The great doctrinal apostasy

[epostle1]

***

Sorry Mary but I do not think Jesus is pleased by the religious theologies of man. It was the religious that persecuted the prophets and killed some of them. It was the religious that had Jesus killed. It was the religious that stoned Stephen to death. It was the religious Jews who believed Jesus was the Jew's Messiah and King but went around telling Paul's Gentile converts that they had to follow the Law of Moses. Somehow I just can't see that Jesus loves those of religion so much that He just set up an improved religion. You can believe it if you wish but I will not.

Yea, and it's religious like you that continue to persecute Catholics with false histories.
In Defense of the Church: The Protestant Inquisition: "Reformation" Intolerance and Persecution by Dave Amstrong

As far as the catholic church is concerned they have the blood of many on their hand. I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself.

LIES. Where is your scholarly evidence? You have none. Just wannabee preacher/carnival barkers on you tube.

And this is not confined to the RCC and OC, it also applies to the protestant churches as well.

How convenient that you insulate your bible cult from all us bad guys.
I don't see Catholic sites bearing false witness against store front Bible cults like yours, but there are billions of Bible cults bearing false witness against Catholics.

All religions - sooner or later - came up with a salvation system that requires whatever works and rituals they say are necessary...even though Paul said we're declared righteous by God because of His grace alone, thru our faith alone, without works.

Works salvation (apart from the grace of Christ) is called Pelagianism, a heresy condemned at the Council of Orange, 1000 years before the first Protestant was born.

Paul was taught his gospel, personally, by Jesus, and not from any man.
Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

Paul's revelation was not from any man, but that does not exclude Paul from being subject to the Church, because he always was.

Show me another biblical example of a person who was 'personally' taught by Jesus Christ ( in His ascended body ). He ascended to heaven after 40 days and 40 nights. However He came back, after that time, and gave Paul the gospel of God's grace.

Lets look at what your apostle Peter said about Paul.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation — as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
NKJV

Do you realize that Peter is saying the words written by Paul are scripture?

Note that Peter has the authority to declare Paul's writings as scripture, Paul doesn't do that by himself.

DO YOU REALIZE PAUL WAS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH?
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). (told what by whom?)
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
  
  
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
  
  
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),

and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

• The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

 

[epostle1]

And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God’s words, as Paul commands? That is the fundamental issue.

Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

Where does Paul say that he derived his apostleship in any way from Peter or the other apostles?

I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do.
You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Read more at Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[H. Richard]

The mindset of every Roman Catholic I've ever met can easily be translated, "If my church doesn't teach it, it isn't true. And if my church isn't right, then nobody is." How convenient it must be when your thinking has already been done for you.

It is a historical fact that the early church "fathers" (in whom everyone, both Catholic and protestants, puts WAAAAAY too much stock) departed seriously from Pauline doctrine according to Paul's plainest statements, which I provided in the original post on Apostasy on this forum. But those of both the OC and the RCC ignore those statements, which I expected. I really didn't post any of this for you since you are forbidden to accept it. I posted it for those out there who might actually crack open their Bibles to see what it says, rather than relying on what some institution says it says.

Incidentally, those of the RCC and OC would do well to dispense with the term "anti-Catholic" as if helpless little old Catholics are being bashed left and right. If you want to resort to that tired label, I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself.


*From a Catholic: How can you explain that every Church started by an apostle or one of their representatives all over the ancient world came up with the same Faith?
The Christians from Spain, Gaul Rome, Greece, North Africa, Palestine, Ethiopia and India all believe essentially the same way. All had bishops, priests and deacons. All had a sacramental system. All believed in the true presence of Christ in Holy Communion. All venerated Mary and the Saints. All pray for the dead in Christ. They all look at Clement, Ignatius, Ireneaus, Polycarp and the other's whose writings you declare heresy as Saints and venerate them. All of ancient Christianity is wrong but your group is right. Yea that is likely, not...

And every one of them - sooner or later - came up with a salvation system that required whatever works and rituals they said were necessary...even though Paul said we're declared righteous by God because of His grace alone, thru our faith alone, without works.

Paul was taught his gospel, personally, by Jesus, and not from any man.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

Show me another biblical example of a person who was 'personally' taught by
Jesus Christ ( in His ascended body ). He ascended to heaven after 40 days and 40 nights. However He came back, after that time, and gave Paul the gospel of God's grace.

Paul was definitely unique, and received information that others were not able to
'bear'.

The mystery of the 'one body of Christ' (that some have referred to as the 'one'
true church' etc) is not named 'Roman Catholic' or 'Orthodox' or any other such
name. It is a spiritual church made by God, built by God, and contains all who believe in Christ.

It's that simple. (Funny, but it really is that simple. It is founded in Christ, not Peter.)

Funny, but people miss that in Paul's letter to the Romans, He never says "Oh... and say hi to Peter for me!" in his salutations. Why? Cause Peter wasn't there. I have seen no record at all, in the Bible scriptures, that Peter actually visited Rome at any time.

The church "of His body" is made by God. Christ is the head. The Christians are the body. Real simple.

Here is, perhaps, food for thought: we notice in history the gathering that Jesus began then all of a sudden it goes blank during the dark ages, then later in time what emerges of what we call Christianity, well...IS IT REALLY TRUE CHRISTIANITY? I don't think so.

Those in the RCC and OC can say their church is the only one and has it's roots in the Apostles until they are blue in the face and it proves nothing. They fail to provide hard evidence, or primary sources, proving that the Apostles adhered to Catholic doctrine and that early Catholics such as Polycarp and Ireneaus got their doctrinal beliefs from the Apostles.

They have not demonstrated that St. Polycarp, St. Iranaeus, or any of their "church fathers" self-identified as "Catholics" were ever taught by an Apostle (the 12).. They are simply transliterating a Greek word that means "universal" in English as "catholic" and revising true history to fit their traditions.

Those in the RCC and the OC will never admit that any of what I write because it undermines their belief system. They cannot prove their belief system with out using Catholic sources or traditions and will refuse to try.

Their's is a hollow claim. If they really believe what they say then they should present the evidence for their belief system. Provide information which doesn't come from Catholic tradition or sources.

Every statement in the replies by those in the RCC and OC is an assumption based on Catholic Church sources. No Catholic or Orthodox has been able to prove that their traditions came from the Apostles, that their early church fathers were Catholics, or that these church fathers taught what is modern Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

All they have done is post self-validating apologetics, not facts from independent and unbiased sources.

This fact remains, those in the RCC and the OC, will never be able to see their church as an apostate church because they will never admit it can be wrong. Yet the scriptures plainly tell us that the churches of men will become apostate, that there will be a great falling away from the faith.

II Th 2:2-3
2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.
3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,
(NKJ)

******More rebuttals

Orthodoxy said:
Richard,

Let me get this right, Dick. God in the fulness of time never intentioned to saved gentiles but in His wisdom He knew the jews were stubborn so He initially took the message to the Jews. When they rejected Him God changed His mind and sot to make the Jew envious of the gentiles by saving the gentiles through Paul's message and forsaking Israel, for a time?

**My comment: A smoke screen. God had always provided a way for the Gentiles. Under the Jewish Law, Gentiles could be saved by going through the Jews. Salvation was through the Jews and was not offered outside of the Jews. Gentiles had always been included as Jewish proselytes. But it was not the same as in this age of God's grace where all, both Jews and Gentiles, are saved the same way, by faith in what God has done on the cross. As for God changing His mind, obviously you do not believe Paul when he said his gospel (of god's grace) WAS HIDDEN IN GOD AND REVEALED TO HIM.

**My comment: In Gen 12:3 we see that the Gentiles who bless the nation of Israel shall be blessed along with the nation of Israel. This is why Cornelius was given salvation in Acts 10. The writer of Acts said much about the things that Cornelius did for the Jews.

**My comment: As for God changing His mind read this. Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages. God had this new plan of grace and kept it a secret. It was not a change of mind as you wish to say it is.

Can you also explain to me why Jesus made the positions the Apostles held eternal if as you say the Aposltes dont have the gospel message?

***My comment: Surely you know that the 12 Apostles will sit on 12 thrones during the rein of Christ on this earth. They are to build His church during the 1000-year rein of Christ on this earth. But since the Jews rejected Jesus God has instituted His plan that He had kept hidden since the world began. The plan for Israel and the Jews have been put on hold until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled.

The cancerous disease comes from people changing the meaning of words and people not reading words properly. Personally, I endeavor to word things as precisely as possible, if people cant read or read to much into what people say who’s fault is that the writer or the reader? I also strive to read every word in others people’s posts because I expect the same from those people.

***My comment: the only cancerous disease I see is a physical, organized Church, ran by men, that wants to put itself between God and man. It usurps the power of God (the Holy Spirit) on earth. They deny that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world to save all that will believe. They put their church in the place of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Helen]

@H. Richard Amen...good post bro.

 

[epostle1]

The mindset of every Roman Catholic I've ever met can easily be translated, "If my church doesn't teach it, it isn't true. And if my church isn't right, then nobody is." How convenient it must be when your thinking has already been done for you.

That is a lie. See 817-820 and a straw man fallacy.

It is a historical fact that the early church "fathers" (in whom everyone, both Catholic and protestants, puts WAAAAAY too much stock) departed seriously from Pauline doctrine according to Paul's plainest statements, which I provided in the original post on Apostasy on this forum. But those of both the OC and the RCC ignore those statements, which I expected.

Ignoring lies is a good idea. "...upon this ROCK I will build my temporary CHURCH..." You are a biblical clown.

I really didn't post any of this for you since you are forbidden to accept it. I posted it for those out there who might actually crack open their Bibles to see what it says, rather than relying on what some institution says it says.

Your opinion of the Early Church Fathers is unqualified. Not everything the ECF wrote is incorporated into magisterial teaching, your problem is thinking you know everything. "some institution", the Church, gave us the Bible in the first place. This is where bible cults like yours change the facts of history. You are also unable to tell the relationship between the ECF and Scripture, so you make things up.

Incidentally, those of the RCC and OC would do well to dispense with the term "anti-Catholic" as if helpless little old Catholics are being bashed left and right. If you want to resort to that tired label,

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You are an anti-Catholic, plain and simple, and bashing Catholicism, that never did anything to you personally, is your religion. I don't see any Catholics bashing your UNKNOWN denomination, but you are quick to bash Catholicism (with lies)

I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself.

I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence that supports your hate speech.

If the Church were purely physical (as it has been asserted by Richard) , she would never have survived. If she were purely spiritual, she could not function. The Church is BOTH spiritual AND physical. A purely invisible church is not in the Bible.

By "scholarly evidence", I mean the work of a Ph.D. in history. It's unlikely a person who has devoted a good part of their lives in study is going to jeopardize their credentials by attaching their name to fairy tales. I say you can't do it, Richard. You have to rely on babbling idiots for your anti-Catholic polemics.

 

[epostle1]

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system. It is a great mistake to regard the teaching of truth as an imposition. The Church does not, nor can she, “impose” truth. (this is the exact opposite of Richard's hateful rantings)

Rather, she endeavors to propose truths to those who are disposed to receive them. The Vatican’s Declaration of Religious Liberty <<(actual teaching, not Richard's twisted opinions) states that, “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with gentleness and power.

The Church as Guardian of the Truth and Teacher of the Word provides food for hungry minds. She does not impose the truth; no more than do Christians impose food on hungry bodies when they practice this corporeal act of mercy.

She guards it because it needs to be protected against the contamination of error. She teaches it because it is more nourishing than error. Moreover, the truth enables her to teach realistically about the truth of Christ, the truth of the Catholic Church, (whom rightly calls all Christians brothers and sisters in the Lord) and the truth of man. Apostles are ministers of love, but they are also servants of the truth.

 

[bbyrd009]

It's unlikely a person who has devoted a good part of their lives in study is going to jeopardize their credentials by attaching their name to fairy tales.

happens all the time, wadr

Truth is as natural to our minds as oxygen is to our lungs and food is to our digestive system.

um...lol. hmm. and similar noises, ya
are you speaking TIC here, maybe?
must be, i guess
i mean you don't really believe this, do you?

 

[epostle1]

happens all the time, wadr
um...lol. hmm. and similar noises, ya
are you speaking TIC here, maybe?
must be, i guess
i mean you don't really believe this, do you?

Explain the truth in 4 short paragraphs, without using scripture.

 

[bbyrd009]

Explain the truth in 4 short paragraphs, without using scripture.

"elephants and blind guys"

 

[H. Richard]

When men build a religion it is built on what a person has to do in order for God to accept that person. It is rules and rituals that man make up. The Jewish religion was one of these. God gave Abraham the 10 laws and the rules for the Temple and the clergy but it was man that added all the other religious requirements for the rank and file to follow..

The truth is that religions always teach that if a person wants to go to heaven they must do all the requirements they teach. This boils down to man's religions being in between God and man.They never give God (the Holy Spirit) any credit for being able to save and or keep a person saved. All of this is done by men in that religion. In simple language it is a religion.

Paul's gospel of God's grace has no rules and rituals and is not a religion. Jesus shed His blood on the cross to atone for, pay for, all the sins of the world, past, present, and future (Isaiah 53:6) Jesus' shed blood bought a pardon for the sins of every person. But the religious will not admit this. If people believed it there would be no need for religion. Those that believe it have no need for religion and that makes them an enemy of the religious. The religious do not want anyone to be free from their religions.

IMO, In my mind those that refuse to accept what Jesus did for them on the cross are the very definition of anti-Christ because they deny Christs work on the cross on their behalf and substitute their own works.

 

[epostle1]

***

Sorry Mary but I do not think Jesus is pleased by the religious theologies of man. It was the religious that persecuted the prophets and killed some of them. It was the religious that had Jesus killed. It was the religious that stoned Stephen to death. It was the religious Jews who believed Jesus was the Jew's Messiah and King but went around telling Paul's Gentile converts that they had to follow the Law of Moses. Somehow I just can't see that Jesus loves those of religion so much that He just set up an improved religion. You can believe it if you wish but I will not.

As far as the catholic church is concerned they have the blood of many on their hand. I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself. And this is not confined to the RCC and OC, it also applies to the protestant churches as well.

All religions - sooner or later - came up with a salvation system that requires whatever works and rituals they say are necessary...even though Paul said we're declared righteous by God because of His grace alone, thru our faith alone, without works.

Paul was taught his gospel, personally, by Jesus, and not from any man.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

Show me another biblical example of a person who was 'personally' taught by
Jesus Christ ( in His ascended body ). He ascended to heaven after 40 days and 40 nights. However He came back, after that time, and gave Paul the gospel of God's grace.

Lets look at what your apostle Peter said about Paul.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation — as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
NKJV

Do you realize that Peter is saying the words written by Paul are scripture?

What I realize is your vain repetition.

 

[epostle1]

[/quote]My comment: the only cancerous disease I see is a physical, organized Church, ran by men, that wants to put itself between God and man. It usurps the power of God (the Holy Spirit) on earth. They deny that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world to save all that will believe. They put their church in the place of the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Your church is invisible, it has no body. So it's useless.

Does Matthew 25:40 mean anything to you? If this is what you mean by "cancerous disease" I'm glad to be counted in.

You have no concept of development. If the Church were run by men alone, with no divine assistance, there would not be 1.2 billion members. Mere human effort cannot account for this. Or do you think our leaders are holy and smart???

The Catholic Church 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 (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

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, 13:31-32, 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 itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

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.

In general, whenever Holy 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.

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 fifth century? Tradition, Church authority, and development were all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical canon. (denied by bible worshiping sola scripturists)

It is foolish to assert, then, 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 someone many centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian to determine?

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Richard tends 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 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Richard accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.? (that's easy for Richard he just pretends the councils never happened!)
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,” increasingly corrupted by an encroaching Catholicism, as one common viewpoint would have it.

Venerable 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.​

 

[epostle1]

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that a 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 argue that purgatory is a later corruption, yet 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. Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. 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 some or many 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.

Protestantism introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority that was a departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism (though, of course, fully Christian) is much more of a “corruption” (insofar as it departs from historical, apostolic precedent) 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, evangelical Protestantism merely asserts sola Scriptura without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those that 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 criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.



Protestants often talk about progressive revelation. It is immediately evident that reading Genesis is a lot different from reading, the Gospel of John or St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. One notes an obvious development of the thought and theology.

It is illustrative to consider, for example, the idea of faith or salvation. God’s covenant with Abraham basically involved Abraham’s believing in God, which was, as it says in the Bible, “reckoned unto him righteousness.” Moving forward through salvation history, we find the notion of the chosen people, which is somewhat like the later concept of election, or enabling grace from God. In other words, it is unmerited. God chose them and gave them grace for His purposes.


God’s covenant with David was an eternal covenant. And we also have, of course, in the Old Testament, Moses and the Law and the Ten Commandments. In due course, the notion of a Messiah started to develop in prophetic and post-exilic Judaism. So we observe much development, whereas at first there wasn’t much notion of the Incarnation or Jesus at all. The Jews simply didn’t have that revelation or information yet.

The messianic motif culminates in Isaiah 53, a description of the “suffering servant,” which is an indication of what actually happened on the cross (see also, Psalms 22). So, salvation theology, or soteriology develops all the way through the Old Testament, until the gospel (“good news”) is announced, with John the Baptist and Jesus Himself. Even then Jesus said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). This whole line of salvation theology is a very clear example of development in the Bible itself. Jesus was bringing to a conclusion all the development that had occurred thus far in the Old Testament period and in Judaism.

But neither does development end in the apostolic period. The theology of Christ, or Christology, continued to develop for hundreds of years after Christianity began. Virtually all Christians are agreed on this aspect of theology: the nature of Christ and the Trinity. But many aspects of these doctrines were developments, not explicitly found in the Bible.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

The Church merely continues that process of developing thought. In the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13:31-32), the kingdom of God is likened to a mustard seed, and it grows into a huge tree. The terminology of “Body of Christ” also implies a living organism; therefore it grows (an increase of understanding). The Holy Spirit facilitates this growth of understanding and truth. In John 14:26 and 16:13, Jesus says that the Spirit will “teach you all things” and “guide you into all the truth.” The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, or Comforter. The Church learns things through the ages. So there is no reason to think that all knowledge will cease after the apostles. We still reflect upon doctrines.

 

[mjrhealth]

They put their church in the place of the Holy Spirit.

This bit

Luk 5:36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
Luk 5:37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luk 5:38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Luk 5:39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

 

[mjrhealth]

Explain the truth in 4 short paragraphs, without using scripture.

Can do it with one name

Jesus

Than you can look the scripture up yourself.

 

[H. Richard]

Explain the truth in 4 short paragraphs, without using scripture.

***

2 Cor 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
NKJV

 

[H. Richard]

What I realize is your vain repetition.

***

2 Cor 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
NKJV

 

[H. Richard]

My comment: the only cancerous disease I see is a physical, organized Church, ran by men, that wants to put itself between God and man. It usurps the power of God (the Holy Spirit) on earth. They deny that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world to save all that will believe. They put their church in the place of the Holy Spirit.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so. Your church is invisible, it has no body. So it's useless.

Does Matthew 25:40 mean anything to you? If this is what you mean by "cancerous disease" I'm glad to be counted in.

You have no concept of development. If the Church were run by men alone, with no divine assistance, there would not be 1.2 billion members. Mere human effort cannot account for this. Or do you think our leaders are holy and smart???

The Catholic Church 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 (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

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, 13:31-32, 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 itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

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.

In general, whenever Holy 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.

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 fifth century? Tradition, Church authority, and development were all crucial elements in the very human process of selection of the biblical canon. (denied by bible worshiping sola scripturists)

It is foolish to assert, then, 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 someone many centuries later claim that it was altogether simple for him and every other sincere Christian to determine?

The Church is called the “Body” of Christ often (e.g., Eph 1:22-3), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Mt 13:31-2). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. Yet Richard tends 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 at the Council of Nicaea, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople. The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Richard accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.? (that's easy for Richard he just pretends the councils never happened!)
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,” increasingly corrupted by an encroaching Catholicism, as one common viewpoint would have it.

Venerable 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.​

[/QUOTE]
***

2 Cor 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
NKJV

 

[H. Richard]

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that a 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 argue that purgatory is a later corruption, yet 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. Thus Protestantism is inconsistent in its selective espousal of Christian beliefs. 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 some or many 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.

Protestantism introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority that was a departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism (though, of course, fully Christian) is much more of a “corruption” (insofar as it departs from historical, apostolic precedent) 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, evangelical Protestantism merely asserts sola Scriptura without much consideration of the seriously-flawed implications of the same, and judges all doctrines accordingly. Therefore, those that 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 criticizing the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.



Protestants often talk about progressive revelation. It is immediately evident that reading Genesis is a lot different from reading, the Gospel of John or St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. One notes an obvious development of the thought and theology.

It is illustrative to consider, for example, the idea of faith or salvation. God’s covenant with Abraham basically involved Abraham’s believing in God, which was, as it says in the Bible, “reckoned unto him righteousness.” Moving forward through salvation history, we find the notion of the chosen people, which is somewhat like the later concept of election, or enabling grace from God. In other words, it is unmerited. God chose them and gave them grace for His purposes.


God’s covenant with David was an eternal covenant. And we also have, of course, in the Old Testament, Moses and the Law and the Ten Commandments. In due course, the notion of a Messiah started to develop in prophetic and post-exilic Judaism. So we observe much development, whereas at first there wasn’t much notion of the Incarnation or Jesus at all. The Jews simply didn’t have that revelation or information yet.

The messianic motif culminates in Isaiah 53, a description of the “suffering servant,” which is an indication of what actually happened on the cross (see also, Psalms 22). So, salvation theology, or soteriology develops all the way through the Old Testament, until the gospel (“good news”) is announced, with John the Baptist and Jesus Himself. Even then Jesus said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). This whole line of salvation theology is a very clear example of development in the Bible itself. Jesus was bringing to a conclusion all the development that had occurred thus far in the Old Testament period and in Judaism.

But neither does development end in the apostolic period. The theology of Christ, or Christology, continued to develop for hundreds of years after Christianity began. Virtually all Christians are agreed on this aspect of theology: the nature of Christ and the Trinity. But many aspects of these doctrines were developments, not explicitly found in the Bible.

Indeed, there is a lot of Scripture that would indicate the Trinity and Christology (Jesus as God), but if one doesn’t attempt to put the verses together in a certain systematic way, it wouldn’t jump right out from Scripture. So for that reason the Church had to develop it — and usually in response to heretics.

So, for example, the heretical Nestorians came around and claimed that Jesus was two persons: human and divine. The Church said “no, that’s not true. He is one Person, the God-Man.” The Nestorians speculated falsely about the nature of Mary, but the Church pronounced on the doctrine of Mary, against the Nestorians, giving her the title of Theotokos, which means “God-bearer,” or “Mother of God.” That occurred at the Council of Ephesus in 431. We often find, then, in Church history, heretics coming along and making a new claim. The Church reflects upon it, and rules against it.

Christology was further elaborated upon twenty years later, at the council of Chalcedon in 451. This Council promulgated the notion of the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union:, that is, Jesus is God and Man, with no separation. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. The Church ruled that He had Two Natures. And so, on and on, with all the heretics. The Bible itself, in its own example, demonstrates development.

The Church merely continues that process of developing thought. In the parable of the mustard seed (Mt 13:31-32), the kingdom of God is likened to a mustard seed, and it grows into a huge tree. The terminology of “Body of Christ” also implies a living organism; therefore it grows (an increase of understanding). The Holy Spirit facilitates this growth of understanding and truth. In John 14:26 and 16:13, Jesus says that the Spirit will “teach you all things” and “guide you into all the truth.” The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, or Comforter. The Church learns things through the ages. So there is no reason to think that all knowledge will cease after the apostles. We still reflect upon doctrines.

***

2 Cor 11:13-15
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
NKJV

 

[bbyrd009]

ah, had no idea you were Catholic HR, i never would have debated--well, attempted to debate--Scripture with you had i known ok, my apologies. You strike me as a good hearted guy, and i could only offend you doing that imo