First, why the large font? Do you think the larger the font the more valid your words?
Quit :crying: :crying: :crying: The font is clean and easy to read.
The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for us in the New Testament.
In your opinion…but you will ignore the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp who were friends and disciples of John the evangelist and who gave their lives for their faith, as well as the rest of Christian historical writings that give deep insight into what the early church believed. To try to read the New Testament while ignoring their writings is to leave yourself open to your own (or other modern) errant interpretations instead of insuring that you actually understand the Word of God in the context that the early church did.
Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and indeed it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that these apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.
No contest there, but the fact is that unless you are crazy enough to allege that the early church departed from the faith from the 1st century after Christ promised to protect and guide it then that would have made Our Lord a liar. I can’t buy that…
Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church’s roots back to the “first church” is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church.
No, but it certainly helps to trace the line of correct beliefs and teachings all the way back to the New Testament, and assure a correct understanding of the NT.
What is given is repeated comparisons between what a false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether a church is the “true church” or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.
Based upon this fallacious logic, the Arian heresy would never have been answered, as well as the host of other such heresies over the life of the church so far.
Moreover… I have done this very comparison and that is one of the overarching reasons that I am Catholic today.
How do we determine whether a church is teaching correct doctrine or not? The only infallible standard that Scripture says that we have is the Bible (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 2:25; Galatians 1:6-9).
Applying a test from an errant theology to begin with, (since the Bible does not claim to be some kind of final authority) will only get you an errant conclusion. As it has done right there.
Tradition is a part of every church, and that tradition must be compared to God’s Word, lest it go against what is true (Mark 7:1-13).
Your implication here is that Sacred Tradition somewhere contradicts the Word of God, which is not true at all, though you might wish…
While it is true that the cults and sometimes orthodox churches twist the interpretation of Scripture to support their practices; nonetheless, Scripture, when taken in context and faithfully studied, is able to guide one to the truth.
Exactly correct…right straight to the Catholic Church. Notice here what St. Paul told Timothy.
2nd Timothy 2:15: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.Paul nowhere says that he should study only the Bible…
The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul.
The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.”So you reject other New Testament writings as fully inspired? And on what errant authority do you do so? My New Testament says, “16: All scripture is inspired by God…” (2nd Timothy 3)
Your post is a good example of one of the reasons that I am Catholic and why I will never return to any n-C religion…I refuse to do those mental and theological gymnastics to buy into beliefs that I have found to be unscriptural.
Pax domini sit semper vobiscum.
uch: :doh2: 
.