definitely not every church agrees with what the Apostle’s Creed says, nor do they all agree with what it MEANS. “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”. What does that mean? It is clear that Lutherans do not agree with Catholics, Anglicans don’t agree with Baptists, etc. Then, we go back to the multitude of “Bible believing”/“Bible based” churches in existence, yet they can’t even agree on what the “Bible based” beliefs are. This is why it clearly is unbiblical to believe that the Bible is ALL we need.

 

[JRJ26]

What is the communion of saints? Do we all agree on what it is? Who can pray for us? The list goes on and on. The fact is that all Christian “churches” do not agree with what the Apostles’ Creed says, or what the Bible says. Thus the existence of the multitude of denominations. But can they all be right? Can the denomination that says that Christ is not God be true, as well as the one that says that Christ IS God? What about the one that says that Christ is God and is the only person of God? What about the one that says that God is a Trinity? Or the one that says God isn’t a Trinity? Or the one that says the Trinity is three separate gods? Or the one that says that Mary isn’t a virgin? Etc, etc, etc. Yet all of these beliefs come from the Bible alone.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

the problem here is that definitely not every church agrees with what the Apostle’s Creed says, nor do they all agree with what it MEANS. “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”. What does that mean? It is clear that Lutherans do not agree with Catholics, Anglicans don’t agree with Baptists, etc. Then, we go back to the multitude of “Bible believing”/“Bible based” churches in existence, yet they can’t even agree on what the “Bible based” beliefs are. This is why it clearly is unbiblical to believe that the Bible is ALL we need.

What about what I just spent time in calculating for you? First, you mention divinity of Christ. I showed you that only one or at the most a few groups believe apart from the mainstream on this. I showed you the statistics - .0001% out of 30,000 + (some claim) don’t believe in the trinity or divinity of Christ. Now, you go to something else to avoid this.

The Creed is not that complicated. It is so easy to figure out. You can’t tell me they don’t agree with what it means. You are claiming such things but I have yet to see any proof to back up your arguments. Until I see something, we can go nowhere.

Don’t avoid the issues by going to other subjects. Deal with what I showed you first.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

What is the communion of saints? Do we all agree on what it is? Who can pray for us? The list goes on and on. The fact is that all Christian “churches” do not agree with what the Apostles’ Creed says, or what the Bible says. Thus the existence of the multitude of denominations. But can they all be right? Can the denomination that says that Christ is not God be true, as well as the one that says that Christ IS God? What about the one that says that Christ is God and is the only person of God? What about the one that says that God is a Trinity? Or the one that says God isn’t a Trinity? Or the one that says the Trinity is three separate gods? Or the one that says that Mary isn’t a virgin? Etc, etc, etc. Yet all of these beliefs come from the Bible alone.

Again, show me that all Christian churches do not agree with the Apostles Creed. I know of no group whose beliefs would be outside the creed. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is the Son of God, which the Creed recognizes. Protestants are not as divided as misguided people want to believe.

 

[JRJ26]

i don’t think you get it. I’m talking about how churches claim that they believe in the Bible alone, yet they can’t agree with what the Bible says. One of these beliefs is the divinity of Christ. Even if there is a small number of churches that deny Christ’s divinity, they still claim to find this belief in the Bible. They claim that this is the true belief. A majority believing something doesn’t make it correct. Just b/c they don’t agree wtih the majority doesn’t mean that we can disregard them.

 

[ahimsaman72]

This thread topic is “Beliefs of the Early Church”, not Bible alone (which is debated and has been debated on many other threads.) Let’s stick to the topic.

 

[JRJ26]

The Apostles’ Creed says “I believe in the communion of saints”, for example. Do all Christian churches agree with what the communion of saints is? To take it further, do all Christians believe that all people in the communion of saints can pray for each other? This relates to the intercession of the saints(specifically those in Heaven). Clearly, all Christians do not agree on this.

“I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”. Clearly, all Christians do not agree on what the Holy Catholic Church IS. If the Apostles’ Creed was so easy to understand, we wouldn’t have these problems.

 

[JRJ26]

where the beliefs of the early Church come from and where our beliefs come from relates to the Bible alone theory.

 

[kepha1]

How about we include verse 13?

1 Thess. 2:13 – Paul says, “when you received the word of God, which you heard from us…” How can the Bible be teaching first century Christians that only the Bible is their infallible source of teaching if, at the same time, oral revelation was being given to them as well? Protestants can’t claim that there is one authority (Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (Bible and oral revelation).

“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.

Yes, “our gospel”. That means it is the property of the Apostles by which it has been entrusted to. It is never entrusted to each individual believer. Nowhere is that doctrine of yours found anywhere in the bible. We can read the bible for inspiration, we can even interpret it as long as our interpretation is in keeping with the Church that gave it to us, but it is as sin to satisfy private suppositions with scriptures: doctrines outside of what the Apostles taught, outside of the Church. The destructive consequences of doing so is quite apparent. Every wacko cult has been born from Protestantism, and now even evangelical churches are denying the divinity of Christ at an alarming rate.

And note the first word in verse 15 - “therefore”. What does therefore stand for? Whatever precedes it

.
No, therefore means in consequence of, a conclusion of. There is no separation between “our Gospel” and the traditions taught by word or epistle. The traditions compliment the gospels, “Therefore” can mean “in consequence of”, you say it means contrary to “our gospel” It does not. It is referring to “obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is what we stand fast to, not a book that would be compiled 250 years later. “Our gospel” is the means by which we can obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ by which we stand fast to, AND hold the traditions which ye have been taught, in either mode.

There is no competition or contradictions that you read into it. “By word…” appears before “…by letter” in case you didn’t notice. “By word…” always appears first, something you will repeatedly overlook.

con’t…

 

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

i don’t think you get it. I’m talking about how churches claim that they believe in the Bible alone, yet they can’t agree with what the Bible says. One of these beliefs is the divinity of Christ. Even if there is a small number of churches that deny Christ’s divinity, they still claim to find this belief in the Bible. They claim that this is the true belief. A majority believing something doesn’t make it correct. Just b/c they don’t agree wtih the majority doesn’t mean that we can disregard them.

Those people who do not claim the divinity of Christ and say they are getting that belief from the Bible are misled and misinformed. Their minds are deluded. They cannot see the truth.

One huge concept foreign to the catholic mind is the the concept that people can be blinded to truth. Let’s look at passages that speak about blindness to spiritual truth:

MT. 23:16-24
Rom 11:7, 25
2 Cor 3:14 ; 4:4
Eph 4:18
2 Peter 1:9
1 John 2:11,17,19

Blindness to the truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth.

 

[kepha1]

So, God called the Thessalonians to Him by the gospel of the apostles - why? so…

“…message truncated…”
…each other? I would say that these traditions (NIV calls them teachings) are the gospel message (as other verses make clear).

Yes. These traditions are the gospel message, that is what kept the Gospel message alive before the first NT word was ever written for 23+ years, and even then, they were not all unanimously regarded as scripture for much longer after that.

Divine Revelation consists of two different modes of transmission; one is not inferior to the other. Nowhere in the bible, I repeat, nowhere, is the “gospel message” confined to the written word only. You are unable to produce one verse to say otherwise.

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.

Surprised? What is that supposed to mean?

Now, moving on to I Tim. 3:14-16 (KJV)

1. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
3. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Okay, this is pretty self-explanatory. Paul has just given instructions for church leadership. He is writing, but hoping to go to them soon to instruct them in person. He speaks of behavior and refers to the house of God as the church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Paul is giving preference to teaching in person over writing.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

One huge concept foreign to the catholic mind is the the concept that people can be blinded to truth. Let’s look at passages that speak about blindness to spiritual truth:

MT. 23:16-24
Rom 11:7, 25
2 Cor 3:14 ; 4:4
Eph 4:18
2 Peter 1:9
1 John 2:11,17,19

Blindness to the truth. Those who cannot see it even if it is right in front of them are blinded to the truth.

FOREIGN? What do you think all of these people who have been writing to defend the Catholic faith have been implying? That protestants are blind to the Truth. Things which are simple and straightforward protestants twist and turn just to refute the Catholic Church. Some protestants have no desire to know the Truth, but to refute the Truth simply because the Catholic Church puts it forth.

By the way, how are your RCIA classes coming?

 

[ahimsaman72]

JRJ26:

where the beliefs of the early Church come from and where our beliefs come from relates to the Bible alone theory.

Not necessarily. You have made that comparison, not I. The reason I have tried to avoid it (yes, I said avoid) is that this topic has been discussed and discussed and discussed to madness proportions. It doesn’t have to be so. I’ve been involved in these discussions and it is useless, pointless and a waste of time. It is possible to have discussions without speaking of sola scriptura or sola ecclesia (in your case).

 

[kepha1]

And where does this Holy Spirit dwell? the previous verse, verse 17 clearly says “for he lives in you and will be in you”. The Holy Spirit indwells every believer as can be stated in other verses also. Wherever the Holy Spirit dwells, there is the house of God, which is the church of the living God which is the pillar and ground of the truth.

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.

Now, given that this is my third post now responding to only one paragraph of the first of your many, many continued posts, this may take quite some time to deal with. Are you sure you want to keep this going, Mutant?

I don’t know about Mutant, but I would be happy to point out the novelties of your other posts. For instance:

Most likely the same kind of guidelines given by the council at the church at

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

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

FOREIGN? What do you think all of these people who have been writing to defend the Catholic faith have been implying? That protestants are blind to the Truth. Things which are simple and straightforward protestants twist and turn just to refute the Catholic Church. Some protestants have no desire to know the Truth, but to refute the Truth simply because the Catholic Church puts it forth.

By the way, how are your RCIA classes coming?

All 30,000 + denominations (catholics claim) are blind to the truth?

If that is true, why does the catechism consider us separated brethren? Your catechism also states that as long as we are baptized in the trinitarian formula we are separated brethren. Either we are all blind to the truth as you say, or not blind as the catechism states.

You are speaking in so many generalities. Get specific. It’s like saying all catholics support John Kerry because he was catholic. It’s simply not fair or accurate to say so, yet the same thing is said over and over.

 

[ahimsaman72]

kepha1:

Yes, “our gospel”. That means it is the property of the Apostles by which it has been entrusted to. It is never entrusted to each individual believer. Nowhere is that doctrine of yours found anywhere in the bible. We can read the bible for inspiration, we can even interpret it as long as our interpretation is in keeping with the Church that gave it to us, but it is as sin to satisfy private suppositions with scriptures: doctrines outside of what the Apostles taught, outside of the Church. The destructive consequences of doing so is quite apparent. Every wacko cult has been born from Protestantism, and now even evangelical churches are denying the divinity of Christ at an alarming rate.
.
No, therefore means in consequence of, a conclusion of. There is no separation between “our Gospel” and the traditions taught by word or epistle. The traditions compliment the gospels, “Therefore” can mean “in consequence of”, you say it means contrary to “our gospel” It does not. It is referring to “obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” That is what we stand fast to, not a book that would be compiled 250 years later. “Our gospel” is the means by which we can obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ by which we stand fast to, AND hold the traditions which ye have been taught, in either mode.

There is no competition or contradictions that you read into it. “By word…” appears before “…by letter” in case you didn’t notice. “By word…” always appears first, something you will repeatedly overlook.

con’t…

property of the apostles? property? kinda like a slave is the property of his master property? never heard this one before, but then I’ve never met you, have I?

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.

Remember the passage where Paul says, I Cor 1:12 " Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

It is not YOUR GOSPEL. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which I have had the privilege of knowing and sharing with others.

 

[kepha1]

Acts 15:7-12 – Peter (not James) resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter (not James) spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (not James) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”
Please provide the verse where James allegedly hands down any final decision.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (not James) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. "

In his statement, James affirms the declaration of Peter and adds further disciplinary rules. Why would he do so? Because he was the bishop of Jerusalem and these additional rules would help end dissension by the Jewish converts in his flock over the issue of circumcision. Let’s look further at the statement of James. Are his declarations still binding on all Christians? James says that they should refrain from idolatry (anything contaminated by idols) and immorality and from anything strangled and from blood. These prohibitions are from the Old Testament and Christ also condemned idolatry and immorality.

However, are Christians still bound to refrain from eating animals that have been strangled? Is it a sin for Christians to eat them? How about raw meats (blood)? Is it a sin for a Christian who gets a paper-cut to suck the wound because he would be drinking his own blood? No. These declarations of James are no longer considered binding by Christians, even though Scripture never revokes them.

What about Peter’s declaration? Is it still a sin to require circumcision for Gentile converts to Christianity? Yes. The practice of circumcision among Christians today, where it exists, is purely cultural. It is clear, therefore, that James does not refute Peter’s decision. He supports it and it is still binding today. It is also clear that James’s decision is not irrevocably binding as is Peter’s. This is in spite of the fact that what James imposes with the approval of the other Apostles is based on the only Scriptures available at the time (the Old Testament). 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.

 

[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.

Because for every Scripture and principle thrown out, we have to look at that Scripture one by one and see what is being said. Often, once we

do that, we will see the truth we are looking for.

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

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

All 30,000 + denominations (catholics claim) are blind to the truth?

If that is true, why does the catechism consider us separated brethren? Your catechism also states that as long as we are baptized in the trinitarian formula we are separated brethren. Either we are all blind to the truth as you say, or not blind as the catechism states.

You are speaking in so many generalities. Get specific. It’s like saying all catholics support John Kerry because he was catholic. It’s simply not fair or accurate to say so, yet the same thing is said over and over.

Sure you are separated brethren because you reject a portion of the Truth. I have never said protestants weren’t Christians or our brothers/sisters.

Here is a specific for you. John 3:5. Water and the Spirit is a reference to Baptism. Protestants will say that if you read it as it is written it would appear that Jesus is saying Baptism is necessary for entering the kingdom of God, but that can’t be true because water is material and the Spirit is spirit. (This was an position told to me by a Southern Baptist.) The Catholic view is that the water is the visible sign of the spiritual grace. And the ensuing explanation that Jesus gives Nicodemus regarding what is flesh is flesh and what is spirit is spirit is just Jesus explaining that to be baptized is a second birth, a giving of supernatural life in the spirit apart from your initial birth from your mother’s womb, which was what gave you natural life. Protestants have twisted this to mean that a conversion experience is what makes you born again…to “accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.” It is as plain as the ink on page that Jesus was referring to Baptism in that passage because what happens in baptism? Water is poured or a person is immersed in water an receives the supernatural life of God into his soul. That is exactly what Jesus says…Amen, Amen I say, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the spirit. And don’t say this is salvation by works, because God is the one who gives the grace in baptism, not the priest or deacon who administers the rite.

Now you will refute me because you are a separated brother, and that is ok. But Catholics are not blind to the truth.