MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

My intention is not to ‘bully’ anyone, and I apologize if that is the way it is preceived. Feel free to use any font and pitch you think appropriate.

The matter however, is that you have claimed to have addressed this issue, but, in reality, you have not. You have simply ignored not only my scriptural references and Elvisman’s references to the ECF. Ignoring them does not make them go away. And, this all ties in as to why there are so many Protestant denominations - scripture can be simply manipulated through each and every personal interpretation. Denying the validity of infant baptism is simply a practical application of Sola Scriptura in operation.

You have been challenged to either address the issues raised or scripturally defend the statements you made against infant baptism. You have failed to do either. And, I want to say this as sincerely and seriously as possible. Making unsubstantiated statements just does not improve any understanding of anything.

With regards to tempting God - just read your own post. You make a statement that God will take care of these people because of His Love and Mercy. There is no scripture to support this within the context of denying baptism to infants.

Christ commands His Apostles to go out and baptize all the nations - but, besides the Trinatarian words and the use of water, no instructions are given. Christ did (Matt 16) give Peter the authority to bind and lose on earth and his orders would be implemented in heaven. The authority from Christ to Peter is clear. What isn’t clear is how and why you choose to ignore it.

Finally, I am not srue why you think we began our beliefs in the Third Century. The Catholic Church (initally called “The Way” when Saul was persecuting the Church) has been in present since Christ commissioned His Apostles and the Holy Spirit descended on them on Pentecost. Seriously, what event in the Third Century caught your eye to make you think the Catholic Church started then?

If you have a scriptural argument against infant baptism, I am more than willing to listen. Simply saying that no specific infant is mentioned as being baptized proves there was no infant baptism is meaningless. Would you argue that the 8-day old male child born of Jewish parents would have to wait for circumcision until he could make a type of profession (‘alar call’) for God? If not, why not? If it is because God specifically ordered this and St. Paul specifically references how circmucision is no longer required but baptism is - where is the difficulty?

You have been given a scriptural presentation, please respond in a similar manner. I think you will find that there is no such reference(s) and that scripture alone refutes your position. Combined with the written historical documents of the Early Church Fathers who encouraged and promoted infant baptism, the case is made.

God bless.

You kind of remind me of a bully: notice how BIG you words are and how small mine are.

I’ve spoken several times to the points you bring up. It’s possible you are reading into those verses what’s NOT there. In fact I’ve spoken to the issue of Jesus wanting the children to come to Him. Your attempt to make my understanding look like I’m tempting God is kind of a bully attempt. Sorry, I don’t learn from this kinds of tactics.

BTW, I’m not trying to rewrite any history. I’m sure the CC held the beliefs you have since the 3rd century at least. However, if you’re incorrect, guess how rewrote the history between 30AD and the 3rd century?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2

I thought Jmcrae gave an excellent response. There was one item that I would like to address.

jmcrae,

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

There was no New Testament when Paul wrote his epistles - or when John wrote Revelations. The only thing that actually existed was what we would call the Old Testament. This is simply a matter of history. The Bible - the established Canon (OT & NT) did not exist before the Fourth Century.

The Scriptures tell us. History in the 1st century affirms it. The claim that the RC gave us the canon in the 4th century is ridiculous. It is a claim that denies the Apostles knew their writings were inspired Scriptures - and that is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures proclaim.

Just how do YOU think we got the Bible, Ginger2. There were no Protestant groups back then - but, there were pagan groups, and various heretical groups that wanted very much to influence the course of Christ’s teachings through His Church, and, that would be the Catholic Church). Seriously, there is a lot of time between the Fourth and Sixteenth Centuries - yet the Canon remained intact. While you may think that is ridiculous, the fact remains, coming 1,200 years after the fact to TOTALLY AGREE with the NT Canon, yet dispute the OT Canon seems very strange. Either you got it right on what is Divinely Inspired - or you didn’t. There was no, let’s split the difference mentality. All of the Books in the abridged Protestant (KJV) are inspired - and that is because all of those books came from the Catholic Bible. The real problem is that the KJV is missing material from the OT. Now, if you are interested in ridiculous events - that should catch your eye.

The issues arose as men began trying to introduce pseudo-gospels into mix. Many false gospels were being written to deceive Christians. They were not written by Apostles, but some of them claimed to be as I’m sure you are aware.

This is accurate! Congratulations! So, the issue really is how was the Catholic Church able to determine ‘pseudo gospels’ from the Inspired Word of God? The answer is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church in the development of the Canon. There were many false books that wee excluded. There were also inspirational books that were also exclued. These writings were not accepted because they were not inspired. In reality, all who value the Bible owe a tremendous debt to the Catholic Church for the Bible.

God bless

 

[inkaneer]

jmcrae,

Jesus himself mentions which books of the Old Testament are "cananized.
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Don’t you think it is odd that Jesus left out the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles as well as the general epistles and Revelation? I mean you would think that He would know better!

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Yeah, well unfortunately those Apostles never told us which books they wrote were inspired. Paul wrote at least 15 epistles but only 14 are considered inspired. Why? And I always wondered why the letter to Philomen is considered inspired. Paul is sending a slave who gained his freedom back into slavery. Boy, there is a christian message for you! This was the scripture used by christians to justify slavery in America.

 

[inkaneer]

In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Of course we all know that ‘every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ is a spoken word not a written one. Jesus referred Satan to the scriptures because Satan was using or trying to use, the scriptures against Jesus. So your argument is really no argument.

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph 3:3-5 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Did you notice that not once was the word “wrtten” mentioned??? That’s the problem with you sola scripturists you see only what you want to see. For instance in Mark 7:13 you see “word of God” and you think *written word of God * The quote from Galatians is meaningless to your position as it doesn’t mention written word either. As for Ephesians you did not go far enough. Try Ephesians 3:8-10

" 8 To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."

Got that? Paul said he was given the grace to ***PREACH *** to the Gentiles not to write to them. Then he goes on to say that the plan of God was that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church. WHAT??? The church not scripture??? Is that really in the Bible??? YEP!!!

There is not a “list” of Scriptures in the NT. But these verses show that Christians definitely knew the Apostles’ writings were indeed inspired of God. From the beginning we have known which books were Holy Scriptures.

Well I guess God forgot the Table of Contents didn’t He. I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be…unless… unless God decided to play a game with man. Goes like this. God says I am going to direct some men to write inspired scripture but I am not going to tell you which writings are inspired. You have to decide for yourselves. And to make it more interesting I am going to allow others to also write similar writings that are not inspired. Millions of future people will believe what you decide and their eternal destiny hangs on your decision. Some game huh? But God would not play that game so I guess He just plum forgot the Table of Contents.

The Scriptures tell us. History in the 1st century affirms it. The claim that the RC gave us the canon in the 4th century is ridiculous. It is a claim that denies the Apostles knew their writings were inspired Scriptures - and that is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures proclaim…QUOTE]

Well that sounds really nice but there is not a shread of evidentiary proof to support it. If the Apostles knew their writings were inspired why didn’t the four Gospel writers so state it? Why didn’t Paul? After all the Koran says it is inspired. Some of the Gnostic writings and one of the pseudo clementine epistles claim to be “scripture” or make the claim of being inspired but none of the NT writings [with the possible exception of Revelation] even comes close to claiming being “God Breathed”
Ginger2;7105743:

The issues arose as men began trying to introduce pseudo-gospels into mix. Many false gospels were being written to deceive Christians. They were not written by Apostles, but some of them claimed to be as I’m sure you are aware.

Actually it was not that cut and dried. The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from Apostolic times has no foundation in history. The first mention of the four gospels does not come until 182 AD well after the Apostles have died.and the complete canon [all 27 books as we have today] didn’t occur until 348 AD. Actually the Old Testament was far easier to determine than the New. The church just adopted the Septuagint intact with its 46 books.

 

[Ginger2]

Don’t you think it is odd that Jesus left out the Gospels, Acts, the Pauline epistles as well as the general epistles and Revelation? I mean you would think that He would know better!

LOL I sure hope you were trying to be funny because that is funny!

Maybe you should try reading my entire post. The answer to this question is there.

Yeah, well unfortunately those Apostles never told us which books they wrote were inspired. Paul wrote at least 15 epistles but only 14 are considered inspired. Why?

Uh, off the top of my head, one reason might be because you can’t publish what you don’t have. (ie Paul’s letter to Laodicea and previous Corinthian letter)

Paul also warned about forged letters:2 Thess 2
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

 

[Riccardo]

Forgive me for not catching up fully. But are we using the below to say that infants were baptized?If so, then why have not the next few verses been added where any candidate to fast for 2 days? which i thought would have made it impossible for babies.

I dont disagree, perhaps there where more than one formula for baptism.

Christ did say to the children come unto him etc, but that does not say anything about being baptized, the words can have quite a differnt meaning,say, dont teach children against me a such (weak i know, sorry!)

This is straight from “The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)” - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, i’m still looking into whole households being baptized.

Ric

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ric,

I think one of the critical ideas necessary to developing an opinion is that many sources must be carefully searched. Just because the source you selected did not have the material you are trying to disprove does not really mean much. Ahhhhh… you used the word “weak” … and, that really does catch the flavor of 'Straw Man Soup"…

In a previous post I had listed scriptural text identifying that baptism of infants is not prohibited. The one that I like the best is the one by St. Paul comparing circumcision to baptism. The male infant was circumized on the 8th day - so here we have solid evidence that God wants infants to be within His Chosen People. There is no evidence that He suddenly wants ‘altar calls’ to replace this!

God bless

Forgive me for not catching up fully. But are we using the below to say that infants were baptized?If so, then why have not the next few verses been added where any candidate to fast for 2 days? which i thought would have made it impossible for babies.

I dont disagree, perhaps there where more than one formula for baptism.

Christ did say to the children come unto him etc, but that does not say anything about being baptized, the words can have quite a differnt meaning,say, dont teach children against me a such (weak i know, sorry!)

This is straight from “The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)” - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, i’m still looking into whole households being baptized.

Ric

 

[inkaneer]

LOL I sure hope you were trying to be funny because that is funny!

Maybe you should try reading my entire post. The answer to this question is there.

Yes I was trying to be funny so I an happy you took it that way. But really your conclusion that Jesus "canonized the Old Testament is erroneous. You stated, "Jesus himself mentions which books of the Old Testament are “cananized.” then you quoted Luke 24:44:

"44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

Jesus doesn’t mention the historical books. So if you count up the books of the Law of Moses [the Penteteuch] along with the major and minor prophets and the Psalms then the OT “canon” is only comprised of 23 books. Now that would mean that every protestant Bible has too many books. So I have to reject your interpretation of Luke 24:44. Instead I offer this interpretation of Luke 24:44. It is after the Resurrection and Jesus is explaining His ministry to two of his disciples who do not recognize Him and using prophesies in the OT [the so called Messianic prophesies] to do so. He is not canonizing anything. If He were then not only the christian OT would have too many books but the the Hebrew scriptures themselves would have too many writings. Now I think you really have to ask the question if God would allow His people both the OT church as well as the New Testament church to have spurious writings? My answer is that while Jesus cleaned out the Temple of those who perverted it He did not clean out any perversion in the Jewish scriptures.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Yeah, well unfortunately those Apostles never told us which books they wrote were inspired. Paul wrote at least 15 epistles but only 14 are considered inspired. Why?

Uh, off the top of my head, one reason might be because you can’t publish what you don’t have. (ie Paul’s letter to Laodicea and previous Corinthian letter)

Paul also warned about forged letters:2 Thess 2
2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message **or a letter as if **from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.

But Paul specifically mentions his letter to the Laoiceans to the Collossians. In Col 4:16 Paul writes:

“And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice’ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice’a.” [Col 4:16]

Paul is basically equating the letter that the Laodiceans have to the one the Collossians have and telling that both should be read. If one is inspired shouldn’t the other be also since Paul is, in effect, equating both of them as worthy of reading? Now I admit that the copy if the epistle to the Laodiceans which we have today is a forgery but that does not mean that Paul didn’t write a letter to the Laodiceans. Now some will say that If Paul did write such a letter the reason it was not included in the canon was because it contained no doctrinal matters. Yet these same people are at a loss to explain the letter from Paul to Philemon which also contains no doctrinal matter but is considered by all christians to be inspired.

And note in 2Thess 2:2 Paul is specific about what he is referring to and that is about the “Day of the Lord” . Paul goes on in verses 3- 4 to say:

"3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

Lots of those guys around even today and they make a nice living selling their books. But again Paul is warning his disciples to adhere to sound doctrine and not go off willy nilly following heretics. And of course he ends this portion of his letter with the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire, that being 2 Thess 2:15:

“15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15]

 

[inkaneer]

Forgive me for not catching up fully. But are we using the below to say that infants were baptized?If so, then why have not the next few verses been added where any candidate to fast for 2 days? which i thought would have made it impossible for babies.

I dont disagree, perhaps there where more than one formula for baptism.

Christ did say to the children come unto him etc, but that does not say anything about being baptized, the words can have quite a differnt meaning,say, dont teach children against me a such (weak i know, sorry!)

This is straight from “The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)” - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, i’m still looking into whole households being baptized.

Ric

The thing about Baptism is that the scriptures do not state that babies are to be baptized but at the same time the scriptures do not state that babies should not be baptized. There is is no clear cut statement in the scriptures on the subject. So one is left to interpret the scripture. This is very much the same as with the Trinity doctrine. Nowhere is the Trinity doctrine stated in scripture. In fact our understanding of the Trinity is expressed in Greek philosophical terms of substance, essence, persons, etc. that are completely foreign not only to the scripture but from Jewish philosophical thought as well. In the early church there were differences regarding both Baptism and the Trinity. The Trinity posed a much larger problem and it took quite a while [until the middle of the 5th century] for the church to formally define it. Infant baptism, on the other hand, was readily accepted with the only challenge being whether one should wait until the 8th day after birth to baptize. This was because the early church, taking a clue from Paul’s writings in Col 2:11, saw in Baptism the NT equivalent of the Jewish rite of circumcision which was done on the 8th day after birth. So no formal doctrinal definition was ever needed as to whether an infant was to be baptized. The only question was whether one should wait till the 8th day or not. And the answer to that question was the sooner the better.

 

[Portrait]

I realized that after I posted…

I wasn’t suggesting that one word indicated special authority.

Peter was not the first to speak, the debate was well in progress when he spoke up. Peter made no final decision. Paul and Barnabas spoke afterward. Why would there need to be more discussion on the signs and wonders within the gentile community if the issue was settled at that point?

James called the attention of the assembly to himself before speaking. He first quoted Scriptures. Why, because the Scriptures held ultimate and absolute authority! pharisidic Jews could not argue against Scriptures, but they could against human opinion!

Finally, James said, v19
It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, this is a clear statement that James had final say!!!..

Dear Ginger2,

Cordial greetings and please pardon my delay in responding to your above post, but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends.

My apologies, you personally were not suggesting that the Greek word akouoo denoted ultimate authority, nevertheless, many Protestants certainly do, including seasoned anti-Catholic, James White (Roman Catholic Controversy, Bethany House Pub. 1996); I was simply bringing to your notice, in passing, that no mileage is to be gained by such faulty argumentation by an appeal to the Greek text.

Technically you are quite correct, strictly speaking others did speak prior to St. Peter, however St. Peter was the first to speak in an official capacity; he was clearly the prime mover in issuing the decree, notwithstanding that the proceedings commenced with “much debate” (Acts 15: 7), or what Protestant commentator, I.H. Marshall, terms a “general free-for-all” (Acts, Inter Varsity Press, England 1980, p. 249). Following this unrestricted discussion, St. Peter with an assumption of authority, “rose” up and decided the matter unhesitatiingly (Act 15: 7-11), declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic Law. Moreover, he claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (v. 7), and severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (v.10). We are distinctly told that after he had spoken, “all the assembly kept silence”. After giving due deference to St. Peter, all SS. Paul and Barnabas do is recount the experiences of their apostolical labours in support of St. Peter’s decision. Clearly, those who spoke subsequently merely confirmed St. Peter’s decision and where do we see St. James giving a special authoritative decision on the question as St. Peter had done? St. Jerome remarks, concerning this incident, “The whole multitude held their peace, and James the Apostle, together with all the priests passed over to the judgement of Peter” and St. John Chrysostom wrote, “See what the care of the teacher towards his subjects! He has the first authority in the discussion because to him all were commited”.

There is nothing in this entire episode that runs counter to St. Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction and everything, in point of fact, that is in the fullest conformity with it.

With respect to St. James, he merely summed up as it were and endorsed what St. Peter had authoritatively declared. In one sense he did go beyond St. Peter’s decision, but he was not deciding/decreeing as St. Peter had done. He states to begin with that it is his judgement; St. Peter did not speak for himself but the whole Church. What St. James added had nothing to do with the doctrinal decision which had already been settled by St. Peter.

Papal opponents frequently cite St. James’s appeal to Sacred Scripture in proof of sola Scriptura, asserting that he repairs to the bible alone for his summary. However, it should be noted that St. James actually quotes* two *authorities as he summarizes the proceedings of the Council: St. Peter and the Old Testament - “Symeon has related” (v. 14) and “with this the words of the prophets agree” (Acts 15: 14-15); here we have the authentic Catholic model of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture which “…make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim church comtemplates God, the source of all riches” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 97).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ginger2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Yeah, well unfortunately those Apostles never told us which books they wrote were inspired. Paul wrote at least 15 epistles but only 14 are considered inspired. Why?

But Paul specifically mentions his letter to the Laoiceans to the Collossians. In Col 4:16 Paul writes:

“And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the La-odice’ans; and see that you read also the letter from La-odice’a.” [Col 4:16]

Paul is basically equating the letter that the Laodiceans have to the one the Collossians have and telling that both should be read. If one is inspired shouldn’t the other be also … Now some will say that If Paul did write such a letter the reason it was not included in the canon was because it contained no doctrinal matters. …

The reason the letter is not in the Bible is because we simply don’t have a copy of it. We can’t include something we don’t have. (since we don’t have it, how could anyone know if there are errors??? Unless you mean this forgery which I have no knowledge of. But if it’s the forgery that contains errors, it is not because of the errors that it is omitted, but because it is a forgery)
If we had an authentic copy of Paul’s letter, I’m sure it would be in the Bible.

… And of course he ends this portion of his letter with the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire, that being 2 Thess 2:15:

“15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” [2 Thess 2:15]

Historical documents prove ML taught no such thing.

What Protestants do teach and believe is the sufficiency of Scriptures.

From the Scriptures:
Jhn 20:30 ¶ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

2 TIMOTHY 3:15 "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

1 Cor 4:6 …, “Do not go beyond what is written.” …

Everything we need to know about God, is found within the written Word, therefore we do not need extra- Biblical Traditions of the RC.

Fron Church Fathers:
’If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or to take away from the written word.’ Tertullian of Carthage (160 - 225) (Against Hermogenes 22)

’Not all that the Lord did was written down, but only what was deemed sufficient, either from the point of view of morals, or from the point of view of dogmas.’ Cyril of Alexandria (died A.D. 444) (Comm. John 12).

In conclusion, the missing epistles are of no consequence as God would not have let them be lost if the were essential to the Church. Whatever was written in them must also be found elsewhere within the Scripture or we would have it with us today and it would be included in the HolyBible.

 

[inkaneer]

The reason the letter is not in the Bible is because we simply don’t have a copy of it. We can’t include something we don’t have. (since we don’t have it, how could anyone know if there are errors??? Unless you mean this forgery which I have no knowledge of. But if it’s the forgery that contains errors, it is not because of the errors that it is omitted, but because it is a forgery). If we had an authentic copy of Paul’s letter, I’m sure it would be in the Bible.

I don’t disagree with what you say but I also think you are missing my point. Paul in his remarks to the Collossians states both his letters are to be read. He makes no distinction between them and thus equates them evenly. Thus it is possible that we may be missing an inspired writing. This is an important detail because of those who claim that God preserved His word only in writing. Some counter that the reason the letter was not preserved is that the letter to the Laodiceans contained no doctrinal matter and thus was not accepted as inspired and so not preserved. I responded to that claim by saying that the very same charge could be said of the letter to Philemon but yet it is accepted as inspired.

 

[elvisman]

Cuz I don’t find them in the Bible and at times, it appears the Bible says something different.

**This makes absolutely no sense. The Bible itself should be abhorrent to you be cause it’s canonicity is a Catholic Tradition. **

Statements like this remind me of the phrase, ‘wise in your own conceit’.

**Not at all. Just pointing out the fact that you cherry-pick which Christian doctrines you like and discard the others. This is what we call *“Cafeteria Christianity”. ***

Your problem isn’t with me - it simply that you don’t like to be called on the carpet when you are wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

Dear Ginger2,

Cordial greetings and please pardon my delay in responding to your above post, but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends.

No need to apologize. I spent the weekend with my niece in Wisconsin.

It appears to me, you are reading into the text what you would like it to say

Technically you are quite correct, strictly speaking others did speak prior to St. Peter, …

Others spoke before AND after Peter

however St. Peter was the first to speak in an official capacity;…

And James was the last to speak giving James the FINAL SAY

We are distinctly told that after he had spoken, “all the assembly kept silence”. After giving due deference to St. Peter, all SS. Paul and Barnabas do is recount the experiences of their apostolical labours in support of St. Peter’s decision.

They fell silent to listen to Paul and Banabas. Here’s the text:
11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

12 **And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul **as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

… where do we see St. James giving a special authoritative decision on the question as St. Peter had done?

James spoke last. He had the final say as is clear since all discussion ceased after James spoke and said, “It is my judgement”

 

[elvisman]

:banghead: I really, truly thought I was making a clear statement by emphasizing “church” with a small “c”. But here I am being told once again, the RC doesn’t have denominations and neither did the 1st century Church.

For the life of me I cannot understand how you Catholics keep coming to the assumption I think the RC (or the first century Church) is made up of many denominations - especially since I have pointed out several times over the year on CAF that I don’t. It is the erroneous source you all like to quote from that makes that claim.

So, you agree with the Catholic (and historic) position that there were no denominations in the Early church - nor were there different “churches”? **
That the “churches” mentioned in the NT letters are, in fact different only in their locations, not doctrines?

The fact is that there were heretics (like the Gnostics), but that doesn’t equate to different “churches” or denominations. They claimed to be Christian yet they were perverting the doctrines of the faith.

The same if true for today. There are certainly heterodox, dissident sects who CLAIM to be Catholic, but they are in fact Protestants.**

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t disagree with what you say …

Great! That happens so seldom here I think I’ll just leave it at that.

Besides, I’ve already addressed why the missing letter is unimportant and don’t care to get into a discussion about what others not involved in this thread think and claim.

 

[Tomster]

So, you agree with the Catholic (and historic) position that there were no denominations in the Early church - nor were there different “churches”?
That the “churches” mentioned in the NT letters are, in fact different only in their locations, not doctrines?**

The fact is that there were **heretics (like the Gnostics), but that doesn’t equate to different “churches” or denominations. They claimed to be Christian yet they were perverting the doctrines of the faith.

The same if true for today. There are certainly heterodox, dissident sects who CLAIM to be Catholic, but they are in fact Protestants.

Elvis is back in the house!

 

[Ginger2]

** There are certainly heterodox, dissident sects who CLAIM **to be Catholic, but they are in fact Protestants.

LOL

 

[Tomster]

As a Catholic I am bemused by the number of times I see this or even much higher figures than 40,000 denominations thrown in to bolster an argument about why sola scriptura is wrong. I think it unfair in debate if it can’t be substantiated.

I want to see a list of these 40,000 denominations. I personally know of perhaps 20 or 30.

For starters, check your local phone directory.

Secondly, I am sure Ginger2 can give you a comprehensive list.