Christians - Bible Interpretation

[Scuba Pete]

My answer:
Mr Baerly is incorrect. The Church he is a member of IS protestant.

Unless you belong to the church of Christ, you really don't know what you are talking about. If the churches of Christ contend that they are NOT protestent, then who are YOU to state otherwise?

Again if Mr Baerly wants to say he belongs to the Church that Jesus founded in 33 A.d. then Mr Baerly would have to be a Catholic.

The "Catholic" church was not around back then. There were no popes, no masses, no nuns and all the brethren were considered "priests". While the Catholic church can clearly trace it's roots from an apostasy from the First Century Church, it looks NOTHING like it today. Mr Baerly belongs to the ONLY church existant today, which is trying to pattern itself ONLY after the First Century church, even to adopting a scriptural name. I challenge you to find a reference to the "Catholic Church" in scripture.

Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings. NIV

"Protestant": an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

"Reform": The improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.

The churches of Christ did not want to reform a man made institution (neither the Catolic or Protestant Churches). Instead, they wanted to RESTORE the primitive church.

"Restore": To bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting.

To that end, the churches of Christ have tried to re-establish the practices and theology of the First Century churches. Almost every point of order in their services can be substantiated by Biblical references. Their goal is to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. Unlike many of the protestant Churches, there is no national structure. That is, each church is autonomous as were the primitive churches and so like the churches in Revelation, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.

As a former member of the churches of Christ as well as the International Churches of Christ, I applaud the former for their faith and due diligence in trying to pattern themselves after the First Century Church. Unfortunately, I have found the disturbing teaching of WWJB in all of the local churches of Christ, and I simply can NOT abide by this at all.

All of the definitions given were from www.Dictionary.com. I freely admit to using only the definition that best illustrated my point.

 

[athanasius]

Net doc said:

The "Catholic" church was not around back then. There were no popes, no masses, no nuns and all the brethren were considered "priests". While the Catholic church can clearly trace it's roots from an apostasy from the First Century Church, it looks NOTHING like it today. Mr Baerly belongs to the ONLY church existant today, which is trying to pattern itself ONLY after the First Century church, even to adopting a scriptural name. I challenge you to find a reference to the "Catholic Church" in scripture.


My answer

Thank you brother Net doc for your questions. I would assume that you may have never studied history before at least not from a catholic and non-catholic and secular point of view.

Point A. The Word Catholic means “universal”or of the whole. The Church in the new testament was clearly universal or Catholic as they were given a command ot go out and baptize “all nations”(Matt 28:19-20) hence this church would extend universally all over the world.

NOW its true the word “Catholic” does not appear in the bible. But that shouldn’t make anyone nervous. Mr Net doc do you believe in the dogma of the Holy Trinity? The Word “Holy Trinity” is also not found anywhere in the pages of scripture.

The concept is taught there and it took the church a while to develop a deeper understanding of this truth of the trinity but you will never find the word their at all. Does that mean we are not to believe it? Of coarse not. In the same way the word Catholic isn’t there but the concept of universal church is(Matt 28:19-20). So I am afraid that I have no sympathy for that argument.

Point B. If you look to very early history you will find the church being described as Catholic. As a matter of fact if you look at the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch you will find that the church that Jesus founded was called Catholic.

“Ignatius of Antioch

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

it is important to realize that Ignatius was considered a great Bishop and he was taught by the Apostle John himself as historian William Jurgens shows in his book (the faith of the early fathers vol 1 page 17)

Again we also have non-catholic protestant historians who admit this: as Catholic answers shows
At http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp


Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Point C. There clearly were Popes and Masses in the early church. St Peter who Christ made the first Pope(Matt 16:13-19) was the first historical Pope.

besides scripture we have 3 different sources to prove this.

1) Secular source----Merrium webster collegiate encyclopedia Page 1292-1293

2) protestant historical source---the oxford Dictionary of Popes by Historian JND Kelly

3) Catholic sources --The Encyclopedia of Catholic history

All three of these historical sources show the list of historical Popes begins with the Apostle Peter and goes all the way down to our current Pope Benedict 16th. Also see here; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Point D. If you think the Catholic church apostatized then you must believe that Peter himself did. But how can the Catholic church have Apostatized when the Lord promised his Catholic church and his Pope Peter that the gates of death wouldn’t prevail against it(Matt 16;18). And Jesus told us that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Catholic church into all truth(Jn 16:13-14).

And Jesus also promised this same catholic church that he would be with it to guide it till the end of the world(Matt 28:20). Now historically as all sources show if Peter was the first Pope and if Jesus promised all these things to the Catholic church, then to say that the Catholic church apostatized would be to call Jesus a liar.

Point E. If the Catholic church apostatized and if the churches of christ that Mr Baerly belong to are the real church then how come the churches of christ didn’t give us the New testament canon?

The Catholic church did in the year 382 Ad under Pope Damasus I and ratified by Hippo(393) and Carthage(397) all Catholic councils. The Churches of christ follow the Catholic New testament Canon. Why would you follow that if the Catholic church apostatized???????? Again to even know the new testament canon you must rely on tradition and the authority of the Catholic church. Where was the churches of Christ when the Canon was formed? They were not in existence yet because protestantism wasn’t in existence yet. Thats just a historical fact. So this is the irony of all other churches.

The irony is that the very scripture Net doc and other protestants quote to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to them by the very-Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions in 382 Ad that he argues against .

In other words the only reason why the churches of christ can quote you the new testament and even know what books make up the new testament is because the Catholic church and her traditions decided in the 4th century what made up the canon and what didn’t.

I urge anyone reading this to study history and it will reveal this. I would recommend everyone read this book

“Where we Got the Bible our debt to the Catholic church” by Henry Graham.
Graham was a protestant minister who upon studying the history of the bible came to realize that Christ Catholic church gave us the New testament and he converted.


Thanks Net doc and God bless you always in Jesus through Mary,
athanasius

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would assume that you may have never studied history before at least not from a catholic and non-catholic and secular point of view.

Like most asumptions, this is false. It's not nice trying to divert the discussion from the topic to my credentials.

Point A. NOW its true the word “Catholic” does not appear in the bible.

Thanks for capitulating this critical point. It is as true NOW as it was then. The First Century church never referred to itself as being the Catholic Church. It did however, refer to itself as the church of Christ and the church of God. So, just using this scriptural roll call, we can see that the Catholic Church was not present during the first century, while the church of Christ was.

Point B. If you look to very early history you will find the church being described as Catholic. As a matter of fact if you look at the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch you will find that the church that Jesus founded was called Catholic.

I agree that the apostasy which led to the Catholic Church happened quite early. In fact Paul's writings are replete with warnings watching out for this to happen.

Point C. There clearly were Popes and Masses in the early church. St Peter who Christ made the first Pope(Matt 16:13-19) was the first historical Pope.

Sorry, but that is a severe twisting of the Scriptures. Peter never claimed to be the Pope and neither did Paul. There is no reference to such a title in ANY of the New Testament. Perhaps reading it will clear this up for you.

Point D. If you think the Catholic church apostatized then you must believe that Peter himself did.

Please don't tell me what I MUST believe. However, I do believe that we have Paul on record rebuking Peter. How does one rebuke the Pope nowadays? They don't, as they would be excommunicated. The Catholic Church bears NO RESEMBLENCE to that tiny band of believers that comprised the first century church. No amount of your fantasy could convince me otherwise.

Point E. If the Catholic church apostatized and if the churches of christ that Mr Baerly belong to are the real church then how come the churches of christ didn’t give us the New testament canon?

Another fallacy here. The Catholic church did not write one dot or tiddle of the New Testament. To suggest that they gave us these records borders on reckless fantasy. That they gathered the various scriptures and letters together does not mean that they OWN them. They are owned by God, and many, myself included, would point out that the Spirit had more to do with this collection (as well as writing) than any synod or denomination, apostate or not. However, it is a demonstrable fact, that the writers of the NT DID belong to the churches of Christ during that time. So arguably, the churches of Christ ARE responsible for the writing of these documents. Thanks for editing them!

The irony is that the very scripture Net doc and other protestants quote to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to them by the very-Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions in 382 Ad that he argues against .

The real irony is, that unlike the churches of Christ, you don't seem to want to follow the very same scriptures you pretend to have given us.

I would like to point out that NOT ONCE did you discuss the significant difference between reformation and restoration. Do you capitulate that point as well?

PS... I don't refer to the "Trinity" anymore. The term is not in the scriptures so I don't use it. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is far more complicated than anything a man made term could describe. Too often man comes along and either over complicates things or trivialises them. Let's just stick to what the first century Christians have deemed fit to write about. Thanks!

 

[writer]

81 Mr Baerly belongs to the ONLY church existant today, which is trying to pattern itself ONLY after the First Century church...
Perhaps the only group u're aware of

...even to adopting a scriptural name.
"churches of Christ" in Rm, just like "church(es) of God" in Corinthians, r not names but realities

To that end, the churches of Christ have tried to re-establish the practices and theology of the First Century churches.
And not succeeded

Almost every point of order in their services can be substantiated by Biblical references.
From your experience: what can't?

each church is autonomous as were the primitive churches and so like the churches in Revelation, each has it's own strengths and weaknesses.
To the contrary: each church in the NT is part of Christ's one Body.
Which definitely's not to say they had an organizational, hierarchical order

80 just because 2 tim 3:16 says all scripture is God breathed(we Catholics agree with) that doesn’t mean that we are going to know what all scripture is. That is why it took the Church 4 centuries to figure what constituted the canon of the new testament.
"figure" = "know." So your 2nd sentence seems to contradict your 1st.
In any case, to possess eternal life means the eternal life. The life which has the capacity to know God (Jn 17:3) because it is God (Jn 11:25). And thus recognize, or discern, what and who are of God

Writer may argue that Peter says that all of Pauls writings are scripture and he will quote(2 Peter 3:15) But as I have shown historically that argument doesn’t work because the vast majority of Christians...
To the contrary: "arguments" don't make Scripture Scripture, God breathes His word into His apostles. Nor do "vast majorities of Christians" make Scripture or not make it. God's not a democracy, nor's His church or word

...the vast majority of Christians did not even consider 2nd Peter to be inspired scripture or canonical until the early 4th century as almost all the earliest canons will show ie..the Murtorian Canon of 180 A.D. and others.
To the contrary: the Muratorian canon shows what the author of the Muratorian canon and at least some others understood at that immediate time.
In any case, even if Peter thot 2 P not Scripture, doesn't alter the fact if it is, which it is

none of the scriptures you mention above (eg 2 P 3:16; Rv1:11; Lk 24:44; Mt 4:4-10; etc) give us or name us the complete canon of the new testament.
The NT's not that kind of book.
In any case: it was written by the apostles

what about James epistles? does Peter mention James and his epistle is this passage?
He was flesh-brother of Christ and leader in church in Jerusalem. With whom the apostles interacted

What about the book of Revelation? Ahh It may not have even been written yet. So how could Peter mention that book?
? Revelation 1:11, the Lord's direct word to John to record the Lord's direct words to the 7 churches, is why i cited Rv 1:11

How could Mr Writer know it was inspired? Peter never mentioned it.
John did. John wrote it. John's an apostle

The bible has no divinely inspired table of contents. No one author ever list all the books that would make up the bible.
Did someone here suggest they did, or it has?
The Bible's not that kind of book. It was written over a span of about 1600 years, from Moses to Malachi, and Matthew-John 'n Revelation. Thanks

 

[Quiddity]

Thanks for capitulating this critical point. It is as true NOW as it was then. The First Century church never referred to itself as being the Catholic Church. It did however, refer to itself as the church of Christ and the church of God. So, just using this scriptural roll call, we can see that the Catholic Church was not present during the first century, while the church of Christ was.

Who gives a flying spaghetti? They could have referred to themselves as the smurfs and it can become meaningless by further developments. It is the same old rhetoric used by the LDS and others; that the early church apostatized and everybody and their mother thinks they were this early church before it was infiltrated by catholic stuff. Complete hogwash and doesn’t stand a chance in a historical argument. So what do people do? They cut off all history not found in the bible. It becomes ever so difficult to take this serious.

I agree that the apostasy which led to the Catholic Church happened quite early. In fact Paul's writings are replete with warnings watching out for this to happen.

And it did happen. But we don’t believe it happened as you think it did. The Church has had heresies, heretics, movements, etc. from day one. St. Paul new this and new it was only going to get worse. The early church was replete with all sorts of issues, but it is flat out dishonest to say it completely apostatized to justify one’s existence.

Please don't tell me what I MUST believe. However, I do believe that we have Paul on record rebuking Peter. How does one rebuke the Pope nowadays? They don't, as they would be excommunicated. The Catholic Church bears NO RESEMBLENCE to that tiny band of believers that comprised the first century church. No amount of your fantasy could convince me otherwise.

Now this is just a good conversation stopper as any. I don’t about you but it was my understanding that the early church was like any other living thing that starts from infancy and grows in time. If you think the Apostles had everything nice and clear from the get go, then perhaps you too have deviated from reality.

Another fallacy here. The Catholic church did not write one dot or tiddle of the New Testament. To suggest that they gave us these records borders on reckless fantasy.

Wow! Not even some of the more hard core evangelical apologists resort to this non-sense.

That they gathered the various scriptures and letters together does not mean that they OWN them.

Who says we do? All he is saying is that you accept an authoritative conclusion of a supposed apostatized Church. Now that is something that needs some clarification. Is this one of those “we pick what we like”, type of deals?

They are owned by God, and many, myself included, would point out that the Spirit had more to do with this collection (as well as writing) than any synod or denomination, apostate or not.

Amen!

However, it is a demonstrable fact, that the writers of the NT DID belong to the churches of Christ during that time. So arguably, the churches of Christ ARE responsible for the writing of these documents. Thanks for editing them!

Right, you and others make the same claim with no basis outside of your own presuppositions, bias, etc. The same can’t be said of our position.

The real irony is, that unlike the churches of Christ, you don't seem to want to follow the very same scriptures you pretend to have given us.

I’m going to take that as if you were talking to him personally.

I would like to point out that NOT ONCE did you discuss the significant difference between reformation and restoration. Do you capitulate that point as well?

Tomatoe and Tomato?

PS... I don't refer to the "Trinity" anymore. The term is not in the scriptures so I don't use it. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is far more complicated than anything a man made term could describe. Too often man comes along and either over complicates things or trivialises them. Let's just stick to what the first century Christians have deemed fit to write about. Thanks!

And you know what this is in simple 1st grade terms? Pete, people are always searching for clarity in the Word of God. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you have beef with people using words to express a reality then you will have issues that go beyond scripture. That's just human nature.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Perhaps the only group u're aware of

And I am aware of many.

"churches of Christ" in Rm, just like "church(es) of God" in Corinthians, r not names but realities

Yet nowhere do we see "Catholic", by name or reality.

And not succeeded

They have come closer than any I have seen.

From your experience: what can't?

A'capella music for starters. The Scriptures do not prohibit it though that is taught.

To the contrary: each church in the NT is part of Christ's one Body.
Which definitely's not to say they had an organizational, hierarchical order

With CHRIST as the head: not the Pope.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who gives a flying spaghetti?

Obviously, I do. I would suggest that others do, even including some celestial beings.

They cut off all history not found in the bible. It becomes ever so difficult to take this serious.

I cut off no history. I just find it unteneble that you contend one thing that is never supported in Scriptures: that the Catholic church is the same thing as the first century church. You can be upset about what you consider to be the ultimate heresy, but in reality YOU are the one denying the history of the situation. All you have done here is to tell us WHY we should not believe that the Scriptures mean what they say. Curiouser.

 

[Quiddity]

Obviously, I do. I would suggest that others do, even including some celestial beings.

Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but aren't you the one not stuck up on labels?
Other then that I have nothing else to say for fear of disputing about words (2 Tim. 2:14).

I cut off no history. I just find it unteneble that you contend one thing that is never supported in Scriptures: that the Catholic church is the same thing as the first century church.

Where have I said such a thing?
What I said was:
it was my understanding that the early church was like any other living thing that starts from infancy and grows in time. If you think the Apostles had everything nice and clear from the get go, then perhaps you too have deviated from reality.

You can be upset about what you consider to be the ultimate heresy, but in reality YOU are the one denying the history of the situation. All you have done here is to tell us WHY we should not believe that the Scriptures mean what they say. Curiouser.

Not upset at all.
I'd appreaciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. I believe in the Holy Scriptures with all the love I can muster. What I don't believe is that the Scriptures are so
perspicuous as to find any alternative interpretations completely invalid and silly. That not only flies in the face of reality, but is being intellectually dishonest.

Even you yourself see abstracts such as the Trinity and then come to me and say "can't you see it's so clear?". Sorry, it is clear to many of us that the Bible is infact unclear and abstract, even to those who truly want to know.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not entirely true. There are some who were not part of the protestant movement and who consider themselves restorationists: restoring the primitive church with it's spiritual power and integrity.

There is not a restorationist church that can legitimately trace its history to Christ without going through the ancient churches. Their claims to doctrinal and historical purity are IMHO completely baseless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This may have nothing to do with this thread but Go Cardinals! They have won 3 games so far and my boy Eckstien is a devout Catholic and he really helped last night! Whoo hooo!!

There is a God.: hamster :

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The church I am a member of is not Catholic nor Protestant.

We still worship according to new testament teachings today.

The church of Christ had its begining on the day of Pentecost in 33 A.D.


in love Baerly

I don't disagree that Christ founded a Church. That it is the American Church of Christ is a baseless, ahistorical, theological fairy tail that has no relationship to reality whatsoever.

I can claim to be the Buddha and it would have more theological and historical relevance.:yes:

http://www.waldronchurchofchrist.org/restoration_movement.htm

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is not a restorationist church that can legitimately trace its history to Christ without going through the ancient churches. Their claims to doctrinal and historical purity are IMHO completely baseless.

See for example a rare honest recounting of history that is quite good:

http://www.waldronchurchofchrist.org/restoration_movement.htm

Not only are we non-denominational, but in reality we are not even Protestants. The word "Protestant" is derived from the protesting of the followers of Martin Luther against the decision of the Diet of Speier in 1529 which denied liberty of worship to the reformers. Later other groups in turn broke with the Lutheran, Presbyterian, or other denominations, protesting some part of their doctrine. As a result, these "protesters" went on to form still other denominations.

As a "Restoration Movement" we have not broken with any particular group in an attempt to protest or "reform." The early participants in this movement consisted, instead, of those who broke from a variety of denominations and religious groups. They did this, not in an attempt to reform any particular denomination, but rather in an effort to restore the "original" church of the New Testament.

The website from which I retrieved my quote lists six movements that unified to birth the Church of Christ in America - all of them are Protestant and therefore must trace their lineage through the Catholic Church to Christ.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ

 

[writer]

84 ONLY church existant today, which is trying to pattern itself ONLY after the First Century church
86 I am aware of many
Many rn't only. I compliment u on your picture by the way. You're a very handsome person

nowhere do we see "Catholic", by name...
That's rite

...or reality.
That's rite az to capital "C." Tho in fact Christ's Body's "universal" in the NT meaning one despite time and space

They have come closer than any I have seen.
i respectfully disagree. From what i've seen

A'capella music for starters. The Scriptures do not prohibit it though that is taught.
Paul not only not prohibits singing to God, psalms hymns and spiritual songs,
he encourages it

CHRIST as the head: not the Pope.
Bien-sur

80 He is under the false belief that everyone in the first century believed all the new testament books you have in your bible to be the inspired word of God. This is his error.
um, since i don't believe that, that couldn't be my error, since it's not mine

The immediate congregations that some of these books were written to did recognize them to be authoritative. For example, when Pauls wrote to the Hebrews, it of coarse was authoritative. He was a apostle. It is also true that some of the congregations may have been aware of his other letters, although not all of them were.
um, if some weren't even aware of a letter, then it wasn't "written to" them. Or the mail didn't get through

But as history shows, the “Church as a Whole” outside of the Hebrew congregation that Paul wrote too(In his epistle to the Hebrews) did not know that his letters to the Hebrews were inspired scripture.
Peter knew Paul's letters were, including Hebrews, 2 P 3:16. But even pretending 2 P 3:16 didn't and duzn't exist: Hebrews is, and was, still Scripture the second it was put to paper or papyrus or whatever they used

As far as Matt 4 is concerned this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the canon of scriptures at all. Matt 4 does not give us a list of all the books that belong to the bible does he? Can Mr writer show me why he thinks this passage says it does?
he can try. In 4:4 the GodMan says "It's written," meaning Scripture, "Man shan't live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds out of God's mouth," Deuteronomy 8:3, demonstrating that Deuteronomy is Scripture. Meaning it's Canon.
In 4:6 Satan quotes Scripture, Psalm 91:11-12, thinking to outsmart the ManSavior. And accuately stating it "is written" (Scripture). The Torah's Scripture. The Psalms're Scripture.
In 4:7 the Lord responds not with tradition (which he elsewhere condemns among the Pharisees, because their tradition serves to contradict Scripture), but with "Again it's written," quoting Deuteronomy 6:6 that He, as man, shouldn't tempt His Father, as God.
Lastly, in 4:10, the Lord, who is both the smartest person, and the very Jehovah incarnate, still doesn't speak His own words. To His adversary. But quotes Deut 6:13 with the repeated, hence emphatic: "It's written." Praise the Lord, Jesus!

 

[Scuba Pete]

Their claims to doctrinal and historical purity are horse dookie.

Let's hope that I never claim the same about Catholicism. But thanks for the kind words.

 

[Scuba Pete]

of those who broke from a variety of denominations and religious groups

.

The same could be said of the Apostle Paul. Was he converted to Christianity or do you reckon he was merely a "Protestant Jew"???

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Let's hope that I never claim the same about Catholicism. But thanks for the kind words.

I have edited my posts.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The same could be said of the Apostle Paul. Was he converted to Christianity or do you reckon he was merely a "Protestant Jew"???

This is actually a subject of no small debate in New Testament scholarship.

Based on Paul's writings I'd have to say that he considers his religion to be a perfectly seamless continuation of Judaism despite obvious inconsistencies.

 

[athanasius]

Mr Net Doc said;

“Thanks for capitulating this critical point. It is as true NOW as it was then. The First Century church never referred to itself as being the Catholic Church. It did however, refer to itself as the church of Christ and the church of God. So, just using this scriptural roll call, we can see that the Catholic Church was not present during the first century, while the church of Christ was.”

My answer

Net doc I know you read the 1st part of my answer but you must have not read the second part. So I will paste it for you again;

The Word Catholic means “universal” or of the whole. The Church in the new testament was clearly universal or Catholic as they were given a command to go out and baptize “all nations”(Matt 28:19-20) hence this church would extend universally all over the world.

NOW its true the word “Catholic” does not appear in the bible. But that shouldn’t make anyone nervous. Mr Net doc do you believe in the dogma of the Holy Trinity? The Word “Holy Trinity” is also not found anywhere in the pages of scripture.

The concept is taught there and it took the church a while to develop a deeper understanding of this truth of the trinity but you will never find the word their at all. Does that mean we are not to believe it? Of coarse not. In the same way the word Catholic isn’t there but the concept of universal church is(Matt 28:19-20). So I am afraid that I have no sympathy for that argument.



Net Doc also said;

“ I agree that the apostasy which led to the Catholic Church happened quite early. In fact Paul's writings are replete with warnings watching out for this to happen.”

My answer

I agree that there were early heresies as Paul predicted and we have had many heresies in the early church, from Modalist, to Arians, to Monarchianist to Manicheans etc. But it is important to realize that historically that it was the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church and her Popes and councils that eventually squashed these heresies.

Notice historically that it was the Spirit of God working through the Catholic church to squash these early heresies, not the supposed churches of Christ. Why is that? If the churches of christ were the real true original churches then why were they not squashing these historical heresies?

Arianism was condemned at the Catholic council of Nicea 325 AD. Montanism was condemned at the Catholic council of Constantinople 381 AD. Where were the Churches of Christ during all of this. They were not created yet because protestantism was not created yet.

Net doc said:

“Sorry, but that is a severe twisting of the Scriptures. Peter never claimed to be the Pope and neither did Paul. There is no reference to such a title in ANY of the New Testament. Perhaps reading it will clear this up for you”.


My answer

I never said that Paul was the Pope although he did give himself the title father which is what Popes means. I argued as historical scholars across the board argue that Peter held the early Papacy. I would love to discuss the exegesis of Matt 16:13-19 with you sometime. I wrote a 9 page college paper on this very subject.

Net doc said

“I do believe that we have Paul on record rebuking Peter. How does one rebuke the Pope nowadays? They don't, as they would be excommunicated. The Catholic Church bears NO RESEMBLENCE to that tiny band of believers that comprised the first century church. No amount of your fantasy could convince me otherwise”

my answer

Yes Paul does rebuke Peter. Popes can be rebuked. Several Catholic saints in the past have rebuked the Pope. I believe St Catherine of Sienna did. She did not get excommunicated. Just because someone rebukes the Pope doesn’t mean that he is not he Pope.

The biblical office of Pope isn’t diminished if someone rebukes him. Heck we have alot of liberal theologians today who rebuke our current Holy father Benendict. They have not been excommunicated. You could use s similar argument saying “Michael Moore rebuked President Bush therefore Bush was not president.” But as you can see this is ridiculous. the office of presidency still exist even if he is rebuked just like the office of Pope exist even if he is rebuked. Amen!

Net Doc said

“Another fallacy here. The Catholic church did not write one dot or tiddle of the New Testament”

My answer
Well My initial response never said that we did. What I was trying to say is that you and the Churches of christ adhere to the new testament canon that the Catholic church and her Popes and councils decided upon in the 4th century. Why do you accept the Popes and Catholic councils on the new testament canon if the Catholic church is a apostate church????

That doesn’t make any sense. Why didn’t God use the churches of christ to deliver to the world the new testament canon?? Why would God use a apostate Church???? Food for thought. However, historically it was the Catholics who wrote the New testament .

Again all historical sources Catholic and non catholic alike show Peter to be the first Pope.

1) Secular source----Merrium webster collegiate encyclopedia Page 1292-1293

2) protestant historical source---the oxford Dictionary of Popes by Historian JND Kelly

3) Catholic sources --The Encyclopedia of Catholic history

All three of these historical sources show the list of historical Popes begins with the Apostle Peter and goes all the way down to our current Pope Benedict 16th. Also see here; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

and we know that Peter wrote 2 infallible epistles in the bible. therefore you are incorrect the Catholic church through the Holy Spirit did write and canonize the new testament of which you adhere to. Just a historical fact.

Net doc said;

“That they gathered the various scriptures and letters together does not mean that they OWN them. They are owned by God, and many, myself included, would point out that the Spirit had more to do with this collection (as well as writing) than any synod or denomination, apostate or not. However, it is a demonstrable fact, that the writers of the NT DID belong to the churches of Christ during that time. So arguably, the churches of Christ ARE responsible for the writing of these documents. Thanks for editing them!”

My answer

Now think about what you are saying Net Doc. Why would God use a apostate church to gathert and edit the new testament. I believe the Holy spirit worked through the Catholic Church to edit and gather these. But why would God use the Catholic church for this?

If the Churches of Christ were the real christian churches wouldn’t God have used them to gather and edit and canonize the new testament? But he didn’t. Why? Because the Churches of Christ weren’t around for another 1400 or so years.



Net doc said;

I would like to point out that NOT ONCE did you discuss the significant difference between reformation and restoration. Do you capitulate that point as well?”

My answer

Mr Net doc you gave me definition of "protestant" and reformation said that the churches of Christ were not protestant. Lets look at the definition you gave:

“Protestant": an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.”


Now Mr net doc you by your definition have proved yourself to be wrong. Notice that the definition of a protestant also includes “any group descended from them(Protestants)”.

The Church of Christ was formed as part of a movement started by Baptist and presbyterian preachers(protestant) which eventually developed into the many branches of the Churches of Christ.

Churches of Christ were descended historically from the Protestant movement can traces its origins back to the protestant American restoration movement in 1827 . The denomination is a offshoot from Thomas & Alexander Campbell restoration movement within american protestantism in the early to mid 1800’s.

See evidence here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement# under modern branches.

Also see evidence here http://www.scripturecatholic.com/history.html

So yes indeed the Churches of Christ are protestant and are simply latter reformers reforming protestant doctrine in the 1800’s. They are also late comers.


I hope that helps. Gods bless you always Doc

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

 

[athanasius]

I must make one correction the Catholic council of Constantinople(381) condemned the Macedonian heresy not the Montanist heresy. Sorry about that.

Athanasius

 

[sojourner]

This is all an arugument of semantics. The catholic church was certainly "around" "back then" because the Church has always been the Church, and the Church has always been universal, or "catholic." Just because the congregations of the Stone-
Campbell movement, primarily in the South, decided to call themselves "Churches of Christ" after the 1906 Census, separating themselves from the other churches of the movement, does not mean that the Biblical name they took in any way gives them special claim to the "orginality" of the Church.

If this definition is true:

"Protestant": an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

Then the Churches of Christ certainly are Protestant, for their founders were Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and Walter Scott. The Campbells, as well as Stone were Presbyterian clergy, and Walter Scott was a Baptist. Since the Presbyterian Church was most definitely a Protestant body, then the Church as manifested in the Stone-Campbell movement is also Protestant, as indeed it is, both in ancestry and in theology, having sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia in common with Protestant teaching, as well as retaining much of Presbyterian polity (with notable distinctions).

The rub is that nobody can claim one group or another as "the origianl Church," because the Church, in reality, does not depend upon group identity, as both Catholics and Protestants would like to think. In this, I agree with the Stone-Campbell movement. However, neither can the Churches of Christ lay claim to apostolic "originality" without going through the historical Church, as A_E said.