Peter and the early church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaolen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So here’s what I responded to him with. Will keep you guys informed if he replies back. Steve b I’m going to ask him about showing where in the bible is sola scriptura probably after this.

Here’s what I said: "the Montanists is an early heretical group that the authors of your idea that the Baptists can connect themselves back to the beginning, try to connect to but as you just acknowledged, they are not protestants and didn’t hold to ideas like scripture alone etc. like all the Great Heresies in history Protestantism is its own unique heresy.

For you baptism question baptism of an adult doesn’t de facto mean he is saved from hell. mortal sin is a possibility both for the infant and for the adult baptized, and so both may, at some point in their lives, may lose the sanctifying grace, that friendship with God, that ensures eternal salvation.

For your Eucharist question there is an accidental difference between the act of cannibalizing and the Eucharist. And by accidental, I mean it in the philosophical sense of the appearances of a thing. Here’s an article that will help with this catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

Now. This is all great but you’ve completely ignored the questions I’ve asked. If you want to prove your statement “But that is not the way many historical documents have it” then what historical documents? The fact is there’s a myriad of documents that show the early Christian church was indeed catholic"
 
Shaolen said:
The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul
Click to expand...
Paul did not go to Rome until the last two years of his life. He wrote the letter to the Church in Rome way before that.

If Paul established the Churches in Rome, how could he have written the Letter to the Romans before the Church was even established?

-Tim-
 
Shaolen said:
The early churches established in Rome were established by Paul
Click to expand...
Paul did not go to Rome until the last two years of his life. He wrote the letter to the Church in Rome way before that.

If Paul established the Churches in Rome, how could he have written the Letter to the Romans before the he went there to establish Churches?

-Tim-
 
Shaolen said:
So here’s what I responded to him with. Will keep you guys informed if he replies back. Steve b I’m going to ask him about showing where in the bible is sola scriptura probably after this.

Here’s what I said: "the Montanists is an early heretical group that the authors of your idea that the Baptists can connect themselves back to the beginning, try to connect to but as you just acknowledged, they are not protestants and didn’t hold to ideas like scripture alone etc. like all the Great Heresies in history Protestantism is its own unique heresy.

For you baptism question baptism of an adult doesn’t de facto mean he is saved from hell. mortal sin is a possibility both for the infant and for the adult baptized, and so both may, at some point in their lives, may lose the sanctifying grace, that friendship with God, that ensures eternal salvation.
Click to expand...
Just a quick comment.* Infants *can’t commit sin, let alone mortal sin. They don’t have that capability…**yet

Re: original sin, **405

After one reaches the age of reason, THEN they can commit sin. Depending on their ability to reason, THEN they can also commit mortal sin as well. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=mortal+sin&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
S:
For your Eucharist question there is an accidental difference between the act of cannibalizing and the Eucharist. And by accidental, I mean it in the philosophical sense of the appearances of a thing. Here’s an article that will help with this catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

Now. This is all great but you’ve completely ignored the questions I’ve asked. If you want to prove your statement “But that is not the way many historical documents have it” then what historical documents? The fact is there’s a myriad of documents that show the early Christian church was indeed catholic"
Click to expand...
As with any debate, or discussion, one should always be ready to present documented evidence properly referenced, for one’s position(s) when asked for them. It would for sure be asked of you, …right? Hence you’re here looking for documented evidence to prove your points to your dad. The same conditions are required for your dad as well. He also needs to provide documented evidence properly referenced, for his positions as well.

As an aside, once non Catholics start poking around these opening centuries of Christianity and see that from the beginning the Church is “Catholic” in writing, #34 , it’s a game changer.
 
Shaolen said:
Ok so I’m going to need some help with this. I responded with a longer reply but followed up with a simple request saying

"1) what early Christian writing shows the early church taught scripture alone (sola scriptura)
  1. what early Christian writing shows that the early church denied baptism to infants
  2. what early Christian writing taught that the Eucharist was just a symbol.
  3. how do we know which books are supposed to be in the Canon of Scripture, and which ones are not? Who decided this for us, when, and why do we believe them?
This would be a starting point for a discussion. Otherwise history shows the early church knew nothing of about Protestantism and these novel doctrines."

My Dad has largely ignored this and stated this

“you’ve mention the Montanist earlier. By having acknowledged their existence, you have made my point that not all non-Catholic churches are protestant.” (I don’t recall him making such a point)

“I take it that you believe in infant baptism, a Catholic belief. What happens when an infant-baptised child grows up and becomes an Adolph Hitler, John Dillinger, or other evil mass-murderer. Does the decision made by his parents to have him baptised as a baby save him from hell?”

“I don’t believe in cannibalism, do you? The eating of human flesh is wrong. But, if you believe in transubstantiation, you do. If the bread and wine actually become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then you are eating the flesh of a human and drinking his blood.”

I’d like to give him a good response to these but after that point him back to the questions I gave him that he ignored. Any help on these issues would be much appreciated
Click to expand...
Folks who are this steeped in Protestantism seem to rarely admit the severe issues with their doctrine unless they do their own research, so I am not surprised you were largely ignored. You may have to put this in God’s hands.

That said, let’s have a look:
  1. and 2) You are correct that writers of the early church did not write about sola scriptura or the age or reason. A larger issue for the Protestant is that these doctrines are not in the bible! In fact, Ignatius of Antioch wrote very strongly in favor of the bishops who administers the Eucharist as the real body of Christ.
On a side note, 2 Tim 3 says scripture is profitable for ministry, not the sole authority. 2 Tim 4 also says that Mark is profitable for ministry. Does that make him the sole authority? No, of course not. You really have to twist scripture to get sola scriptura to work.

Yes, there were other movements in church history - but they were either very heretical (e.g. denying the incarnation) or were still in the Catholic Church!!

This is where, again, we run into the Protestant theory of the invisible church. Under such thinking, it is OK to have conflicting doctrine in Christ’s church as long as you agree on something (anything) or “the essentials”. So, even if a group denied the incarnation, or was still Catholic, but included some practices that were agreeable with Baptists such as focusing on groups of lay persons instead of monks, that makes them Baptist forerunners? That line of thought seems a bit…well you know.

Infant baptism - the age of reason is not in the bible. Using the bible, ask him where his stance on baptism is located. It’s going to be a problem for the sola scriptura believer. Additionally, ask him which church does not contain sinners? The point here is that sinning does not invalidate your baptism. They are trying to paint the Catholic Church as not the true church of Christ because people sin…it’s also related to the whole Trail of Tears fabrication previously mentioned.

Additionally, baptism does not guarantee you won’t go to hell. Baptism opens the door to heaven, but it does not keep you there.

Lastly, the Montanists were apparently a somewhat odd bunch, whose founder would go into “prophetic ecstasy” and say strange things such as the following:

And he [Montanus] became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning

The Montanist prophets did not speak as messengers of God but were described as possessed by God while being unable to resist.[15] A prophetic utterance by Montanus described this possessed state: “Lo, the man is as a lyre, and I fly over him as a pick. The man sleepeth, while I watch.”

Apparently, the Montanists emphasized the power to prophecy under the Holy Spirit. This is what Protestants claim to do when they interpret the bible on their own and which has led to 30,000 denominations. They didn’t need the Church since they were “led by the Spirit”. Again - does this make Montatists the same as Baptists? No, it does not.

Montanus believed he was a prophet of the final revelations of the Holy Spirit and even renounced the sacrament of marriage in order to purify. Thanks, but no thanks.

Again, you can see the lengths some Protestants will go to in order to promote their cause. All you can do is plant seeds for your dad and let him find his own way, and in the mean time attempt to not take offense to the ridiculous statements you will receive in return.

Perhaps you can point him to the book previously mentioned which was written by a Baptist college professor.
 
steve_b said:
Just a quick comment.* Infants *can’t commit sin, let alone mortal sin. They don’t have that capability…
Click to expand...
Sorry let me clarify. In that sentence infant is an adjective of baptized. Meaning mortal sin is a possibility for those of us baptized as infants. Hope this clears that up.
 
St. Augustine famously showed in his confessions how he sinned as an infant.

-Tim-
 
Shaolen said:
Sorry let me clarify. In that sentence infant is an adjective of baptized. Meaning mortal sin is a possibility for those of us baptized as infants. Hope this clears that up.
Click to expand...
For further clarification, mortal sin is easy to commit, and not limited to only the baptized. Anybody over the age of reason can commit a mortal sin
 
Shaolen said:
My Dad is making some claims regarding Peter, and the early church. Can someone help please.
Click to expand...
Members more knowledgeable than myself have already given you some great answers.

Just wanted to let you know you are not alone. I feel your pain as I am going through the same ordeal with my “once saved always saved” son.

He seems deep rooted to the point that he will not accept anything you can tell him. Just do your best to lovingly give him answers to his questions. After that all you can do is pray that something will stick and his eyes will be open to the truth.

I have actually tried taking a different approach with my son. Although it really isn’t working that well, I think because deep down he knows he doesn’t have a chance of converting me to his new found Fundamentalist beliefs. So he is saving his energies for his next conquest. However, the slow going approach I am trying is to get him to explain his understanding to me. Instead of going against what he says quite often I end up saying "yes I can agree that the verses you mentioned bring that message to the faithful but how does this verse or that verse fit in. Currently I try to use my responses to try and have him think about the Bible verses in the context of the first century or through Jewish eyes. This really seems to help me, because it always leads me to the question WHY? I think if I can get him to start asking WHY? it will help him take off those fundamental glasses and finally see that he is following the traditions of men.

I will keep you and your father in my prayers.

Matthew 19:26
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top