Apostolic councils?

[Illuminator]

C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.​

(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970, 44-47)

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

And books such as Barnabas and 1 and 2 Clement were considered Scripture by many at the same time (for example, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus). Of the 27 New Testament books, 14 were not mentioned at all until around 200 A.D., including Acts, 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians.

On what grounds, then, can we receive the Canon today except on the authority of the Church in the 5th century? These facts cause insuperable problems for Protestantism and its guiding principle of “Scripture Alone,” but are not a difficulty in the least for Catholics, who believe in Tradition, Church Authority, and development – all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical Canon.

It is plain silly (not to mention insufferably arrogant) to assert, as did Luther and especially Calvin, that the knowledge of what books constitute Scripture is attained simply by an intuitive and subjective inkling within each Spirit-filled person. If the early Church had such a difficult time determining what was and was not Scripture, how could Calvin 15 centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian?!

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph. 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed which grows into a tree (Mt. 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Protestants tend to see Church and Doctrine as more like a statue, subject to pigeon droppings (i.e., so-called Catholic “corruptions”!). This robs the metaphors of Christ of their essential meaning. It is impossible to claim that no development occurred in Church history, or that it ceased after the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 5th century, etc. (all arbitrary human traditions). The Bible is not absolutely clear in every part, and requires the developing wisdom of the Church.

Doctrines agreed upon by all develop, too. The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?

Although understanding increases, the essential elements of doctrines exist from the beginning. Today’s Church shouldn’t be expected to look like the primitive Church if it is a living, vibrant, spiritual organism. But even the early Church looks like a small “Catholic tree.” It doesn’t look like a Protestant “statue,” doomed to be increasingly corrupted by an encroaching, “diabolical” Catholicism, as is imagined by millions of Protestants unacquainted with the early Church and the oldest source materials after the New Testament, such as the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (d.c. 110) and St. Clement of Rome (d.c.101).

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890), the great English convert to Catholicism, who is widely regarded as one of the most profound religious thinkers of his time, wrote in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), the one indispensable work on this subject:

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.
continued...
​

 

[Illuminator]

Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. The so-called “Catholic distinctives” were merely cast off at the time of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century – basically due to prejudice and ignorance. Protestantism ever since has had to either distort, ignore, or be embarrassed by the facts of early Christian history which, again and again, are found to be much more in conjunction with Catholicism. Protestant anti-Catholic apologists are notorious for searching for quotes by Church Fathers which appear to support their presuppositions, while bypassing those (often by the same Father) which clearly suggest the Catholic outlook. I did this myself in the year before I was convinced of the truth of Catholicism.
Newman states, in summary:

If it be true that the principles of the later Church are the same as those of the earlier, then, whatever are the variations of belief between the two periods, the later in reality agrees more than it differs with the earlier, for principles are responsible for doctrines. Hence they who assert that the modern Roman system is the corruption of primitive theology are forced to discover some difference of principle between the one and the other; for instance, that the right of private judgment was secured to the early Church and has been lost to the later, or again, that the later Church rationalizes and the earlier went by faith.
​

This is true whether the theological considerations are those agreed upon by all, such as the Divinity of Christ, the Two Natures of Christ, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Original Sin, and the Canon of Scripture, or those denied by Protestants, such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, the papacy, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Communion of Saints, priestly absolution, baptismal regeneration, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

By and large, Protestantism merely asserts “sola Scriptura” without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those which are deemed to be either outright unbiblical or insufficiently grounded in Scripture to be authoritative, are jettisoned: the Marian doctrines, Purgatory, Penance, the papacy, etc. Apart from the question of Tradition as a legitimate carrier (alongside and in harmony with Scripture) of Christian belief, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these “Catholic” doctrines than Protestants suppose.

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching? | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

 

[DNB]

The only thing you have proven is false histories invented by cults and radical ignorant Protestants. If the councils were wrong, then so is the doctrine of the Trinity. You can't have it both ways.

Out of your own mouth!

 

[DNB]

Thanks DNB!!! You present a very good argument. I think in summary you are saying if it’s not in Scripture then Christians shouldn’t believe it or practice it. I can respect that. As you know I don’t agree with it.....So lets not talk about intercession of the Saints, Mary’s immaculate conception, assumption into heaven, transubstantiation etc.

Since Scripture is all we need and our doctrine should align with Scripture please to tell: Does baptism save you?

Mary

BTW....Thanks to the glorious Crusades you are not a Muslim and the Christian Holy Land has been preserved. Thank God for the Catholic Church.

Not Water baptism, but baptism into the faith of Christ. I perceive that the Bible uses the term baptism in several senses, not exclusively water baptism. Like even John said, '...I baptize you with water, but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire'. Just to show that there are several different meanings of baptism. To me, water baptism is not imperative, one could even call it works, meaning, it is by faith alone that saves.

 

[DNB]

I think it sad that a Catholic should even consider asking for a thread to be shut down on the basis that Catholicism shouldn't be held accountable for its own history.

...especially after the fact that he made this comment '...Catholics are not afraid to look at the truth of history square in the face....'

 

[DNB]

Nowhere in Scripture do we explicitly find women partaking of the Eucharist, so according to DNB, women should be left out.
THIS CATHOLIC BASHING THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED

No, only your inane argumentation should be left out! Tota Scripture and Sola Scripture are two extremely sound and fundamental principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. This is determined by reasoning and pragmatism, not subjective theology. Hermeneutics is a science, it is thus quantifiable.
We employ this practice in order to establish guidelines in order to determine orthodoxy. Without exegetical parameters, man will invariably devise extremely unbridled doctrines and precepts, that one will have absolutely no manner in which to verify the veracity of the conclusion.
For the Catholic Church to claim Apostolic tradition in order to justify the perpetuity of Mary's virginity, or her immaculate conception, or assumption into heaven, is derived from nothing more than man's vain imagination. How can anyone prove or disprove such an unfounded principle? Where's the lineage from where these doctrines were passed on, who was the first to proclaim it - clearly not a 1st century apostle.
Serious Bible students demand sobriety and restraint when interpreting Scripture. In a world where there are more heresies than truth, having rules and restrictions in order to rightly divide God's Word, is not only logical and practical, but reverent and wise.

 

[Illuminator]

No, only your inane argumentation should be left out! Tota Scripture and Sola Scripture are two extremely sound and fundamental principles of Biblical Hermeneutics. This is determined by reasoning and pragmatism, not subjective theology. Hermeneutics is a science, it is thus quantifiable.
We employ this practice in order to establish guidelines in order to determine orthodoxy. Without exegetical parameters, man will invariably devise extremely unbridled doctrines and precepts, that one will have absolutely no manner in which to verify the veracity of the conclusion.
For the Catholic Church to claim Apostolic tradition in order to justify the perpetuity of Mary's virginity, or her immaculate conception, or assumption into heaven, is derived from nothing more than man's vain imagination. How can anyone prove or disprove such an unfounded principle? Where's the lineage from where these doctrines were passed on, who was the first to proclaim it - clearly not a 1st century apostle.
Serious Bible students demand sobriety and restraint when interpreting Scripture. In a world where there are more heresies than truth, having rules and restrictions in order to rightly divide God's Word, is not only logical and practical, but reverent and wise.

A false assumption is often made by anti-Catholics and other critics of the Catholic Church, that when Catholics discuss how something has “always been believed,” that they are not also often referring to adherence to implicit or kernel-forms or the “acorns” or “seeds” of development of doctrine (i.e., they are referring to the essence of the doctrine, which was received from the apostles and never changes). This misunderstanding is based not only on ignorance of development of doctrine per se, but on gross neglect of the larger context of papal and conciliar utterances.

To use one illustrative example: if the Immaculate Conception had always been believed precisely as Pius IX was defining it — i.e., as the full-fledged, fully developed doctrine, as developed by 1854 — then he would not have to define it in the first place. Such ex cathedra proclamations of the extraordinary magisterium, by their very nature, presuppose that much development has taken place over time.

I have provided thorough background documentation as to the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine through the centuries.

Blessed Pope Pius IX, in the very same document where he defines the Immaculate Conception as an infallible doctrine (ex cathedra), also refers to development of doctrine:

. . . For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854; in Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962, 71)
​

Supposedly, the First Vatican Council, according to anti-Catholic polemicists William Webster and Jason Engwer, was opposed to any development, at least where it concerns papal infallibility, which it defined as an infallible doctrine. This is ludicrous, because the same pope who convoked it and ratified its proclamations, also wrote (in the very letter of convocation of the Council, to the bishops):

Pontiffs have not neglected to convoke General Councils in order to act with and unite their strength to the strength of the bishops of the whole Catholic world . . . to procure in the first place the definition of the dogmas of the faith, the destruction of widespread errors, the defense, illumination, and development of Catholic doctrine . . . (Apostolic Letter Aeterni Patris, June 29, 1868; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 193)​

In the same year of the Council, Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote:

Religion is in no sense the enemy of progress . . . If there is an immobility which in fact she cannot renounce, it is the immobility of the principles and doctrines which are divinely revealed. These can never change . . . [Heb 13:8] But for religious truths, there is progress only in their development, their penetration, their practice: in themselves they remain essentially immutable . . . All the truths divinely revealed have always been believed; they have always been a part of the deposit confided to the Church. But some of them must from time to time, according to circumstances and necessity, be placed in a stronger light and more firmly established. This is the sense in which the Church draws from her treasure new things . . . [Matt 13:52] (Allocution to the Religious Art Exposition, Rome, May 16, 1870; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 208)​

In all this, Pius was merely reflecting (note the very similar wording in his first statement above: “same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”) the constant teaching of the Church, as stated classically by the 5th century St. Vincent of Lerins (whom the same council cited, in its explicit espousal of development of doctrine):

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent . . .[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress . . . Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else . . . but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, inasmuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same . . . nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress . . .

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, . . . admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

[57] . . . when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same . . . They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (The Commonitorium [Notebooks] )​

There is no contradiction here at all. The only contradiction and confusion resides with these anti-Catholic critics, who either don’t understand development in the first place, or refuse to learn what the Catholic Church in particular teaches about it, and how it relates to the definition of dogma. This ignorance and misinformation about doctrinal development (especially Cardinal Newman’s formulation of it) amongst anti-Catholic polemicists is unfortunately widespread. It is a sad instance of “theological tunnel vision” at its worst.

Catholic Synthesis of Development & “Believed Always by All” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

 

[Brakelite]

A false assumption is often made by anti-Catholics and other critics of the Catholic Church, that when Catholics discuss how something has “always been believed,” that they are not also often referring to adherence to implicit or kernel-forms or the “acorns” or “seeds” of development of doctrine (i.e., they are referring to the essence of the doctrine, which was received from the apostles and never changes). This misunderstanding is based not only on ignorance of development of doctrine per se, but on gross neglect of the larger context of papal and conciliar utterances.

To use one illustrative example: if the Immaculate Conception had always been believed precisely as Pius IX was defining it — i.e., as the full-fledged, fully developed doctrine, as developed by 1854 — then he would not have to define it in the first place. Such ex cathedra proclamations of the extraordinary magisterium, by their very nature, presuppose that much development has taken place over time.

I have provided thorough background documentation as to the Church’s teaching on development of doctrine through the centuries.

Blessed Pope Pius IX, in the very same document where he defines the Immaculate Conception as an infallible doctrine (ex cathedra), also refers to development of doctrine:

. . . For the Church of Christ, watchful guardian that she is, and defender of the dogmas deposited with her, never changes anything, never diminishes anything, never adds anything to them; but with all diligence she treats the ancient documents faithfully and wisely; if they really are of ancient origin and if the faith of the Fathers has transmitted them, she strives to investigate and explain them in such a way that the ancient dogmas of heavenly doctrine will be made evident and clear, but will retain their full, integral, and proper nature, and will grow only within their own genus — that is, within the same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning. (Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854; in Papal Teachings: The Church, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, translated by Mother E. O’Gorman, Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1962, 71)
​

Supposedly, the First Vatican Council, according to anti-Catholic polemicists William Webster and Jason Engwer, was opposed to any development, at least where it concerns papal infallibility, which it defined as an infallible doctrine. This is ludicrous, because the same pope who convoked it and ratified its proclamations, also wrote (in the very letter of convocation of the Council, to the bishops):

Pontiffs have not neglected to convoke General Councils in order to act with and unite their strength to the strength of the bishops of the whole Catholic world . . . to procure in the first place the definition of the dogmas of the faith, the destruction of widespread errors, the defense, illumination, and development of Catholic doctrine . . . (Apostolic Letter Aeterni Patris, June 29, 1868; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 193)​

In the same year of the Council, Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote:

Religion is in no sense the enemy of progress . . . If there is an immobility which in fact she cannot renounce, it is the immobility of the principles and doctrines which are divinely revealed. These can never change . . . [Heb 13:8] But for religious truths, there is progress only in their development, their penetration, their practice: in themselves they remain essentially immutable . . . All the truths divinely revealed have always been believed; they have always been a part of the deposit confided to the Church. But some of them must from time to time, according to circumstances and necessity, be placed in a stronger light and more firmly established. This is the sense in which the Church draws from her treasure new things . . . [Matt 13:52] (Allocution to the Religious Art Exposition, Rome, May 16, 1870; in Papal Teachings: The Church, 208)​

In all this, Pius was merely reflecting (note the very similar wording in his first statement above: “same dogma, in the same sense and the same meaning”) the constant teaching of the Church, as stated classically by the 5th century St. Vincent of Lerins (whom the same council cited, in its explicit espousal of development of doctrine):

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent . . .[54.] But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress . . . Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else . . . but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

[55.] The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, inasmuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same . . . nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress . . .

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, . . . admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

[57] . . . when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same . . . They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. (The Commonitorium [Notebooks] )​

There is no contradiction here at all. The only contradiction and confusion resides with these anti-Catholic critics, who either don’t understand development in the first place, or refuse to learn what the Catholic Church in particular teaches about it, and how it relates to the definition of dogma. This ignorance and misinformation about doctrinal development (especially Cardinal Newman’s formulation of it) amongst anti-Catholic polemicists is unfortunately widespread. It is a sad instance of “theological tunnel vision” at its worst.

Catholic Synthesis of Development & “Believed Always by All” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

Care to share that timeline of developing doctrine which resulted in Sunday sacredness?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Where, you have given no such proof. Seemingly refuting a non-sequitur does not establish Apostolic succession.
My poiint is this, I have cjhosen historical facts to prove that the Catholic Church is not apostolic.
What you would need to do in order to convince anyone, otherwise, is to proof that Catholic Dogma is Biblical, prove that these men performed miracles (unless your a cessationist), ... In other words, display characteristics of both power and authority as of the 1st century apostles. I have proved otherwise.

You've done NO such thing.

In fact, ALL you've done is point out some wicked actions by some wicked individuals within the Church's 2000 year history - ALL the while, IGNORING the fact that Jesus Hims3lf chose a wicked man to be one of its first leaders.
I have repeatedly destroyed this asinine argument by pointing out some of the wicked individuals within your own Protestant sects, so you keep changing your criteria for what makes a Church "Apostolic".

Moving the goal posts doesn't bolster your argument.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Round, and round, and round, and round we go. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! We all agree that Christ appointed certain men to carry on the tradition that he received from the Father, and that he himself fulfilled on behalf of the Father. The Great Commission is the command that all men who have believed in the Gospel of Christ, faithfully disseminate God's Word throughout the world. Paul was the first to bring it to Rome, Philip in Samaria, Peter to the Gentiles, Aquila & Priscilla to Apollos (more fully), etc... All disciples were handed the keys to bring forgiveness to all people.
WE ALL AGREE ON THIS FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME!!!!

Question lies as to where this unadulterated truth resides now. The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN ITS FULLNESS! Especially not the Catholic Church, which becomes rather axiomatic just by reading the decrees from Trent, the Lateran Councils, or Vatican I & II. But, understand something BOL, I would say the exact something about the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, about the Augsburg or Formula of Concord decrees, about the Book of Common Prayer, and so on. That is, that there is enough error in all these Confessions and Statements of Faith, Ecumenical or local Councils, that we see that there is no one Church that holds the entire and untainted truth handed down by the apostles. It is obtainable, but much study and research is required, you will not find it under one entity or Church. Again, this is a demonstrable fact.

You are a catholic, I am non-denominational, that notion alone already gives me the upper hand!

And there your go.
You are the poster boy for faithlessness.

Jesus GUARANTEED His Church that it would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell. YOU, on the other hand, believe it DID.
Good luck telling that to Him when He is judging you . . .

As to your final statement in RED - you're a "non-denominational" WHAT, exactly?
Certainly NOT a Christian. Christians believe in the Triune Godhead - YOU don't

 

[Illuminator]

Care to share that timeline of developing doctrine which resulted in Sunday sacredness?

No. It's another derailer, a tactic used when anti-Catholic lies get blown out of the water, like they do by changing the topic on every page. Sabbatarianism has been refuted a thousand times on this board by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox. It's beating a dead horse.
Sunday Worship - Scripture Catholic
I've said it before and I'll say it again, anti-trinitarians should be confined to their own forum where they can wallow in their made-in-America falsehoods and stop goading and harassing Catholics at every opportunity.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men.
Anti-Catholicism (Index Page for Apologist Dave Armstrong) | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)

 

[Illuminator]

And there your go.
You are the poster boy for faithlessness.

Jesus GUARANTEED His Church that it would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell. YOU, on the other hand, believe it DID.
Good luck telling that to Him when He is judging you . . .

As to your final statement in RED - you're a "non-denominational" WHAT, exactly?
Certainly NOT a Christian. Christians believe in the Triune Godhead - YOU don't

What's worse than DNB's hate rants is his exemption from rule violations.

 

[Marymog]

Not Water baptism, but baptism into the faith of Christ. I perceive that the Bible uses the term baptism in several senses, not exclusively water baptism. Like even John said, '...I baptize you with water, but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire'. Just to show that there are several different meanings of baptism. To me, water baptism is not imperative, one could even call it works, meaning, it is by faith alone that saves.

For 2,000 years Christianity has taught that water baptism does save you. Can you see now how even what is clearly stated in Scripture (1 Peter 3:21) is argued by some NOT to be a clearly stated in Scripture?

 

[Marymog]

The apostolic churches were made up of human beings Mary, and not one of them claimed to have all their ducks in a row when it came to faith and practice.. And the churches themselves were somewhat sorry examples of Christian piety in many cases. We tend to gloss over those shortcomings when reading the NT and hold up the apostolic church as one to be emulated. And as history progressed it got worse, not better.

Man does have many short comings but The Church, established by Christ, does not since it is the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Truth has no shortcomings.

I look to the Apostolic Church for the Truth. You look to YOU!!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

thats my best friend BreadOfLife. we have always been so close. he is the one with the pic of two hands holding a babylonian clay tablet thing.

BOL is the acronym for BreadOfLife....BOD is not..... soooooo what does BOD mean?

 

[Marymog]

i dont agree kicking anyone from any church.......

If you don't agree with kicking people from The Church then you don't agree with Scripture:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13
Titus 3:10
Matthew 18:17
1 timothy 1:20
Romans 16:17
2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 3:14
2 John 1:10
Galatians 1:8-9

Does it concern you that what you believe is opposite of what Scripture teaches?

"I think its time to re think the whole thing you are teaching."

Bible Study Mary

 

[Marymog]

I am happy with the church in the years after Jesus, you had different schools of thought on salvation, Christology, etc, but so what, people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct,....
.

Completely and utterly not true. The results of The Council of Jerusalem and 1 Timothy 6 (along with many other passages) destroys your anti-biblical theory.

 

[Marymog]

When the doctrines did not align with Scripture.....

Hi DNB,

Scripture teaches us that Jesus taught the Apostles sound doctrine. The Apostles then taught other men sound doctrine.

YOU believe that at some point sound doctrine stopped being taught and what was taught to Christians all over the world did not align with Scripture and was NOT sound doctrine.

Sooooo when in Christian history did men stop teaching doctrine that was aligned with Scripture? You have stated a fact (what I would call a theory).....can you back it up with evidence?

Patient Mary

 

[jaybird]

If you don't agree with kicking people from The Church then you don't agree with Scripture:

1 Corinthians 5:9-13
Titus 3:10
Matthew 18:17
1 timothy 1:20
Romans 16:17
2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 3:14
2 John 1:10
Galatians 1:8-9

Does it concern you that what you believe is opposite of what Scripture teaches?

"I think its time to re think the whole thing you are teaching."

Bible Study Mary

I said I do not believe in kicking because I do not believe myself to be the final authority on kicking people, I hope I never becomes that arrogant to believe my opinion is above all others.

 

[jaybird]

Completely and utterly not true. The results of The Council of Jerusalem and 1 Timothy 6 (along with many other passages) destroys your anti-biblical theory.

I thought the spirit leads us to chose and if these choices come along when we are seeking the Father we will be lead by the Father. This is what Jesus taught. Do we ignore what Jesus says and put our faith in roman councils? These are the same councils that taught inquisitions were a good idea as well as the sun revolving around the earth? Not sure if those decisions are biblical.