Dear Patrick
I am very happy to be at last communicating with you again, especially after your comforting and open reply to my last posting.
Please accept my answers in the same Christian spirit as your letter – I do NOT claim to be all knowing etc, but am giving you thoughts that have grown through my personal study. IF AT ANY TIME A MAKE A WRONG STATEMENT ABOUT HISTORY/YOUR CHURCH, PLEASE RECTIFY IT, SINCE OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN AN OUTSIDER!
a. It is a rhetorical question – if ANY Christian does NOT believe that the Bible is the only rule of faith, then the Bible is merely another Christian book, and Bible study is a waste of time. Yes, the Bible DOES claim to be the only rule of faith, and I have already discussed that with you – 2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed…’’; Isaiah 8:20: To the law and to the testimony! IF THEY DO NOT SPEAK ACCORDING TO THIS WORD, THEY HAVE NO LIGHT OF DAWN.’’
a. I have already touched on this with you – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the JEWISH LEADERS (by 500 BC) canonized’ the OT, and under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit the EARLY CHRISTIANS (some also Jewish Christians) by 200 AD canonized’ the NT. This was formalized in 382? at the Council of Rome.
a. Another rhetorical question. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR ANYBODY ELSE. Only by prayer and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide our thoughts, AND BY FOLLOWING BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS (I AM SURE YOUR THEOLOGIANS HAVE THEM TOO – THEY ARE BRILLIANT!), CAN WE TRY TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE.
a. See (2) above, same question.
a. similar to (2) above. If they are not inspired, why bother to study them? Also NOT ONE BOOK IN THE NT CONTRADICTS THE REST OF SCRIPTURE!
a. answered before. THE BIBLE IS A LIMITED COMPILATION OF INSPIRED BOOKS UNDER THE HOLY SPIRIT’S GUIDANCE – many other prophets had inspired messages from God, but the HOLY SPIRIT saw it fit not to include them in God’s Word, the Bible.
However, where any other religious books like the apocrypha CONTRADICT THE UNITY OF SCRIPTURE, THE EARLY COMPILERS UNDER GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SAW IT FIT NOT TO USE THEM AS PART OF THE CANON. You know that Jesus quoted extensively from the LXX, but I am not aware of any quotes in the NT by Jesus or any of His disciples from any apocryphal writings
`the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church’’…. False assumption! Are you aware that the early Christian Church had a few subdivisions, like the Western Church, The Eastern Church, the Syriac-speaking Church. I am sure all of them could claim to be the original church, with the keys etc.
The Bible consists of Old Testament = 39 books. They were canonized more than 600 years before the Catholic Church existed (with all due respect); Jesus’ `It is written’ quotes were from the Greek LXX, but never from any apocryphal writings.
The New Testament consists of 27 books which were canonized by the early Christians around 200 AD.
• See writings by Eusebius (Commentaria in Matthaeum, Tomus, XVII.30) on Origen’s description of the canon. He himself in book iii.25, Loeb ed., vol I, pp. 257, 259) gives us a clear canon with Recognized Books’ (27 in current NT), Disputed Books’, and `altogether wicked and impious books’.
• See the declaration of Athanasius of Alexandria, in his 39th Festal Letter (AD 367) that the canon consisted of 27 books.
The formation of the NT canon was thus not done by any church or specific council, but rather by general consent as the early church leaders sifted’ the wheat from the chaff under guidance of the Holy Spirit. This was later formalized at the council of Rome towards the end of the 4th century AD under pope Damasus So yes, the Catholic Church had maybe 10% part to play in 382 AD when the established canon was formalized’ by a council in Rome.
THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES THEM TO CLAIM TO HAVE GIVEN US THE BIBLE…
.
We all know of the conversion’ of Constantine in the 4th century AD, and that many compromises were made by the early church after this time. – here is a list of unbiblical doctrines that were added to those of the early Christians from this time on till the present – – Unbiblical doctrine, Date Sunday, 321-364 AD Council of Laodicea Relic Worship, 337 AD Rosary, 366 AD Mass, 394 AD This Rock=Peter’, 445 AD Pope Leo I
Eternal Torment, 590 AD
Indulgences, 799 AD
Mary Worship, 850 AD
Bible Forbidden, 1299 AD
Infant Baptism, 1311 AD
Tradition above Scripture, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Transubstantiation, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Purgatory, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Justification by Faith & Works, 1563 (reaffirmed)
Preterism/Futurism, 1584
Immaculate Conception, 1854
Papal Infallibility, 1870
Pope sovereign ruler, 1929
Assumption of Mary, 1951
When the Roman empire collapsed in 476 AD, the bishop of Rome started taking over more political power, and in 533 AD emperor Justinian decreed that the Bishop of Rome was the spiritual leader of the world. They then became a religio/political power that eliminated other factions of the church that did not agree with them, through the use of armies, till the final fall of the Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths by 538 AD. Since that time the Catholic Church has been the undisputed powerhouse of Europe, until Napoleon’s general Berthiere temporarily halted this trend in 1798. We all know that Mussolini re-instated the Pope in the Vatican after WW1. Today he is the most influential person on earth.
This seems 100% the opposite of the way Peter and Jesus went about establishing Jesus’ Kingdom on earth – the only force ever used was when Peter used a sword to chop off Malchus’ ear – Jesus reprimanded Peter, and healed the wound in Gethsemane the evening before His death.
In the light of the above, can THE CURRENT CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIM TO BE THE SAME EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT CHRIST ESTABLISHED, AND THEREBY HAVE THE SOLE RIGHT TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE?
a. Already discussed – the problem is inconsistency in applying basic principles of hermeneutics, or lack of such principles. Even if we were to discuss Shakespeare’s works, there would have to be some logical principles of interpretation to stick to, otherwise we would be talking in the wind…
b. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (so far) have not had the political clout to FORCE everybody to agree, or risk being branded a heretic, and burnt at the stake, as happened for hundreds of years in Europe
c. The same question can be asked of the Catholic Church – see the list of added doctrines over a period of 1400 years – did the first bishops of Rome not know about doctrines like Preterism/Futurism, the Immaculate Conception (1854), Papal Infallibility (1870), Pope sovereign ruler (1929), the Assumption of Mary (1951) in 300 AD?
I KNOW MANY OF THESE DOCTRINES ARE VERY DEAR TO YOU, AND IN NO WAY INTEND TO HURT YOU BY MENTIONING THEM. I AM SIMPLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS, AS SEEN FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE.
Hopefully you now understand the differences between us better. ONE DAY WE MAY JUST GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE MANY SIMILARITIES OUR FAITHS HAVE!
I eagerly await your introduction to Genesis 1&2!
God bless, and have a wonderful day,
Your brother in Christ,
Friedrich
