The church before the Bible

[BobRyan]

As the Apostle PAUL observed in Acts 20 "I KNOW that after MY DEPARTURE savage wolves WILL come in among YOU not sparing the flock; and from AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES men WILL ARISE speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY disciples after THEMSELVES" Acts 20:29-30.

How true his words proved to be in the first 300 years of Church history -- even more so in the next 300 years after that.

But to see "the church before the Bible" you must go to the time of Moses BEFORE he started writing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

However it is not as though we were without warning --

Mark 7 "In VAIN do they worship Me teaching for Doctrine the commandments of MEN - neglecting the Commandments of GOD you hold to the traditions of men" vs 7-9

These were the Words Christ spoke to the Religious "Magesterium" of the ONE TRUE CHURCH in Christ's day started by God at Sinai.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[francisdesales]

I have a legitimate question that I believe is pertinent to this topic.

We have the words written by Paul to the Corinthians stating that IF one is MOVED by The Spirit to offer edification through prophecy that they ARE to 'be heard'. From a Catholic standpoint; how is this to be done IF the Pope IS the ULTIMATE authority?

We don't believe that the Pope is the ONLY person who can receive enlightenment on God's revelations given. Theologians are constantly pondering God's Word in attempts to fathom the depths of Apostolic teachings. "The Pope is the ultimate authority" does not mean he is the only authority...

I mean HOW is this POSSIBLE, IF the 'clergy' of the CC IS the ONLY authorized AUTHORITY.

That brings up an interesting interaction between "prophets" and "authority" in the history of the Church. Church Fathers, for example, often were authoritative - and some were not even clergy, such as Tertulian and Origen, neither of which were priests. In the history of the Church, martyrs and confessors also held positions of high "spiritual authority" based on their self-sacrifice and connection to Christ.

And WHERE is The Body in the CC's dogma and doctrine? For the Bible explains that the Body is made up of MANY parts ALL to fit jointly together so that the Body is edified by it's parts. Yet in the Catholic plan, it seems that ALL the legislative part of the Body is UP TO a 'certain GROUP' of individuals to determine.

I would have to explain the development of doctrine, which is now getting off topic. Suffice to say that during the formulation of definitions, the entire Body is called into play.

Now, this DOES pertain to the subject, for IF the CC IS the First and continual 'Church' of Christ, then HOW does one reconcile that they do NOT believe as is offered through scripture? How can the scriptures be ignored that contradict the teachings of this 'one true Church'. Has the Word of God CHANGED? And is it the CC that has been given instruction for this 'change'?

Uh, because there are no contradictions... The "contradictions" are perceived and incorrect interpretations of Scriptures, since the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the individual.

We have a basic guideline offered in scripture as to HOW the 'churches' are to be LED, (not RUN). That The Church is to BE 'Headed' BY Christ. EVERYONE else is a 'servant' TO The Body. Yet we can plainly see through the acts of the CC's clergy that THEY are rarely the servants EXCEPT in their WORDS, (and maybe it could be argued through their DEVOTION to the 'organization'), and are OFTEN seen as 'being SERVED'.

Does this rant have a point, MEC?

I believe you need to go back and look at the Pastorals and figure out the method of leadership in the Church...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

As the Apostle PAUL observed in Acts 20 "I KNOW that after MY DEPARTURE savage wolves WILL come in among YOU not sparing the flock; and from AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES men WILL ARISE speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY disciples after THEMSELVES" Acts 20:29-30.

How true his words proved to be in the first 300 years of Church history -- even more so in the next 300 years after that.

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

 

[RadicalReformer]

As the Apostle PAUL observed in Acts 20 "I KNOW that after MY DEPARTURE savage wolves WILL come in among YOU not sparing the flock; and from AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES men WILL ARISE speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY disciples after THEMSELVES" Acts 20:29-30.

How true his words proved to be in the first 300 years of Church history -- even more so in the next 300 years after that.

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

Francis - are all separated brethren heretics?

 

[Vic C.]

...Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

Um, you need to renege part of that statement or forfeit the right to complain when someone calls the Catholics heretics. What's fair is fair.

 

[francisdesales]

[
Francis - are all separated brethren heretics?

Hello, Radical, haven't heard from you in awhile.

The answer to your question is, techically, "no".

The term is generally reserved for those who willingly teach in opposition to the Church's teachings. I am convinced, after swimming through these various forums, that many Protestants are ignorant of Church teachings and are mired in the Protestant paradigm that stems from their tradition - many were raised with this paradigm and are not aware of its error.

We Catholics would call such "invincibly ignorant".

Regards

 

[Free]

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Interesting that you put Lutherans and Calvinists in the same category as Gnostics and Arians. What perverse things did these Protestants teach that warrants such a categorization?

 

[RadicalReformer]

[
Francis - are all separated brethren heretics?

Hello, Radical, haven't heard from you in awhile.

The answer to your question is, techically, "no".

The term is generally reserved for those who willingly teach in opposition to the Church's teachings. I am convinced, after swimming through these various forums, that many Protestants are ignorant of Church teachings and are mired in the Protestant paradigm that stems from their tradition - many were raised with this paradigm and are not aware of its error.

We Catholics would call such "invincibly ignorant".

Regards

So, according to you - anyone in this forum that has the opportunity to read your posts or any of the other posts by Roman Catholics that espouse the teachings of Rome, are then heretics. They have been made aware of the teachings of the Roman Church and have decided to not accept them. Therefore, by definition we are heretics. Would that also not mean that our salvation is drawn into question as well?

 

[francisdesales]

So, according to you - anyone in this forum that has the opportunity to read your posts or any of the other posts by Roman Catholics that espouse the teachings of Rome, are then heretics.

Not necessarily. First, my two previous posts are directed at those who lead people away from the Faith - false teachers. Note carefully that it is not the person who has been bedazzled with a false gospel that are properly "heretics", but those who knowingly teach a gospel different than the Church's, drawing people away from God's established community...

Now, how much one must know to remain "ignorant" is not for me to decide. Thus, those who read "my" posts are not necessarily informed on the Church's truth.

They have been made aware of the teachings of the Roman Church and have decided to not accept them. Therefore, by definition we are heretics. Would that also not mean that our salvation is drawn into question as well?

It is not for me to judge how one's paradigm blocks out the truth. All I know is that rejecting the Church, God's chosen means of bringing salvation to men, is a rejection of Christ. At what point one's obstinancy becomes "rejection" is only for God to decide. Generally speaking, heretics are those who first CAME from the community. Luther, Arius, Nestor, Calvin, etc. All former Catholics who were aware of the Church and her teachings and claims that were later rejected, properly speaking, are heretics.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Interesting that you put Lutherans and Calvinists in the same category as Gnostics and Arians. What perverse things did these Protestants teach that warrants such a categorization?

Is it important to this thread to detail them? I'll just comment on two.

Their anthropology is totally out of synch with Christian teaching, both East and West. The idea of double predestination is a most perverse teaching, bringing back the pagan idea of fate into Christianity.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

...Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

Um, you need to renege part of that statement or forfeit the right to complain when someone calls the Catholics heretics. What's fair is fair.

The Church doesn't draw disciples away after "themselves"...

The above "heresies" were all begun by men who, based on their own opinions of reading Scriptures, decided they knew better God's revelation compared to the Spirit-guided Church. Note, individual men perpetrate such heresies. The Church does not have singular men who draw men after THEMSELVES. If they did, they are promptly declared heretics, since the Church is meant to draw all men to God, not to particular doctrines of individuals.

Furthermore, to call a Catholic a "heretic" is to presume that some other teaching preceded Catholicism. Is there any historical evidence of Christian teaching preceding Catholicism? The Church was "catholic" at Pentacost, with the "world" gathered around the Apostles to hear the Word spoken by Christ.

Regards

 

[Imagican]

As the Apostle PAUL observed in Acts 20 "I KNOW that after MY DEPARTURE savage wolves WILL come in among YOU not sparing the flock; and from AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES men WILL ARISE speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY disciples after THEMSELVES" Acts 20:29-30.

How true his words proved to be in the first 300 years of Church history -- even more so in the next 300 years after that.

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

Curious: would this 'list' include Baptists, Methodists, SDA, JW, Pentacostals, etc.........?

MEC

 

[Imagican]

fran,

Does this rant have a point, MEC?

I believe you need to go back and look at the Pastorals and figure out the method of leadership in the Church...

I didn't realize that I was 'ranting'. But YES, it certainly DID have a point. That being that we have written example of HOW Paul served his brothers and sisters through Christ. Yet we can clearly see that the Pope and his upper crust clergy APPEAR to live pretty extravegant lives. Surrounded by costly art and eathing pretty much like a King or Queen. Drinking expensive wine and riding around in one of the MOST expensive cars on the PLANET. Pretty GOOD indication that they 'serve themselves' QUITE WELL.

I was simply asking HOW this is justified. Were these; 'places of honor' PASSED down through 'oral tradition'? AFTER the apostles WROTE the epistles, they ALTERED what they actually offered ORALLY when in Rome? Offered literal words that totally contradict those that they WROTE to the different churches?

ALL of this DOES have a bearing on an understanding of the FIRST Church or 'The church before the Bible'. For it is YOU and those that follow the CC that STATE that IT IS the FIRST and ONLY church of Christ. To be ABLE to discern such a 'claim', there ARE certainly questions to be asked and answered. Like the one's that I have posed.

And I assure you that regardless of HOW you interpret these words in this post, it is NOT offered in a 'spirit of ranting'. Just curiosity.

MEC

 

[RadicalReformer]

Francis - until you understand that God's chosen means of bringing salvation to the world was through Christ - you will never fully grasp the position the Body of Christ has.

You have, as does all Roman Catholics who remain in the Roman Catholic Church, placed the Roman Catholic church above that of Christ.

Until you submit to Christ, your membership is just a membership in a local group of people.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis - until you understand that God's chosen means of bringing salvation to the world was through Christ - you will never fully grasp the position the Body of Christ has.

I cannot help but wonder why you feel the need to decapitate the Head from His Body...

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Col 1:24

And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Eph 1:22-23

The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in the world today. Christ CONTINUES to teach, preach and sanctify mankind, drawing all men to Himself.

It appears that you are not in touch with the profound meaning of "church" in the Sacred Scriptures, believing it is merely a human organization.

You have, as does all Roman Catholics who remain in the Roman Catholic Church, placed the Roman Catholic church above that of Christ.

Wrong. You clearly do not understand the Church's role in God's plan of salvation. The actions of the Church, her sacraments, are the continuation of Christ's healing, feeding, teaching and sanctifying in the world today.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I didn't realize that I was 'ranting'. But YES, it certainly DID have a point. That being that we have written example of HOW Paul served his brothers and sisters through Christ. Yet we can clearly see that the Pope and his upper crust clergy APPEAR to live pretty extravegant lives.

Based on what evidence do you claim that the current pope live an extravagant life? And what does that have to do with "serving his brothers and sisters"?

Surrounded by costly art and eathing pretty much like a King or Queen. Drinking expensive wine and riding around in one of the MOST expensive cars on the PLANET. Pretty GOOD indication that they 'serve themselves' QUITE WELL.

The costly art was commissioned by Popes of the Renaissance times. Having just returned from Italy, I can say I am very HAPPY that they did, for without them, we wouldn't have those priceless works of art in existence. The Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Basillica are truly stupendous works of art dedicated to God.

I was simply asking HOW this is justified.

Man throughout the centuries has always tried to give its best to God. Liturgical implements, devices used in public worship of God, have always been of the best quality. Surely, you have heard of the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple of Jerasulem??? None of these are personal wealths of the Pope. They belong to the Church. The Pope doesn't "own" any of the Basilicas or Chapels or even his tiara...

Were these; 'places of honor' PASSED down through 'oral tradition'? AFTER the apostles WROTE the epistles, they ALTERED what they actually offered ORALLY when in Rome? Offered literal words that totally contradict those that they WROTE to the different churches?

Clearly, this is a false comparison, because Christianity was an outlawed religion during the first three centuries. Certainly, Peter and Paul COULDN'T build a huge place of worship with lavish piece of art dedicated to God IF THEY WANTED TO...

Do we find in the Gospels where Jesus condemns the Temple BECAUSE of its opulence???

Try to remember WHO commanded the Jews to build it...

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Joe,

I cannot help but wonder why you feel the need to decapitate the Head from His Body...

I have to ask why you believe this is what he is doing?

Rad said this:

Francis - until you understand that God's chosen means of bringing salvation to the world was through Christ - you will never fully grasp the position the Body of Christ has.

You said this:

The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in the world today. Christ CONTINUES to teach, preach and sanctify mankind, drawing all men to Himself.

The difference? He properly attributes this to the Body of Christ; the past, present and future Disciples of Jesus. You attribute it to your "church". Your "church" actually desires to draw men to itself.

To shift subjects slightly, the word "church" is not derived from any Biblical Greek whatsoever. It came into use some 200 hundred or so years later in reference to the building in which they worshiped. Kyriakon Doma was the phrase, I believe... and it means "the house of the Lord".

The Bible versions which translate ekklesia into assembly or congregation actually got it right.

1 Corinthians 12 paints one of the best pictures of the Lord's ekklesia and it's role. Many parts, one purpose is the theme and it's purpose is to use the spiritual gifts the Lord has blessed them with to aid in bringing people to repentance and salvation by spreading the Gospel word. All for the Glory of God.

 

[Imagican]

As the Apostle PAUL observed in Acts 20 "I KNOW that after MY DEPARTURE savage wolves WILL come in among YOU not sparing the flock; and from AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES men WILL ARISE speaking perverse things, to DRAW AWAY disciples after THEMSELVES" Acts 20:29-30.

How true his words proved to be in the first 300 years of Church history -- even more so in the next 300 years after that.

Yea, we call them "heretics". Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Lutherans, Calvinists... The list is long of those who "arise speaking of perverse things to draw away disciples after THEMSELVES."

Regards

Fran,

Curious: would this 'list' include Baptists, Methodists, SDA, JW, Pentacostals, etc.........?

MEC

I posted this previous and perhaps you missed it. The bolded question is that to which I refer.

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Joe,
I cannot help but wonder why you feel the need to decapitate the Head from His Body....

I have to ask why you believe this is what he is doing?

Hello Vic,

Decapitation = separation of the head from the body...

One cannot separate the Head (Christ) from His Body (Church). Paul's "Body of Christ" theology is not mere allegory. It is quite profound. Unfortunately, setting up the Church against Christ totally misunderstands Paul. God did not establish the Church so He could fight against it! The Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scriptures alone, but through immediate intercourse with His living Person. Mere reason, learning, (even theological) does not conduct us to the mystery of Christ - only the grace of God alone, especially through the sacramental action of the Church where Christ continues to forgive, sanctify, and feed.

Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish Eph 5:25-27

The purpose of the Church is the establishment of the Kingdomof God on earth, and therefore, for the sanctification of men. Christ brings men into His Kingdom via baptism, performed not by ourselves, but by the Church, a visible action of God's invisible grace.

Rad said this:

Francis - until you understand that God's chosen means of bringing salvation to the world was through Christ - you will never fully grasp the position the Body of Christ has.

You said this:

The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in the world today. Christ CONTINUES to teach, preach and sanctify mankind, drawing all men to Himself.

The difference? He properly attributes this to the Body of Christ; the past, present and future Disciples of Jesus. You attribute it to your "church". Your "church" actually desires to draw men to itself.

Well, now we are back to defining what is a disciple. We have had this conversation before. Merely saying one is a "follower of Christ" is not enough, for Jesus said He will surprise people at the end of time who thought they WERE His followers - and He will say "I never knew you".

Now. I would be interested to hear your definition of a believer, using the Bible. Does it encompass people outside of the visible communities, the Thessalonians, the Corinthains, that Paul writes to, that John writes to? Do the Apostles consider Judaizers, Ebionites, Gnostics, as fellow believers, men and women who said "we follow Christ", but were considered "false teachers" and were considered "unorthodox"?

The Church is a body of believers, followers of Christ, who shared ONE faith.

What is a believer today? Is it a JV? A Mormon? Why or why not?

Truth is not relative. There is one truth. And how much of this truth you hold onto determines whether one is a believer of Christ. I again note that Jesus calls Himself Truth and warns against the Father of Lies (He doesn't call the devil the father of evil, but lies). Jesus is concerned with Truth standing vs. Lies in such places as Matt 16. God desires all men to come to the knowledge of Truth.

Our experiences of God are quite subjective. We see here that people can believe they have experienced Christ AND hold onto some strange beliefs about WHO God is. Since experience is so subjective, we must rely on an objective truth outside of ourselves, a truth that can tell us we are right or wrong regarding our subjective experiences. We can be certain of our experiences when they are anchored in objective truth that we personally do not have to interpret and worry if we got it right. And since God promised to protect His Church from the Father of Lies, error, we can have assurance that what the Church teaches is indeed truth.

Thus, separating the Church from Christ merely leaves us to our OWN subjective and relativistic "truth", susceptible to the promptings of the father of lies... Paul didn't tell Timothy to hold onto the traditions given just for fun or as an historical study... Paul's Gospel was from God, and God desires that this Gospel be passed down to the next generation - through the Church.

To shift subjects slightly, the word "church" is not derived from any Biblical Greek whatsoever. It came into use some 200 hundred or so years later in reference to the building in which they worshiped. Kyriakon Doma was the phrase, I believe... and it means "the house of the Lord".

No, ecclesia is in the Greek OT, written BEFORE Christ... Perhaps it didn't have the same connotations as it does today, but it means a community or grouping of a particular people. Initially, it did not necessarily refer to a religious group. But the point is that it ALWAYS refered to a visible group, men and women you could touch and notice who was part of the group.

The Bible versions which translate ekklesia into assembly or congregation actually got it right.

1 Corinthians 12 paints one of the best pictures of the Lord's ekklesia and it's role. Many parts, one purpose is the theme and it's purpose is to use the spiritual gifts the Lord has blessed them with to aid in bringing people to repentance and salvation by spreading the Gospel word. All for the Glory of God.

The many parts refers to many ministries and gifts of the Spirit. Read 1 Cor 12 more carefully. It doesn't refer to different "denominations" spread throughout the world to somehow form some "invisible" Church with no unity. IF the Church is the Body of Christ, it can only have one set of beliefs. We proclaim the Church as ONE - and this is an important aspect - because there is only ONE Christ, there is only ONE Body.

Regards