The Bible is Catholic -

[mercygate]

It is my fervent prayer that all of my Roman brethren might be similarly illuminated by the Light of the East.

Mine too. (Latin Church here with Maronite leanings!)

 

[po18guy]

Thank you for that. I had understood from others on this forum that the SDA church held some tenets at odds with Christianity. It is good to know that they have a valid baptism.

They believe in “soul sleep” at death, “soul annihilation” for the wicked at judgment, and a temporary hell. Their founder, one Ellen Gould White, taught extreme anti-Catholicism. History records that she suffered a serious head trauma when young and later claimed to receive visions. Her writings and teachings are based upon those “revelations”. Their official teachings are that the pope is the antichrist and that our church is the “whore of Babylon”. But, which pope? There is only one antichrist mentioned in scripture, and 266 popes. Private interpretation rears its seven ugly heads once again!

It is best to slowly peel away the layers of distrust they have by simply revealing your love of Christ to them. Once they realize that your love of Christ comes from your faith, they may seem shocked. I know I experienced exactly that when sharing my faith with an SDA pastor. The anti-Catholicism has been soft-pedaled in recent years, but remains nevertheless.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

The title of this thread claims that “The Bible is Catholic”, to which the proper response might be: No, the Bible is the Word of God and the Author is God Himself. Many seem to overlook that fact.

But, God in Christ chose the early church to produce the bible in the first place. The church was called “catholic” (universal) in 107. The bible was completed and canonized by 380. The early universal or catholic church loved Christ so much that its members wrote, collected, preserved, tested and assembled the bible into the canon as we know it. To claim otherwise appears…well…

Christ’s peace.

 

[teancum79]

But, God in Christ chose the early church to produce the bible in the first place. The church was called “catholic” (universal) in 107. The bible was completed and canonized by 380. The early universal or catholic church loved Christ so much that its members wrote, collected, preserved, tested and assembled the bible into the canon as we know it. To claim otherwise appears…well…

Christ’s peace.

Does anyone really believe that nothing got messed up either on accident or on purpose?

Granted the Catholic church did get a lot of stuff together, but I’d still give the credit for the Bible to the prophets and apostles.

 

[JRKH]

Does anyone really believe that nothing got messed up either on accident or on purpose?

Granted the Catholic church did get a lot of stuff together, but I’d still give the credit for the Bible to the prophets and apostles.

So how do you know they got the right stuff together?

Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would allow anything as important as Christ’s own Apostolic Church to get, “messed up either on accident or on purpose?”
Do you think the HS would be with the Church for one thing and not with the Church for another? If you think the HS is not consistant in protecting Christ’s Church, then you cannot, in good conscience accept anything from her.

If you believe in Christ, and you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God as set down by the inspired writers, how is it that you don’t believe the Church which He instituted through the Apostles and their successors and carries an unbroken line back to apostolic times?

I believe the Ball is in your court to demonstrate your assertions.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

So how do you know they got the right stuff together?

Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would allow anything as important as Christ’s own Apostolic Church to get, “messed up either on accident or on purpose?”
Do you think the HS would be with the Church for one thing and not with the Church for another? If you think the HS is not consistant in protecting Christ’s Church, then you cannot, in good conscience accept anything from her.

If you believe in Christ, and you believe that the Bible contains the Word of God as set down by the inspired writers, how is it that you don’t believe the Church which He instituted through the Apostles and their successors and carries an unbroken line back to apostolic times?

I believe the Ball is in your court to demonstrate your assertions.

Peace
James

I’m going to be blunt sorry if that offends

I don’t believe that the line has been unbroken. I know that such is the claim of the church, but I don’t buy it. While I admire a lot of good things done by the Catholic church and believe that most of its leader have been and are good people trying to do good things I don’t believe that it was set up by Christ. That church ceased to be an organized body after the death of the apostles. The lack of a uniform recognized leadership resulted in confusion. The catholic church must be given credit for bringing order to that confusion and for preserving much of what we now call the Bible,but the Bible persuades me that the Catholic church is not the church Christ established despite the attempt to be close to it.

 

[brkn1]

But, God in Christ chose the early church to produce the bible in the first place. The church was called “catholic” (universal) in 107. The bible was completed and canonized by 380. The early universal or catholic church loved Christ so much that its members wrote, collected, preserved, tested and assembled the bible into the canon as we know it. To claim otherwise appears…well…

Christ’s peace.

The whole premise of the title of this thread is put forth by your statement here. I should like to disprove some of the claims you have just stated.

The Old Testament Bible already existed before the Church even came into existence, so that part of the R. Catholic claim to be the producer of the Bible is false.
The book of Acts even demonstrates how all that was necessary for the Holy Spirit to bring a soul into the Body of Christ, was the simple gospel of Jesus combined with just a bit of the truth of OT Scripture. The Holy Spirit used the Ethiopian eunuch’s reading of (Isaiah 53), along with Philip’s simple explanation of how Jesus Christ was the Lamb brought to sacrifice for our sins, to bring the eunuch to becoming one of the Beloved in Christ. There was no need for the eunuch to read the New Testament at that point. He was saved and part of the Church. He may have never read any more of the New Testament for all we know. It was sufficient for him and the Holy Spirit would make the eunuch’s further search into any further Scripture sufficient. Jesus studied the Old Testament Scripture and used it perfectly to preach the gospel.

The Holy Spirit was the Writer and Producer of the Word of God. It is presumptuous to claim that as anyone else’s role. The use of church members responding to the Spirit’s call to do the actual physical writing, collecting, “testing”, and protecting of God’s Word does not give anyone or any church the right to then claim authorship or even the production of what is God’s work. God did not need us to do His work, even if He chose to have His servants do it that way. The Roman Catholic claim seems to be the same as a plagiarist secretary or scribe that would sign his own name to what the Author wrote. God is the Author and Producer and Protector of His own Word. God does not want anyone adding to His Word either. He said so. Amen.

 

[mercygate]

I’m going to be blunt sorry if that offends

I don’t believe that the line has been unbroken. I know that such is the claim of the church, but I don’t buy it.

We’re not offended; we hear it all the time.

While I admire a lot of good things done by the Catholic church and believe that most of its leader have been and are good people trying to do good things I don’t believe that it was set up by Christ. That church ceased to be an organized body after the death of the apostles. The lack of a uniform recognized leadership resulted in confusion.

Where does this idea come from? There are written documents dating from the early second century indicating that the sub-Apostolic Churches was very much aware of itself as a single, “organization”, united in the teaching they had received from the Apostles. The writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and such things as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas testify to this unity.

The catholic church must be given credit for bringing order to that confusion and for preserving much of what we now call the Bible,but the Bible persuades me that the Catholic church is not the church Christ established despite the attempt to be close to it.

Catholics would say, of course, that the historical evidence shows that there was no confusion such as you describe, and that the Bible – most particularly the New Testament – can be understood only from the matrix in which it was formed – the Catholic Church.

 

[teancum79]

We’re not offended; we hear it all the time. Where does this idea come from? There are written documents dating from the early second century indicating that the sub-Apostolic Churches was very much aware of itself as a single, “organization”, united in the teaching they had received from the Apostles. The writings of Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and such things as the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas testify to this unity.
Catholics would say, of course, that the historical evidence shows that there was no confusion such as you describe, and that the Bible – most particularly the New Testament – can be understood only from the matrix in which it was formed – the Catholic Church.

Paul’s letters alone tell us that incorrect ideas tended to get into peoples heads rather quickly after he or others had bee around to teach. Even if a group was united they may have not been right. As far as the matrix while the grab this version of St.John and that one of 1 Peter was the doing of Catholics the writing of those books was not.

 

[mercygate]

Paul’s letters alone tell us that incorrect ideas tended to get into peoples heads rather quickly after he or others had bee around to teach. Even if a group was united they may have not been right. As far as the matrix while the grab this version of St.John and that one of 1 Peter was the doing of Catholics the writing of those books was not.

No need to thrash this way. You will hurt yourself.

The historical record is undeniable. Everything else is hysteria.

 

[JRKH]

I’m going to be blunt sorry if that offends

I don’t believe that the line has been unbroken. I know that such is the claim of the church, but I don’t buy it. While I admire a lot of good things done by the Catholic church and believe that most of its leader have been and are good people trying to do good things I don’t believe that it was set up by Christ.
That church ceased to be an organized body after the death of the apostles. The lack of a uniform recognized leadership resulted in confusion. The catholic church must be given credit for bringing order to that confusion and for preserving much of what we now call the Bible,but the Bible persuades me that the Catholic church is not the church Christ established despite the attempt to be close to it.

You most certainly have not offended me, although you may have offended the Holy spirit.

You whole premise the the Chuch became unorganized after the death of the apostles is simply ludicrus. It is simply a thinly veiled attempt on the part of some to seperate the Church from Christ. It cannot be done in any intellectually honest fashion.
Whether you accept the Primacy of the Pope or not, it is demonstrable the the earliest Church leaders, the Bishops anointed by the Apostles themsleves remained in contact with each other and built the Church.

St Ignatius of Antioch, a diciple of St John the Apostle, on His way to martyrdom in Rome in the year 107 AD said it best.

8:1 But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.

8:2 Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.
(The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans)

Here we have a direct line from Jesus to John to Ingnatious declaring the authority of the Bishop and refering to the Church as Catholic.

This is not “my belief”, such as you are posting, this is Historical Fact.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

You most certainly have not offended me, although you may have offended the Holy spirit.

You whole premise the the Chuch became unorganized after the death of the apostles is simply ludicrus. It is simply a thinly veiled attempt on the part of some to seperate the Church from Christ. It cannot be done in any intellectually honest fashion.
Whether you accept the Primacy of the Pope or not, it is demonstrable the the earliest Church leaders, the Bishops anointed by the Apostles themsleves remained in contact with each other and built the Church.

St Ignatius of Antioch, a diciple of St John the Apostle, on His way to martyrdom in Rome in the year 107 AD said it best.

Here we have a direct line from Jesus to John to Ingnatious declaring the authority of the Bishop and refering to the Church as Catholic.

This is not “my belief”, such as you are posting, this is Historical Fact.

Peace
James

“Facts” preserved by those who benefit from them tend to be suspect. I have no doubt that the early church leaders tried to keep things going, but without new apostles and prophets to lead the church (and without them also the authority) the church could not survive as was established in the first place. If (really big if) the original church survived it would have kept the same doctrines as was in the NT. Such has clearly not happened.

 

[JRKH]

The whole premise of the title of this thread is put forth by your statement here. I should like to disprove some of the claims you have just stated.

The Old Testament Bible already existed before the Church even came into existence, so that part of the R. Catholic claim to be the producer of the Bible is false.

 

[Stephen168]

“Facts” preserved by those who benefit from them tend to be suspect.

I agree.

"I have no doubt that the early church leaders tried to keep things going, but without new apostles and prophets to lead the church (and without them also the authority) the church could not survive as was established in the first place.

Your assumption on the requirement for Apostles is incorrect. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3551025&postcount=67

"If (really big if) the original church survived it would have kept the same doctrines as was in the NT. Such has clearly not happened.

The original Church still survives. Pick a doctrine and start a thread like "eternal marriage’ and show us in the New Testament how it is still the same.

 

[JRKH]

“Facts” preserved by those who benefit from them tend to be suspect. I have no doubt that the early church leaders tried to keep things going, but without new apostles and prophets to lead the church (and without them also the authority) the church could not survive as was established in the first place. If (really big if) the original church survived it would have kept the same doctrines as was in the NT. Such has clearly not happened.

At present several people have offered you clear evidence of the authenticity of the Church which you reject based only on your personal beliefs.
It is certainly easier to remain in the dark about actual Church history and the truth about the development of today’s Bible rather than doing some serious research or entering into an honest debate of facts, but it really benefits no one.
Therefore I can only assume that you have no actual historical alternative to offer.

Facts remain Facts regardless of your personal opinions.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

My “assumption” about the need for apostles is very correct. Or did Luke just make up the meeting to select a new apostle?

Perhaps you know of a place in the Bible where it says God will not call more prophets or apostles? People keep telling me it’s there, but time after time I can’t find it.

As far as actual church history I’m far from a history degree toting expert, but I understand the basics at least as far as the secular schoolers understand them. I’ve also listened to many religious views both catholic and non.

It’s not that I’m ignorant of your view on history its just that I don’t think God would have major doctrines changed by people who are not prophets or apostles. I study the Bible and I find many doctrines taught clearly and many patterns in God’s dealings with his children. So its really hard for me to accept that God had a massive change in nature personality and operating procedure round about 100 AD.

 

[JRKH]

My “assumption” about the need for apostles is very correct. Or did Luke just make up the meeting to select a new apostle?

So Christ, knowing that He wouldn’t be returning for a couple of millenium or more, appoints only 12 apostles whom will all be dead by the end of the first century and makes no further provision. RRRiiggghhhtttt.
The Facts are different. Jesus established His Church on the Apostles. He gave them Authority to Act in His name on Earth. The Apostles proceeded to do just that. They moved around, preached the Good News and established communities in many cities. They then appointed Bishops, or authorized the appointment of Bishops for these communities utilizing the very authority given to them by Christ Himself.
These Bishops then, acting in their capacity as successors to the origional twelve and receiving their legitimate authority through the origonal apostles from Jesus Christ appointed, or caused to be appointed, further Bishops etc. This, in a nutshell is apostolic succession and it is based on the Authority of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.

Perhaps you know of a place in the Bible where it says God will not call more prophets or apostles? People keep telling me it’s there, but time after time I can’t find it.

See explaination above.

As far as actual church history I’m far from a history degree toting expert, but I understand the basics at least as far as the secular schoolers understand them. I’ve also listened to many religious views both catholic and non.

It’s not that I’m ignorant of your view on history its just that **I don’t think **God would have major doctrines changed by people who are not prophets or apostles. I study the Bible and I find many doctrines taught clearly and many patterns in God’s dealings with his children. So its really hard for me to accept that God had a massive change in nature personality and operating procedure round about 100 AD.

The highlighted section seems to sum up the problem.
Jesus fulfilled the OT. The Holy Spirit came into the world at Pentacost. For 300 years the Church Grew under the most severe persecusion by the Romans. The Church, built on the authority of Christ, has been supplying the apostles for 2 millenium. So your “prophets or apostles” comment is moot.

Finally, I suggest that this line is off the topic of the origion and authority of the Bible. If you wish to continue this line I would suggest starting a new thread.

Peace
James

 

[teancum79]

Thats fine. I don’t know that I’ll bother. As it probably won’t get past my belief in the Bible being right and yours that I don’t think.

 

[po18guy]

Does anyone really believe that nothing got messed up either on accident or on purpose?

Granted the Catholic church did get a lot of stuff together, but I’d still give the credit for the Bible to the prophets and apostles.

Like scripture itself, the histories of the prophets and Apostles flow from creation to Christ, to today. Of course, their words were inspired from above and heard by human ears. Once written, their words needed proper interpretation or the meaning became twisted and lost. Evidence of this is abundant within Christianity, as some now have a wide variety of the strangest beliefs, all based on the exact same scripture! The church, of which there clearly should be only one, has held fast to the Apostolic teachings. The church was founded upon the Apostles, and must always remain Apostolic to endure. Once the Apostolic aspect is departed from, unity in Christ is gone. It is precisely this which is lamented in Heaven and celebrated in hell.

Christ’s peace.

 

[JRKH]

Thats fine. I don’t know that I’ll bother. As it probably won’t get past my belief in the Bible being right and yours that I don’t think.

My apology for the “Think” issue. Actually that was not my intention to accuse you of not thinking. I see I should have been more careful. Mea Culpa.

What was actually trying to convey is that you have posted a great deal of what and how you/] think things should be read or interpreted, but precious little actual evidence, and unless you have actual evidence there is no point in continuing this particular line.

Peace
James