How is it that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas (who was an apostle) is not inspired?

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I have been unable to read this thread because of it. I started it as I said as a suggestion from someone else as it was off topic in another thread…

There are many people who do start threads for honest intentions. Again, I apologize for the unnecessary offense I caused.

BTW:curtsey: I am not a sir and I wouldn’t expect you to know that without me telling you.

D’oh. :doh2: Well, here I am apologizing to you all night, ha ha. More apologies for you. I meant no harm by calling you “sir.”

 

[adrift]

There are many people who do start threads for honest intentions. Again, I apologize for the unnecessary offense I caused.

D’oh. :doh2: Well, here I am apologizing to you all night, ha ha. More apologies for you. I meant no harm by calling you “sir.”

I know that. No apology is necessary as I said you couldn’t possibly know without me telling you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I also am interested

We know because the Council of Trent declared Dogmatically the Canon of Scripture.
The " Gospel of Barnabas " was not amongst the Canon. Therefore it is not inspired and not a part of the Catholic Canon.

The reasons why it was not accepted probably covers volumes and volumes. But the only thing we need to know is that it was not. It is interest only to scholars. That lets all of us out. Even though some of us may think we are pretty bright, we are not Scripture scholars in any sense.

 

[adf417]

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

and/or change it (the Holy Book) to fit better their own theology.

 

[PRmerger]

We know because the Council of Trent declared Dogmatically the Canon of Scripture.

'zactly. It is a testament to the authority of the CC. And each and every time a non-Catholic Christian quotes from the NT he is giving tacit submission to this authority.

The reasons why it was not accepted probably covers volumes and volumes.

Actually, the main reason would be because what it proclaimed was not consonant with the kerygma.

That is, it is Sacred Tradition, which came before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ, that determines whether a book will be part of the canon.

But the only thing we need to know is that it was not. It is interest only to scholars. That lets all of us out. Even though some of us may think we are pretty bright, we are not Scripture scholars in any sense.

And even if someone were a Scripture scholar, would that individual have the authority to declare, even for himself, “I have read the Gospel of Barnabas and have concluded that it is indeed inspired!” :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

There are many people who do start threads for honest intentions. Again, I apologize for the unnecessary offense I caused.

D’oh. :doh2: Well, here I am apologizing to you all night, ha ha. More apologies for you. I meant no harm by calling you “sir.”

Thank you for visiting my Profile Page, BW.

 

[jrtrent]

OK. Let’s assume you are right and the RCC was a church started by someone else, as opposed to Jesus, after those ecumenical councils.

I did not say that the RCC was started after those ecumenical councils. The term “undivided church” is most often used as a reference to the time before Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split. The year 1054 often comes up, though there had been divisive issues cropping up for several hundred years prior to that. There was political separation and doctrinal separation, the two most important of which were with respect to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and the insertion of the Filioque (first adopted in Spain in 589).

Some might also want to consider the separation of the non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox) churches in 451, though this event does not seem to be what is meant when writers refer to the undivided church.

Another thing to consider is that even before a time when we can point to distinct organizations separating/dividing from one another, differences and divisions already existed; hence the need to gather in council to deal with different takes on theology such as Arianism. Also, just because a church is undivided in terms of not yet having separated into different groups doesn’t mean that that “undivided” church got everything right. As a page on the Reformed Episcopal site states with reference to the ecumenical councils, "The historic Anglican position maintains that no council of the Church- general or otherwise - can claim immunity from error or corruption, and indeed that all councils 'may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God."

. . . where is that one undivided church (that was responsible for the first three or four ecumenical councils) in the world today?

Well, once the church is divided, there can no longer exist an undivided church, so there is no organization I can point to which is the undivided church today; however, there are some groups that could be said to have once been a part of that undivided church and have continued to the present day (such as the afore-mentioned Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches).

I think the most that can be said at this point is that the church is made up of those that follow the Christian religion, defined by the Smith Bible dictionary, to distinguish it from non-Christian religions, as “having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.” Most would also say that this “church” is made up of believers from many denominational backgrounds.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are trying to assign modern understanding to Patristic text when they themselves in the past has no concept of our modern usage of the terms.

I simply demonstrated that the term “Catholic Church” was already in use during the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John. Whether that term had the exact same meaning at that time as it does today is irrelevant, because the name has been applied continuously to one group. The group that called itself the “catholic church” in the first and second centuries is one and the same with that group which calls itself the “Catholic Church” today.

First, the term “Christian” was a derogatory term at the time of the Acts of the Apostles. If you read later when the King of Judea (Herod’s grandson) questioned St. Paul, he mockingly asked St. Paul if he will be turned into a Christian. The underpinning meaning is that if he will be made crazy like all the other followers of Christ.

I disagree completely. Herod’s grandson did ask the question, but not because he was mocking Christians per se, but because he was nervously seeking to deflect the conversation because Paul was making a strong case quickly. IOW, Paul was being effective, and the king was uneasy because of the power of Paul’s preaching.

“Catholic” isn’t a name of the Church back then, but rather it is a mark of the Church. As you can see in the Creeds (both Apostle’s and Nicene) we call the Church as “Catholic Church”. This isn’t to mean the Church we recognize today as the one centered in the Vatican.

No, the creeds use the phrase, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”, and “catholic” is spelled with a small “c”. However, it is evident from Ignatius and others that the phrase “Catholic Church” was quickly used as a proper noun and not as an adjective. IOW, it’s no coincidence that “catholic church” became “Catholic Church” in short order – because the term came into use very, very early.

The Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus upon Peter, the rock, and there is no denying this historical fact.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

“The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place.” (The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp)

“When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, [A.D. 156]).

“And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2, [A.D. 156]).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, [A.D. 156]).

Irenaeus

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

“From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.” (Stromaties 7:17:107:3 [A.D. 202]).

“… There is one true Church, the really ancient Church into which are enrolled those who are righteous according to Gods ordinance… In essence, in idea, in origin, in preeminence we say that the ancient Catholic Church is the only Church …”

Athanasius

“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.” St. Athanasius, “Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc,” c. 360 A.D.

Augustine

“We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. When heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. They will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name, which the whole world employs in her regard.” (The True Religion 7:12, [A.D. 390]).

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, “I do not believe”? Indeed, I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).

 

[PRmerger]

I think the most that can be said at this point is that the church is made up of those that follow the Christian religion, defined by the Smith Bible dictionary, to distinguish it from non-Christian religions, as “having Jesus Christ, His revelation, and His precepts for the objects of its contemplations and the motive of its actions. The Church, therefore, consists of all who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ the blessed Savior of mankind, who gives credit to His gospel, and who hold His sacraments, the seals of eternal life, in honor.” Most would also say that this “church” is made up of believers from many denominational backgrounds.

This is fine to proclaim. But I propose that the moment these members of the church start talking about what these precepts of Jesus consist of, what His revelation means, and how to live it out, they will realize that they are not members of the same church. :nope:

 

[benjohnson]

'zactly. It is a testament to the authority of the CC. And each and every time a non-Catholic Christian quotes from the NT he is giving tacit submission to this authority.

While they may acknowledge the authority of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church in regards to the Bible, they may not necessarily have to acknowledge the authority of the current Catholic church.

I understand to you there is no difference, but to someone else, they may see a difference and may receive the Gospel in the bible without necessarily behaving hypocritically.

 

[PRmerger]

While they may acknowledge the authority of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church in regards to the Bible, they may not necessarily have to acknowledge the authority of the current Catholic church.

What it would mean, if this Christian is intellectually honest, is that he does not get all his theological truths from the Bible…which means he can no longer proclaim to be a Sola Scriptura advocate…

and it would also mean that he believes that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church.

That is HUGE, and those who are recusant to to this realize what repercussions it would have to acknowledging that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church discerned the canon of Scripture for them.

 

[johnnyc176]

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

There is a really good mp3 floating around out there with Mark Shea, Scott Hahn and two others who I can’t recall discussing this. Marcus Grodi was the moderator.

 

[benjohnson]

What it would mean, if this Christian is intellectually honest, is that he does not get all his theological truths from the Bible…which means he can no longer proclaim to be a Sola Scriptura advocate…

and it would also mean that he believes that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Catholic Church.

That is HUGE, and those who are recusant to to this realize what repercussions it would have to acknowledging that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church discerned the canon of Scripture for them.

Well you know I’m Sola Scriptura in the Lutheran sense of the term, not in the modern sense of the term.

For myself, I go to church with a happy heart knowing that I’m part of a valid continuation of the western church - if others are not so content, then I would urge them to seek out the nature of their discontent.

…

PRmerger… I’m curious. If you had a close friend who was thriving and ministering in the Gospel in a far removed Protestant church - something like the Quakers, and they are raising up strong and beautiful children in the faith, are you apt to pry them away from their church home? Or do you pause?

For me, I’m not so sure. Certainly I have no urge to drawn in Catholics, Anglicans or Orthodox into my church as the transfer may cause a diminishment of faith. But my good Baptist friend I am on the fence with - his church is “wrong” in doctrine, but no soul can walk into his church and not freely admit that his church is filled with the Gospel and that he is BOLDLY sharing the Gospel with others and drawing them closer to Christ.

Just curious on your thoughts.

 

[SteveVH]

Well you know I’m Sola Scriptura in the Lutheran sense of the term, not in the modern sense of the term.

For myself, I go to church with a happy heart knowing that I’m part of a valid continuation of the western church - if others are not so content, then I would urge them to seek out the nature of their discontent.

…

PRmerger… I’m curious. If you had a close friend who was thriving and ministering in the Gospel in a far removed Protestant church - something like the Quakers, and they are raising up strong and beautiful children in the faith, are you apt to pry them away from their church home? Or do you pause?

For me, I’m not so sure. Certainly I have no urge to drawn in Catholics, Anglicans or Orthodox into my church as the transfer may cause a diminishment of faith. But my good Baptist friend I am on the fence with - his church is “wrong” in doctrine, but no soul can walk into his church and not freely admit that his church is filled with the Gospel and that he is BOLDLY sharing the Gospel with others and drawing them closer to Christ.

Just curious on your thoughts.

While this post was not directed toward me, I hope you don’t mind if I respond. There are many non-Catholic Christians who do wonderful evangelistic work and bring many to Christ. I wish most Catholics were as excited about their faith as many Protestants are.

As a Cathoic, however, I do believe that they and those they evangelize are still missing the fullness of truth, including the saving grace available in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist. These have been rejected by most non-Catholics, or they have never had enough understanding to even consider these most precious and holy things. Insofar as one is brought to Christ, it is good. Insofar as one is led away from the table of plenty, it is not so good.

 

[simspt]

Well you know I’m Sola Scriptura in the Lutheran sense of the term, not in the modern sense of the term.

For myself, I go to church with a happy heart knowing that I’m part of a valid continuation of the western church - if others are not so content, then I would urge them to seek out the nature of their discontent.

…

PRmerger… I’m curious. If you had a close friend who was thriving and ministering in the Gospel in a far removed Protestant church - something like the Quakers, and they are raising up strong and beautiful children in the faith, are you apt to pry them away from their church home? Or do you pause?

For me, I’m not so sure. Certainly I have no urge to drawn in Catholics, Anglicans or Orthodox into my church as the transfer may cause a diminishment of faith. But my good Baptist friend I am on the fence with - his church is “wrong” in doctrine, but no soul can walk into his church and not freely admit that his church is filled with the Gospel and that he is BOLDLY sharing the Gospel with others and drawing them closer to Christ.

Just curious on your thoughts.

 

[benjohnson]

While this post was not directed toward me, I hope you don’t mind if I respond. There are many non-Catholic Christians who do wonderful evangelistic work and bring many to Christ. I wish most Catholics were as excited about their faith as many Protestants are.

Thanks for responding! I certainly understand what you’re saying - I too feel that others are missing out in faith. I just find myself holding short when I see someone who has all the appearance of one who is fully of God’s grace and is sharing that Grace with the world - even given the diminished theological tools they have.

 

[CopticChristian]

I also am interested

Adrift,

The Gopel of Barnabus is not included in the Roman Catholic Church Declaration of Canon at the Council of Ephesus, Rome or Trent.

The Gospel of Barnabus is not included in the Canon of the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox.

All the above are based on Tradition and council. This is how I know that the Gospel of Barnabus is not Scritpture.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger… I’m curious. If you had a close friend who was thriving and ministering in the Gospel in a far removed Protestant church - something like the Quakers, and they are raising up strong and beautiful children in the faith, are you apt to pry them away from their church home? Or do you pause?

I have known some beautiful Christian families, Godly people who love the Lord perhaps better than any Catholic.

I have also known some beautiful non-Christian families, Godly people who love Allah/God/Goodness perhaps better than any Catholic.

My question to you, ben is this: do you ever pause when you consider these non-Christian families, raising strong and beautiful children in their faith?

The question is pointed, because I am guessing that whatever emotions/beliefs you have attached to these beautiful non-Christian families could be extrapolated to what I feel for these beautiful non-Catholic Christian families.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for responding! I certainly understand what you’re saying - I too feel that others are missing out in faith. I just find myself holding short when I see someone who has all the appearance of one who is fully of God’s grace and is sharing that Grace with the world - even given the diminished theological tools they have.

Absolutely.

 

[benjohnson]

The question is pointed, because I am guessing that whatever emotions/beliefs you have attached to these beautiful non-Christian families could be extrapolated to what I feel for these beautiful non-Catholic Christian families.

The further they are from faith, the more I wish to evangelise - but perhaps I’m being to pragmatic in that I typically go after the low-hanging fruit: My family, my friends, then people I know who are thoroughly lost in a cloud of self-absorption. Often times, I find it easy to encourage others in their faith as well, so that they find the strength to bring their families to God.

So when confronted with a goodly Muslim - I tend to mentally understand that to grab a hold of them and bring them to God would take just as much effort as helping ten marginal Lutherans become close to Christ.

I understand that it’s the Holy Spirit that changes the hearts of men, but we only have a few moments in this life, and perhaps I’m being a bit too pragmatic, but I tend to focus on being productive and pray that God will give mercy to those that need it most.