history of the bible

[Jimmy_B]

From the first link, which is, interestingly, at least somewhat even-handed…

IT goes on to say, rather truthfully,

From my reading of it, however, it seems to neglect the fact that some of his more strict criticisms are removed from later prefaces.

While the article claims Luther’s view of the antilegomena had something to do with his theolog, it doesn’t seem to mention what that was. But in the final analysis, it is irrelevent, as Luther was welcome to his opinion, and it isn’t necessarily the view of the Lutheran Church.

Jon

Good points Jon,

I agree that Luther’s opinions, aren’t necessarily the view of the Lutheran Church. I also know that the older, more orthodox, non-Catholic Christian churches have a lot more in common with the Catholic Church, where many of the newer denominations have much less in common. Also, the Protestant, King James Version (KJV) Bible today, is not the same as it was just 30 or 40 years ago. I have an old King James Bible and a new one and the new one is much closer to a Catholic bible. This, I believe is caused in part by better translations over the years. Some languages are difficult to translate into English.

That you for your post Jon.

Your thoughts?

 

[deep_creek]

Luther didn’t include page numbers in his translation. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information.

My error, I meant numbered as books, not page numbers. They were never numbered as being part the other 23 books.

Looking at Luther’s Works, vol. 35. pages 395-398, in his preface to James and Jude for example, speaking of James,

“Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books,…”

English translation of the preface can be found here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

.

 

[deep_creek]

While the article claims Luther’s view of the antilegomena had something to do with his theolog, it doesn’t seem to mention what that was.

Jon

Luther’s view on James & Jude can be found in Luther’s Works, vol. 35:

“However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.”

“… This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”

“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works”

“But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works.” etc…

The English translation can be found here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

.

 

[steve_b]

Do you have a source that this was his reason? What in Hebrews or Jude or Revelation does not support* sola fide* (or James for that matter)?

The fact is this is not the reason, anymore than it was a reason for Eusebius.

Jon

Re: translation of the bible, a book which did NOT belong to Luther, nor it’s translation, because it is the book of the Catholic Church.

Luther admits* “sola”* wasn’t there with fide, in the ancient texts, he added “sola” to faith because as he says, he’s Dr Luther and he would have it there… You can read it yourself in the link provided. As one can see, he was one rude man and very full of himself. Right down to thinking he was the only one who could speak/write German properly.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

 

[Dave_Noonan]

My error, I meant numbered as books, not page numbers. They were never numbered as being part the other 23 books.

Thanks. The page number canard pops up in this forum from time to time–although I’ve never been able to get someone to tell me where they read/saw it.

 

[JonNC]

Luther’s view on James & Jude can be found in Luther’s Works, vol. 35:

“However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.”

“… This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.”

“In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works”

“But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works.” etc…

The English translation can be found here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

.

In every way, Luther points to the complaints about James as what he refers to as “the ancients” did. THe issue is authorship. James undoubtedly drives the law. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The regenerate, to whom James seems to be speaking, ought to be remindedof thelaw, and that is what James does.

I other parts of the preface, Luther "praises it for this very reason, and does include it. He doesn’t consider it among his “chief works”, which, understanding his POV and that which he was facing at the time, isn’t surprising.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Re: translation of the bible, a book which did NOT belong to Luther, nor it’s translation, because it is the book of the Catholic Church.

Luther admits* “sola”* wasn’t there with fide, in the ancient texts, he added “sola” to faith because as he says, he’s Dr Luther and he would have it there… You can read it yourself in the link provided. As one can see, he was one rude man and very full of himself. Right down to thinking he was the only one who could speak/write German properly.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

Steve,
If you’re going to quote his letter on translations, perhaps it would be helpful to quote it all.
First, understanding Luther’s penchant for hyperbole, the reason for his Dr. Luther will have it so, has to do, in part wth the fact that his translation was being used by at least one Catholic translator. So this is an exression of his anger regarding that.

“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

HE states his real reason later in the letter;

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

And of course, no English Bible that I know of has “alone” there because it isn’t needed in a translation to English.

As for the book being a “Catholic book”, pass that on to the Orthodox. Its a polemic which has little value.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Steve,
If you’re going to quote his letter on translations, perhaps it would be helpful to quote it all.
First, understanding Luther’s penchant for hyperbole, the reason for his Dr. Luther will have it so, has to do, in part wth the fact that his translation was being used by at least one Catholic translator. So this is an exression of his anger regarding that.

Who gave Luther the bible in the first place? The Catholic Church.
J:

HE states his real reason later in the letter;

And of course, no English Bible that I know of has “alone” there because it isn’t needed in a translation to English.

As for the book being a “Catholic book”, pass that on to the Orthodox. Its a polemic which has little value.

Jon

By him adding alone to faith and the new theology surrounding it, he caused huge division over this. And since Luther divided from the Church of Rome, it’s fitting to use Paul’s warning to the Church of Rome against the likes of those who do such things.

btw there is no expiration date to this warning. It’s applicable to Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin etc etc etc as it is today and for all time

Rom 16:
17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

As for the bible being a Catholic book, that’s not a polemic, just historical fact. During the writing of scripture, Ignatius who was bishop of Antioch from 60a.d. to 107 a.d., was an apostle of St John the apostle (author of 1 Gospel. Rev, and letters) , was ordained by apostles, and writes that the Church is the Catholic Church. Do you doubt the writers of scripture aren’t in the very Church they write to and for? They are in the Church of Linus, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Ireneus, etc etc etc… the Church of the creed, where one is to believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church as an article of faith. There’s only one Church. And it’s Not some mythical hydra with multiple heads.

Re: the Orthodox, I’m still trying to get an Orthodox to show when “Orthodox Church” was first seen in writing.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;10284207]Who gave Luther the bible in the first place? The Catholic Church

.
And he said so.

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

Re: the Orthodox, I’m still trying to get an Orthodox to show when “Orthodox Church” was first seen in writing.

That would be interesting. In just a bit of looking, all I found was a brief statement in the OCA Q&A section that says:

Already by the 4th century the term “Orthodox Christian” was used to designate those Christians who remained faithful to the totality of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles, as opposed to those who were known as “heretics” who promoted false doctrines and beliefs. . . We Orthodox believe that we are the continuation of the ancient Orthodox Christian Church, that we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church placed itself outside of this fellowship when it broke off communion with us in the 11th century.

 

[jrtrent]

As for the bible being a Catholic book, that’s not a polemic, just historical fact. During the writing of scripture, Ignatius who was bishop of Antioch from 60a.d. to 107 a.d., was an apostle of St John the apostle (author of 1 Gospel. Rev, and letters) , was ordained by apostles, and writes that the Church is the Catholic Church. Do you doubt the writers of scripture aren’t in the very Church they write to and for?

And this gets us back to the OP’s question, which in part is, “How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book?”

If “Catholic” means some association with today’s Roman Catholic Church, then the writers of scripture were not in that church, nor did they write to it or for it, because, at least from a Protestant perspective, the “Catholic Church” in the modern sense did not then exist. To give a Protestant perspective on the matter, below is a quote from John R. Rice’s book False Doctrines:

*Again, let me say that Jesus did not found the Catholic church. In New Testament times they never heard of a pope. They had no priests in the New Testament, no monks, no nuns. They had no confessional. They had no Mass. They never heard of the foolish, unscriptural doctrine of purgatory. They had no statues, they never prayed to the saints. They never prayed to Mary. They did not have any of the Catholic feast days and programs.

If you had asked Paul if he were a member of the Catholic church, he would have looked perplexed, since there was no Catholic church then and he would have answered that the local church at Antioch, after prayer and fasting, had sent him and Barnabas out on their missionary journeys, and that he counted that as his local home church (see Acts 13:1-4).

. . . every historian in the world knows that the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times and that the men who wrote the New Testament were not members of the Catholic church.*

 

[Porknpie]

… every historian in the world knows that the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times and that the men who wrote the New Testament were not members of the Catholic church.

Let’s read some of the early church writings. The New Testament wasn’t canonized until ~400ad so I’d say that 110ad is within New Testament times. And St. Ignatius below was a disciple of St John so we really don’t know when the Catholic Church was first called called Catholic but we know that it was no later than 110ad. It could have been much earlier. Ignatius also shows explicitly that Bishops (who are Priests) were in place and were administering the Eucharist (Real Presence, Not Symbolic).

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. **Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, **or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, an**d bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. **For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

 

[steve_b]

That would be interesting. In just a bit of looking, all I found was a brief statement in the OCA Q&A section that says:

Already by the 4th century the term “Orthodox Christian” was used to designate those Christians who remained faithful to the totality of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the apostles, as opposed to those who were known as “heretics” who promoted false doctrines and beliefs. . .

We Orthodox believe that we are the continuation of the ancient Orthodox Christian Church, that we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church placed itself outside of this fellowship when it broke off communion with us in the 11th century.

1st, staying with the topic of the thread, if you’re interested, here is a quick read on where we got the bible.
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm#CHAPTER I

Re: your points

4th century they began? By definition, that means they admit they weren’t always there. Besides, faithful Christians are already in place. They’re Catholics. It’s the Catholic Church which has been around from the beginning. Besides, scripture condemns division.

All I’m asking for of them, is proof when “Orthodox Church” was first written into history. I want to see the evidence.

Even today, there really is no “Orthodox Church”. They are all autocephelous churches with no central government uniting all of them to make them one.
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

The Church is the Catholic Church from the first century. The Nicene creed makes it an article of faith that we believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Those are the 4 marks of the Church

for some history

· Ignatius, ~69 - 107 a.d., Bp of Antioch, disciple of John the apostle, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. Letter to Church @ Smyrna, Ch 8 newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
· Polycarp, ~70a.d. - 156 a.d. disciple of John the apostle, “The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place”: newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm
· Justin Martyr ~100 – 165 a.d. sole government of God Ch 1 newadvent.org/fathers/0130.htm For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honour of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the Catholic faith to take possession of their posterity; but I, as I have just stated, along with a God-loving mind, shall employ the speech of one who loves man, and set it before those who have intelligence, which all ought to have who are privileged to observe the administration of the universe, so that they should worship unchangeably Him who knows all things.
· Irenaeus, ~140 – 202 a.d.disciple of Polycarp, newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm Bk1 ch 10, “as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.”
· Hippolytus ~235 a.d. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! Bk 9 Refutations of all Heresies Ch 7 newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm

Keep in mind, while you see “Catholic Church” in writing from the 1st century and the apostles, the council of Nicea where we received the Nicene creed, and the 4 marks of the Church as an article of faith, is still 90 years into the future from Hippolytus.

 

[steve_b]

And this gets us back to the OP’s question, which in part is, "How many non-Catholic Christian, Protestant ministers or church members tell people in their own denomination that the Bible is a Catholic book If “Catholic” means some association with today’s Roman Catholic Church, then the writers of scripture were not in that church, nor did they write to it or for it, because, at least from a Protestant perspective, the “Catholic Church” in the modern sense did not then exist. To give a Protestant perspective on the matter, below is a quote from John R. Rice’s book False Doctrines:

For one to be Catholic they must be united to the successor to Peter…the Pope of Rome, the see of Peter. In my previous post I showed you the Church is the Catholic Church from the beginning. That means the writers of scripture were all Catholic. And since Peter is the leader of the apostles & the Church, and his see is Rome, then whoever gave you the talking point that the Catholic Church in Rome is a modern sense, maybe hasn’t connected the dots that the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome.
jr:

quote from John Rice
Again, let me say that Jesus did not found the Catholic church. In New Testament times they never heard of a pope. They had no priests in the New Testament, no monks, no nuns. They had no confessional. They had no Mass. They never heard of the foolish, unscriptural doctrine of purgatory. They had no statues, they never prayed to the saints. They never prayed to Mary. They did not have any of the Catholic feast days and programs.
If you had asked Paul if he were a member of the Catholic church, he would have looked perplexed, since there was no Catholic church then and he would have answered that the local church at Antioch, after prayer and fasting, had sent him and Barnabas out on their missionary journeys, and that he counted that as his local home church (see Acts 13:1-4).
. . . every historian in the world knows that the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times and that the men who wrote the New Testament were not members of the Catholic church.

Rice’s opinion as a Protestant is duely noted. I gave you links to ECF’s covering the 1st 200 years of history. Now lets look at Acts.
·Acts 9:31 the church throughout all κατά *kata *ὅλος *holos] *

iow Kataholos Church = Catholic Church
catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

 

[Jimmy_B]

Steve,
…As for the book being a “Catholic book”, pass that on to the Orthodox. Its a polemic which has little value.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Orthodox Catholics are Catholics and are part of the Catholic Church, we share sacraments. There is very little that separates us… Supremacy of the Pope, Infallibility, the Filioque and so on… Orthodox Catholics don’t believe in “Once Save Always Save” (OSAS), for instance, or Bible Alone and the countless other things that have come out of Protestantism and a doctrine, which allows for the personal interpretation of the bible…

Or, what some might call, baseless, anti-biblical, semantical, out of context, after the fact, made-up stuff… These are opinions that many non-Protestants have… I’ve have seen them posted here at CAF many times over the years, and there’s a reason for it.

There is also a reason that there is so much division in Protestantism today and why there exists so many non-Catholic, Protestant denominations… They all disagree with one another, over one issue or another and this is problem, because they can’t all be right.

I would like to add that all properly baptized Christians are our brother and sisters in Christ and that those things, which make up most of what is Protestant… started out as a Catholic belief and those things that are true in Catholicism, are also true in Protestantism.

Let’s not forget though, they did start as Catholic beliefs. For example, Protestants wouldn’t preach about the virgin birth had they not learned it from Catholics… Right… All those things that are accepted as truth by the Catholic Church and then later accepted by Protestants, which is the vast majority of Protestant beliefs, began as Catholic beliefs… And , so too is the case with the bible, a Catholic book, that proceed any Protestant denomination.

This isn’t a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg, because we all know it started with the Catholic Church.

You don’t disagree with any of this buddy, do you?

No one, who has learned about and knows the history and formation of the bible has an argument with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The bible was approved by Roman Catholic popes and by the Roman Catholic Church.

Moreover, It was within the Catholic Church that the cannon was closed and no additional books were added to the bible. Now, Martin Luther removed books and verses from the bible but even Luther didn’t attempt to add books to the bible… Right?

Do you disagree with any of this Jon? If so please explain friend. I always enjoy our discussions here. And yes, you are my brother in Christ.

Your thoughts?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Jon,

Orthodox Catholics are Catholics and are part of the Catholic Church, we share sacraments. There is very little that separates us… Supremacy of the Pope, Infallibility, the Filioque and so on… Orthodox Catholics don’t believe in “Once Save Always Save” (OSAS), for instance, or Bible Alone and the countless other things that have come out of Protestantism and a doctrine, which allows for the personal interpretation of the bible…

Or, what some might call, baseless, anti-biblical, semantical, out of context, after the fact, made-up stuff… These are opinions that many non-Protestants have… I’ve have seen them posted here at CAF many times over the years, and there’s a reason for it.

There is also a reason that there is so much division in Protestantism today and why there exists so many non-Catholic, Protestant denominations… They all disagree with one another, over one issue or another and this is problem, because they can’t all be right.

I would like to add that all properly baptized Christians are our brother and sisters in Christ and that those things, which make up most of what is Protestant… started out as a Catholic belief and those things that are true in Catholicism, are also true in Protestantism.

Let’s not forget though, they did start as Catholic beliefs. For example, Protestants wouldn’t preach about the virgin birth had they not learned it from Catholics… Right… All those things that are accepted as truth by the Catholic Church and then later accepted by Protestants, which is the vast majority of Protestant beliefs, began as Catholic beliefs… And , so too is the case with the bible, a Catholic book, that proceed any Protestant denomination.

This isn’t a matter of which came first, the chicken or the egg, because we all know it started with the Catholic Church.

You don’t disagree with any of this buddy, do you?

No one, who has learned about and knows the history and formation of the bible has an argument with the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. The bible was approved by Roman Catholic popes and by the Roman Catholic Church.

Moreover, It was within the Catholic Church that the cannon was closed and no additional books were added to the bible. Now, Martin Luther removed books and verses from the bible but even Luther didn’t attempt to add books to the bible… Right?

Do you disagree with any of this Jon? If so please explain friend. I always enjoy our discussions here. And yes, you are my brother in Christ.

Your thoughts?I meant to type “preceded” not “proceed”… typo

 

[jrtrent]

Let’s read some of the early church writings. The New Testament wasn’t canonized until ~400ad so I’d say that 110ad is within New Testament times. And St. Ignatius below was a disciple of St John so we really don’t know when the Catholic Church was first called called Catholic but we know that it was no later than 110ad. It could have been much earlier.

I think Mr. Rice was referring to the times when the events written about were taking place. Like Michael Barber, Jay Adams, and others, I consider the New Testament writings to have been completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and mark that event as the close of New Testament times.

However, whether the church called itself the Catholic Church at that point is really beside the point. As you quoted, Mr. Rice said, “the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times.” The words “as such” have meaning in that he is saying that the Catholic Church as it now exists (with its unique teachings and practices not found in any other Christian church) was not the Church, whatever name it went by, that existed in New Testament times.

Ignatius also shows explicitly that Bishops (who are Priests) were in place and were administering the Eucharist (Real Presence, Not Symbolic).

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. **Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, **or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

That’s a very interesting quote. It reminded of a passage in Father Andrew Damick’s book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, in which he said, writing on the issue of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction:

“Another practical problem from this structure which has theological implications is that Catholicity is defined purely by one’s submission to Rome, whose universality is the definition for true ecclesiology. But katholikos (the Greek word from which catholic comes) does not properly mean “universal” but rather, literally, “according to the whole.” For Orthodoxy, this wholeness resides in every diocese with its bishop as the president at the Eucharist, surrounded by his clergy and faithful. Orthodox parishes and dioceses are not merely part of the Catholic Church, but rather manifest catholicity within themselves fully and locally.”

I haven’t read Ignatius’s letter to the Smyrneans, but I wonder if that quote you gave, especially “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church,” might not support the Orthodox idea that each bishop and those he has jurisdiction over, forms, by itself, a complete or “catholic” church. Of course, that’s sidestepping the point you are making; I had written a response, but think I need to actually read the document you referenced and give more thought and study to the concept of Bishops as priests, the real presence, and exactly what takes place during the Lord’s Supper. Your posts, and this forum in general, often get me to want to delve deeper into, and question the validity of, beliefs I’ve accepted, but perhaps without sufficient foundation or the ability to communicate those beliefs to others (especially when, as in the case of communion, I’ve absorbed many different ideas from various Protestant churches).

 

[jrtrent]

4th century they began? By definition, that means they admit they weren’t always there.

That’s not what the OCA answer said; it was referring to the term “Orthodox Christian” being used to distinguish right-thinking Christians from heretics. It clearly said “we trace our history back to Christ and the apostles, and that the Church was “formally” established on the day of Pentecost.”

Besides, faithful Christians are already in place. They’re Catholics. It’s the Catholic Church which has been around from the beginning. Besides, scripture condemns division.

I think my reply to Porknpie addresses that point.

All I’m asking for of them, is proof when “Orthodox Church” was first written into history. I want to see the evidence.

I’d like to see that, too.

Even today, there really is no “Orthodox Church”. They are all autocephelous churches with no central government uniting all of them to make them one.

Here are some excerpts from that same OCA site that addresses this concern:

The Orthodox Church as a whole is the unity of what are called local autocephalous or autonomous churches. These words mean simply that these churches govern themselves, electing their own bishops and organizing their own lives.

Each of these churches has exactly the same doctrine, discipline and spiritual practices. They use the same Bible, follow the same canon laws, confess the authority of the same Church Councils and worship by what is essentially the same liturgy.

It is nothing other than this communion in faith and practice which unites all Orthodox Churches together into one world-wide body. . . oca.org/questions/teaching/how-is-the-orthodox-church-organized-and-held-together-as-one-worldwide-chu

Orthodox Christians understand the word “catholic” word to mean “whole, complete, lacking in nothing.” Hence, when we say “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” we mean that the one, holy, and apostolic Church is “whole, complete, and lacking in nothing.” The word “catholic” with a small “c” has nothing whatsoever to do with Roman “Catholic” with a capital “C”.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/catholic-and-orthodox

The Father Damick quote I gave in reply to Porknpie might also have relevance here, “For Orthodoxy, this wholeness resides in every diocese with its bishop as the president at the Eucharist, surrounded by his clergy and faithful. Orthodox parishes and dioceses are not merely part of the Catholic Church, but rather manifest catholicity within themselves fully and locally.”

 

[jrtrent]

For one to be Catholic they must be united to the successor to Peter…the Pope of Rome, the see of Peter. In my previous post I showed you the Church is the Catholic Church from the beginning. That means the writers of scripture were all Catholic. And since Peter is the leader of the apostles & the Church, and his see is Rome, then whoever gave you the talking point that the Catholic Church in Rome is a modern sense, maybe hasn’t connected the dots that the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome.

Most of this has been addressed in previous replies. The fact that there was a Church at Rome does not prove that the early church was what is now the Roman Catholic Church, nor does the fact that Paul wrote a letter to them. He, and other New Testament authors, wrote letters to many churches and individuals.

Rice’s opinion as a Protestant is duely noted. I gave you links to ECF’s covering the 1st 200 years of history. Now lets look at Acts.
·Acts 9:31 the church throughout all κατά kata ὅλος holos]

iow Kataholos Church = Catholic Church

That passage in Acts refers to churches in many places having rest:

26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.

27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.

29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

30 Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

 

[Porknpie]

I think Mr. Rice was referring to the times when the events written about were taking place. Like Michael Barber, Jay Adams, and others, I consider the New Testament writings to have been completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and mark that event as the close of New Testament times.

JR, I just read Michael Barber’s book on Revelation. Wonderful book and I have been encouraging people to read it. He clearly looks at Revelation as written after the Fall of Jerusalem. Note…after reading this I was pretty much mentally exhausted and have turned to a much lighter read: Little Flowers of St. Francis. Wonderful.

However, whether the church called itself the Catholic Church at that point is really beside the point. As you quoted, Mr. Rice said, “the Catholic church as such did not exist in New Testament times.” The words “as such” have meaning in that he is saying that the Catholic Church as it now exists (with its unique teachings and practices not found in any other Christian church) was not the Church, whatever name it went by, that existed in New Testament times.

The early Church was gathering for readings, prayer and the Eucharist… does Mr. Rice’s church do the same?

That’s a very interesting quote. It reminded of a passage in Father Andrew Damick’s book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, in which he said, writing on the issue of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction:

“Another practical problem from this structure which has theological implications is that Catholicity is defined purely by one’s submission to Rome, whose universality is the definition for true ecclesiology. But katholikos (the Greek word from which catholic comes) does not properly mean “universal” but rather, literally, “according to the whole.” For Orthodoxy, this wholeness resides in every diocese with its bishop as the president at the Eucharist, surrounded by his clergy and faithful. Orthodox parishes and dioceses are not merely part of the Catholic Church, but rather manifest catholicity within themselves fully and locally.”

I don’t debate authority…I’ll let others do that but the Orthodox have all 7 sacraments just like the early Church and have apostolic succession. All are Catholic.

Your posts, and this forum in general, often get me to want to delve deeper into,

I would add “… into my faith” as well.

JR, I love it that you are here. I continue to learn…and there is only so much time to read a day. There are many Catholics and catholics here that I absolutely love…nearly all of whom, directly or indirectly, through their questions and answers, have brought me closer to my faith and closer to God.