The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[Radical]

Explain and elaborate on this. What do you mean that no church today possesses more than a fraction of the body of Christ? Help me understand your perspective?

this is how I explained it to Joe three pages back:

no one writes scripture any more either…the age of the Apostles has ended. The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14) In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27) God has worked to combine us into that one body so that there should be no division (1 Cor 12:25). Within that body, all should be seen as indispensable (1 Cor 12:21-22) No part of the body should think that it is more important than any other part. (1 Cor 12:21-22 & Romans 12:3). You want to define the CC of today as the body of Christ, but Catholics today constitute about half of Christianity and, in all likelihood include about half of those who have been given the Holy Spirit. As such, if you were to judge things the way God judges things, then, by looking at the heart and at the Spirit you would note that the CC is merely half of the body of Christ.

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially. Further, if you use the possession of the Holy Spirit/membership in the body of Christ as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the CC is only a fraction of the one True Church (and a decreasing fraction at that).

upon reflection, I should have thrown this on the end of the first paragraph:

…and a whole lot of people who aren’t even members of the body of Christ.

You did not answer. Do you see yourself as one of the elect?

yep

 

[Nicea325]

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially. Further, if you use the possession of the Holy Spirit/membership in the body of Christ as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the CC is only a fraction of the one True Church (and a decreasing fraction at that).

You will need to provide a lot more empirical evidence to support your argument. All I read are opinions and nothing of substance to convince me or anyone… otherwise.

 

[CopticChristian]

this is how I explained it to Joe three pages back:

no one writes scripture any more either…the age of the Apostles has ended. The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14) In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27) God has worked to combine us into that one body so that there should be no division (1 Cor 12:25). Within that body, all should be seen as indispensable (1 Cor 12:21-22) No part of the body should think that it is more important than any other part. (1 Cor 12:21-22 & Romans 12:3). You want to define the CC of today as the body of Christ, but Catholics today constitute about half of Christianity and, in all likelihood include about half of those who have been given the Holy Spirit. As such, if you were to judge things the way God judges things, then, by looking at the heart and at the Spirit you would note that the CC is merely half of the body of Christ.

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially. Further, if you use the possession of the Holy Spirit/membership in the body of Christ as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the CC is only a fraction of the one True Church (and a decreasing fraction at that).

upon reflection, I should have thrown this on the end of the first paragraph:

…and a whole lot of people who aren’t even members of the body of Christ.

yep

The yep heard round the world. Well then you would agree that Ignatious would never have heard of the Geneva Bible or the Institutes of Religion.

Do you believe that Ignatius would have adhered to Penal Substitution, Double Predestination and Irresistable grace?

Do you believe that Ignatius would have approved of murdering someone for denying the Trinity?

Your explanation concerning the deposit and Holy Spirit. Do you believe Ignatius adhered to that?

Concerning your notion in Acts. These were all Christians. They were under the same belief with one exception, an attempt to impose the Old Covenant on the Gentile Christian…

6And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they

Paul makes that clear in the letter to the Romans and in Romans 7 points out that the Old Covenant via Circumcision is dead.

You propose that the Church as one Orthodox and Catholic I Believe and in Romans 6 by Baptism all outside in ecclesial communities are baptized and part of the one body and do have the spirit…

However…unlike imposing the Old Covenant in the example…Protestants are imperfecly united and rather than being like the Judaizing Christian trying to impose the Old Covenant resist all the elements of the New Covenant in their Protesting. The New Covenant never included inventions like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Irresistible Grace, Limited atonement, Penal substitution, Double predestination…these are not actions of those in the Covenant like the jews trying to impose something that was old, rather inventing and attempting to impose novelty…some actions are of the spirit and other actions are of man…

Concerning your percentages Catholicism, Orhtodoxy and Islam constitute 1/2 the worlds population. The rest is made up in descending order Jinja Honcho, Anglican, Assemblies of God, Ethiopian Orthodox Evangelische Kirche in Deutshland and on…see this site…so according to your paradigm the Spirit is measured out…

adherents.com/adh_rb.html

Do you believe that The Spirit will lead to all truths? If so how has the Spirit moved those bodies mentioned into all Truths that disagree?

Do you believe that reading what the Patristics say of Scripture is more relevant than someone reading what someone has to say 1600 years later? Do you think there may be a difference in understanding?

 

[Radical]

The yep heard round the world. Well then you would agree that Ignatious would never have heard of the Geneva Bible or the Institutes of Religion.

Do you believe that Ignatius would have adhered to Penal Substitution, Double Predestination and Irresistable grace?

do you realize that I am not from the Reformed tradition?

Do you believe that Ignatius would have approved of murdering someone for denying the Trinity?

I have no idea if he even contemplated the Trinitarian make-up of God. If he approved of murdering any one, then he was wrong, very wrong.

Your explanation concerning the deposit and Holy Spirit. Do you believe Ignatius adhered to that?

don’t know, don’t care…I hardly need Ignatius to ratify Paul’s scriptural explanations.

You propose that the Church as one Orthodox and Catholic I Believe and in Romans 6 by Baptism all outside in ecclesial communities are baptized and part of the one body and do have the spirit…

huh?

 

[jlhargus]

 no one writes scripture any more either…the age of the Apostles has ended. The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14)

JL: What do you mean by the age of the Apostles has ended could you clarify in what way? Yes the CC today (as always) is the body of Christ. Did Paul receive the indwelling Holy Spirit when he FIRST BELIEVED on the way to Damascus or three days latter?

[Eph1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.]

Your posting Eph1:13-14 is a perfect example of trying to rest on ONE SCRIPTURE ALONE, to the EXCLUSION of others.

Resting on this one, cafeteria style selection of scripture, alone. We need not REPENT, be baptized in the name of the Lord TO REMIT AND WASH AWAY OUR SINS, and RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. With your interpretation scripture would be in error not only in Acts2:38, Acts16:22, Jn3:5, along with other scripture. Again with your interpretation and cafeteria style of selection we need not love our neighbor, feed the hungry clothe the naked, or take up our cross daily etc… All we need is FAITH ALONE, which is dead faith and contradicts, [Jms2:26 **For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.] Acts2 gives the definitive example of how people, from Pentecost to the end, are set on the road of salvation.

[Acts2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then **Peter said unto them, REPENT, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST. 39 For THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU AND TO YOUR CHILDREN, AND to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: AND the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.]

First the adult hears the Word, that word pricks their heart and they believe. When they asked, What must we do? Peter said, REPENT, BE BAPTIZED FOR remission of sins, RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Spirit. When they accepted gladly receiving the Word. They were baptized, saved and ADDED to the body of Christ the Church…

 

[jlhargus]

In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27)

JL: How can one hear a conglomeration of contentious contradicting groups? That’s not the household of God, that’s a tower of babel. How could that be called a pillar and ground of TRUTH? All who have the indwelling Holy Spirit are SPIRITUALLY in union with the body of Christ the Church. Yet in the visible FELLOWSHIP and DOCTRINE they are separated from the VISIBLE body of Christ the Apostles Fellowship. In apostolic doctrine, in breaking of bread=mass (worship) and prayers.

[Acts2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, **Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: AND the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED stedfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and IN BREAKING OF BREAD, and IN PRAYERS.] Thru baptism not only their sins were remitted, but they receiced the HS, being born again. They also were ADDED to the ONE VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP the body of Christ. Saved from a from a generation

1Cor1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Paul even checked his teaching with that one fellowship. [Gal2:1 Then fourteen years after I WENT UP AGAIN TO JERUSALEM with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]

 

[Mickey]

do you realize that I am not from the Reformed tradition?

Really?

 

[Radical]

Really?

really…it would seem that Nancy Drew just hasn’t solved this mystery

 

[Mickey]

really…it would seem that Nancy Drew just hasn’t solved this mystery

I am glad you are amused…but I don’t think it is of any concern at this point.

 

[jlhargus]

God has worked to combine us into that one body so that there should be no division (1 Cor 12:25).  Within that body,

JL: Yes God has worked to form ONE VISIBLE BODY, ONE BRIDE, so there should be no division. He didn’t form a harem of thousands of contentious contradicting brides. That ONE VISIBLE BODY includes all the saved in every age both those passed on and those on earth. We call it the Communion of Saints. Even those who are separated thru no fault of there own are spiritually united to that ONE BODY OF CHRIST. Although not in VISIBLE FELLOWSHIP or DOCTRINAL UNITY.

1Cor12:25 that there should be NO DIVISION. So teaching contradicting doctrine isn’t a division? So preaching contradicting Gospels doesn’t matter. A body that works against itself is not a healthy body. It’s amazing those who even believe everyone can believe whatever they want and TRUTH doesn’t matter. They still can’t come together as one body.

You want to define the CC of today as the body of Christ, but Catholics today constitute about half of Christianity and, in all likelihood include about half of those who have been given the Holy Spirit. As such, if you were to judge things the way God judges things, then, by looking at the heart and at the Spirit you would note that the CC is merely half of the body of Christ.

JL: It isn’t a matter of WANTING to define the CC as the body of Christ. It’s simply a scriptural and historic fact. The following links are posts of mine giving my scriptural evidence for the CC. Maybe you will provide scriptural evidence for your invisible phantom conglomeration church of contradicting doctrine. You know the one you can’t see or find any historic or scriptural evidence for. The one which you can’t name any leaders.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447593&postcount=987 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447600&postcount=988 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447604&postcount=989 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447619&postcount=990

 

[jlhargus]

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially.

JL: Nonsense, the only doctrine that has changed substantially and is also contradicting would be yours. Doctrine has not changed. The understanding has developed. Tell me has your understanding of your doctrine developed over the years from the time you were a child or first became Christian? Mine sure has. My understanding of doctrine I hope will continue and never stop developing. If it does stop then I’ve stopped growing spiritually.

Further, if you use the possession of the Holy Spirit/membership in the body of Christ as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the CC is only a fraction of the one True Church (and a decreasing fraction at that).

JL: It is the same VISIBLE Apostolic Fellowship, gathered around it’s bishops, in the apostles’ doctrine, breaking of bread and prayers, Show me YOUR so called True Church in scripture and history. Name leaders from Christ to now. What bible did they use and who translated it? How did they discern which books were inspired? The following is what scripture tells us about those who are not in VISIBLE Apostolic FELLOWSHIP and DOCTRINAL union with the the body of Christ. Those saparated from the visible fellowship are like souls without bodies. They are not complete without the body.

[Mk 9:38 And JOHN answered him, SAYING, MASTER, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and HE FOLLOWETH NOT **US: and WE FORBAD HIM, because HE FOLLOWETH NOT US. 39 But JESUS SAID, FORBID HIM NOT: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against US is on OUR PART.]

 

[jlhargus]

tell you what, I have disclosed my affiliation a number of times on these threads…

JL: Show me? You make alot of stantements without evidence. As I have said a statement without EVIDENCE is evidence the statement is false.

 

[Newsy]

To return to the OP’s question, I would offer an idea to narrow the field. As Ignatius has been quoted several times on this thread, “See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop”. It seems that Ignatius’ church had Bishops. We can see the it had “presbytery” either translated elders or priests. The church of his time also had deacons. The modern day Catholic Church, which claims to be the same as in Ignatius day, also has these offices.

By the time Ignatius held the office of Bishop, the Church had been in existence for at least 40 years, probably more. We know that deacons, presbyters and Bishops are mentioned in the Bible. So we have continuity between the Bible and Ignatius.

Could we accept that for any church to claim to be Ignatius’ church, it would need to have all of these offices?

 

[Radical]

Could we accept that for any church to claim to be Ignatius’ church, it would need to have all of these offices?

Why would one accept that conclusion? Perhaps b/c Ignatius stressed the importance of those offices and therefore, if something of that importance is lacking (changed), then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church is involved? Working backwards then, the modern CC stresses the importance of Mary in (pretty well) any and every thing. If something of that importance is lacking in the 1st century church, then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church (from one that stresses Mary’s importance) is involved…that sort of test would work for me.

Also, I hope you aren’t thinking that Ignatius spoke for the entire Church of his day. The monarchial bishop that he favored didn’t exist in Corinth or Rome at the time. Further, his comments may not even reflect the views of a good chunk of his own local church. Some scholars suspect that his emphais on obedience to the bishop was exactly b/c his own authority had been challenged by members of his congregation. That emphasis then, would have been an effort to justify an authority that he wanted to claim for himself over those who opposed him…that is speculative, but not entirely impossible

 

[Newsy]

Why would one accept that conclusion? Perhaps b/c Ignatius stressed the importance of those offices and therefore, if something of that importance is lacking (changed), then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church is involved? Working backwards then, the modern CC stresses the importance of Mary in (pretty well) any and every thing. If something of that importance is lacking in the 1st century church, then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church (from one that stresses Mary’s importance) is involved…that sort of test would work for me.

Also, I hope you aren’t thinking that Ignatius spoke for the entire Church of his day. The monarchial bishop that he favored didn’t exist in Corinth or Rome at the time. Further, his comments may not even reflect the views of a good chunk of his own local church. Some scholars suspect that his emphais on obedience to the bishop was exactly b/c his own authority had been challenged by members of his congregation. That emphasis then, would have been an effort to justify an authority that he wanted to claim for himself over those who opposed him…that is speculative, but not entirely impossible

So… As long as we can agree to twist any information in your favor, then you’re cool with it? Man, you’re so open minded.

Seriously, this thread was in regards to Ignatius. Now, you have talked yourself into a corner and you say he really doesn’t matter. I must say, I was much more impressed earlier in this thread.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Why would one accept that conclusion? Perhaps b/c Ignatius stressed the importance of those offices and therefore, if something of that importance is lacking (changed), then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church is involved? Working backwards then, the modern CC stresses the importance of Mary in (pretty well) any and every thing. If something of that importance is lacking in the 1st century church, then the difference is significant enough to mean that a different Church (from one that stresses Mary’s importance) is involved…that sort of test would work for me.

Also, I hope you aren’t thinking that Ignatius spoke for the entire Church of his day. The monarchial bishop that he favored didn’t exist in Corinth or Rome at the time. Further, his comments may not even reflect the views of a good chunk of his own local church. Some scholars suspect that his emphais on obedience to the bishop was exactly b/c his own authority had been challenged by members of his congregation. That emphasis then, would have been an effort to justify an authority that he wanted to claim for himself over those who opposed him…that is speculative, but not entirely impossible

You make no sense. You just keep talking yourself away from reason as you go.

 

[Radical]

So… As long as we can agree to twist any information in your favor, then you’re cool with it? …

it is not about information at this stage…it is about establishing a methodolgy to determine “sameness” of churches. All along I have been proposing that a significant difference (in doctrine) would serve to eliminate that “sameness”. You seem to be in agreement wrt the test of “significant difference”…You can believe that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC, because you don’t see a significant difference in doctrine (wrt Mary in particular). On the other hand, with the use of that test, you can’t expect me to think that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC because (you know) I do see a significant difference in doctrine.

Seriously, this thread was in regards to Ignatius. Now, you have talked yourself into a corner and you say he really doesn’t matter.

the important question is not whether I belong to Ignatius’s “catholic” Church, but whether I belong to Christ’s church.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

You make no sense. You just keep talking yourself away from reason as you go.

No? He just sounds like a Catholic that lost his way. Really. I really don’t know if he used to be Catholic, but the way he carries on sounds a lot like Catholics that lost their way or faith in the Catholic Church/hierarchy, or something.

 

[Newsy]

it is not about information at this stage…
…You can believe that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC, because you don’t see a significant difference in doctrine (wrt Mary in particular). On the other hand, with the use of that test, you can’t expect me to think that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC because (you know) I do see a significant difference in doctrine.

Let’s see what Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, has to say about Mary. “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” And let’s not forget, “A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ”. So, we see that the Church and the original Reformer thought the same then as today.

Let’s look at a few facts. The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos (God-bearer) arose in Alexandria, It became common in the fourth century, was opposed by Nestorius, and accepted at the Council of Ephesus in 431. And the Assumption of Mary came about in the sixth century. As has been pointed out many times before, some doctrines take time to fully understand. Just b/c it isn’t fully understood, doesn’t make something untrue.

The Orthodox Church accepts that Mary was the Theotokos. They refer to her as queen. And say that she was “translated into Heaven”, sounds like the Assumption to me. They seem to be on the same page as the Catholic Church, but there are differences. Truthfully, I don’t see much difference between them, but I’m just a layman.

I find no mention of specific doctrines in your posts, if you have specifics please enlighten us.

Now, the earliest canon of books came from the Council of Rome, 382. Catholics and Protestants alike, accept the NT as determined by the Church. They share the thought that the Canon was set through the leading of the Holy Spirit. So, the Spirit led the Church until the Canon was set and then left so they could lead people astray? Did the original Church fall away before the Canon was set? By 431, they were teaching the doctrine of the Theotokos. When did they fall into error? Did God allow the Church to fall into heresy? There were historically two Churches before the Protestant Reformation, both are part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. If the original Church isn’t the Catholic Church of today, please tell me where it went. Please don’t insult us by using the “Mr. Development, Mrs. Innovation and Father Time” fantasy.

Or, we could just reject any ideas based in history. We could put our “historical blinders” on. We could prove to the world that our beliefs are rooted in protest, not facts.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
it is not about information at this stage…
…You can believe that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC, because you don’t see a significant difference in doctrine (wrt Mary in particular). On the other hand, with the use of that test, you can’t expect me to think that the 1st century church is the same as the modern CC because (you know) I do see a significant difference in doctrine.

Dead end argument. Care to show us the overwhelming sources from the 1st century from the Apostles and post-Apostolic Fathers discussing a fixed canon?