Meaning: "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

[redleghunter]

Argument is good as it provides both sides of an issue. However, I don't see that you started the thread looking for an argument anyway.

Love your avatar.

 

[JRichard68]

No, even those men did not say their Creed was the Word of God, NOR did they tell us to put our Faith in their CREED! Their faith was in Jesus Christ, not their own Creeds. And likewise, MY Faith is in Christ Jesus, not in the Creeds of His servants.

You we KNOW that their Creed is NOT the Word of God because it says "I BELIEVE in the [Church]". God puts NO CONFIDENCE in men, and Jesus Christ put none of His trust in His Church. He entrusted Himself to God alone.

Psalm 118:8
Isaiah 2:22
Psalm 146:3
Jeremiah 17:5

If those men can make Creeds, so can I! Am I any less a Christian then they???

So here is MY Creed... "LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR!!!"

Let me ask you a question - when you "became" a Christian, were you asked any questions? Did you declare your faith? - repeat a prayer? - testimony of any kind? When/if you were baptized, did you have to make any kind of declaration? Are you a member of any church, or do you just "attend"? If you are a member, were you accepted by any process? Asked to affirm a 'statement of faith'? If you've read the 'statement of faith' for the church you attend, do you agree with it? Does it "line up" with what you believe?

If none of the above matters, have you talked with your pastor about it? Oh, that's right, you're not required to since God puts NO CONFIDENCE in men. Besides, if you did, he might take exception to you pointing out that the 'statement of faith' is a creed and should be ignored.

Just sayin'...

Counterpoint - Cats Rule!

 

[Apex]

Well we don't have any manuscript evidence for the ones you speak of. People usually copy letters which apply to future generations.

We know other letters existed (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:9), we just don't know what happened to them. It is likely that the high expense of copying was a primary factor for many not being persevered properly. As for their relevance, some would have been incredibly helpful for us to still have. If we had the other letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we would be able to better understand the two letters we do have. Also, the reverse is true. Just look at 2 John and 3 John. There isn't much there that isn't already in 1 John. They were only persevered because they were written by John and because they were cheap to copy, not because of their content.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If you're going to invite a discussion but then dismiss out of hand any opinion that you don't want to hear, you might as well just state your belief at the onset, caling all others wrong, and be done with it.

I use the same technique. It's sometimes helpful in drawing people out.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Did Christ leave you a Church or a book?

Forgive me...

Both.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

In reformed theology only.
From the EO side, it is both.

Forgive me...

If that were the case, Paul was wrong on several counts, firstly in his rebuke of Peter.

 

[redleghunter]

We know other letters existed (e.g. 1 Corinthians 5:9), we just don't know what happened to them. It is likely that the high expense of copying was a primary factor for many not being persevered properly. As for their relevance, some would have been incredibly helpful for us to still have. If we had the other letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians, we would be able to better understand the two letters we do have. Also, the reverse is true. Just look at 2 John and 3 John. There isn't much there that isn't already in 1 John. They were only persevered because they were written by John and because they were cheap to copy, not because of their content.

Were they expensive or cheap to copy? You made both claims. The epistles of Paul some of which are very long, we have ample manuscript evidence.

Also, the reverse is true. Just look at 2 John and 3 John. There isn't much there that isn't already in 1 John. They were only persevered because they were written by John and because they were cheap to copy, not because of their content.

Of course they were copied for their content. These were letters from an apostle.

 

[redleghunter]

If that were the case, Paul was wrong on several counts, firstly in his rebuke of Peter.

Yes Paul rebuked the Pope. Go figure.

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 2:11-21 - New International Version

Then this tongue in cheek piece is quite informative:

51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy · Preachers Institute

 

[jimmyjimmy]

"I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

It's a statement from the Nicene creed.

Is the meaning static as defined by those who wrote it or are we free to reinterpret it as we see fit?

Forgive me...

How many churches are named in the NT? What are their names?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You can define it anyway you want, just don't accept Catholics to accept nor appreciate any change you make.

At this point in my walk I have determined to stay clear of decrees that we have been born into and have, subconsciously, shaped our paradigm. Instead, I have spent the last 15 years studying the context behind the NT (no, not the verse before and after, but rather anything that has any influence on what is written in the NT.... Hebrew idioms or rules of exegesis, ancient near east culture, the languages in use, etc.).

I hope you don't feel I've been picking on you. What subjects do you teach?

There's a lightbulb joke about change and The Orthodox Church.

Forgive me...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I hope you don't feel I've been picking on you. What subjects do you teach?

There's a lightbulb joke about change and The Orthodox Church.

Forgive me...

Ya, ya. We get it, you don't change anything.

How many Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They always use candles.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Don't forget to vote at the top of the page.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Ya, ya. We get it, you don't change anything.

How many Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?

None. They always use candles.

Are you chiding me?

Some things have changed.
Christians came out of the catacombs and tombs into public worship after it became legal.
The creed was "developed" into a fuller statement.
Services are shorter and spread over a year.
Bishops don't get married anymore.
Whole written languages were created so that communities could have written copies of the materials they needed.
Confession is no longer done in front of everyone.
Tithing is not mandated but rather optional at the Bishop's discretion.

Most of those changes were done in the first few centuries.

Forgive me...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Are you chiding me?

No. Banter, and a joke. Fun stuff.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Apostolic just refers to the writings of the apostles, our New Testament.

That was not the point of view of the authors of the creed.

So did you vote that it's free to interpretation?

Forgive me...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That was not the point of view of the authors of the creed.

So did you vote that it's free to interpretation?

Forgive me...

What writings of the original authors do we have for confirmation of meaning?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No. Banter, and a joke. Fun stuff.

I'm going to start using smileys again. Some things just don't come across they way we want them to.

Forgive me...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I'm going to start using smileys again. Some things just don't come across they way we want them to.

Forgive me...

I have an avatar that permanently helps makes the point.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What writings of the original authors do we have for confirmation of meaning?

Not my usual source, but the text is the same.

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia...._Vol_14_The_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils,_EN.pdf

Here is an interesting snip;

THOSE who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. (Making them members of The Church)

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From the Orthodox point of view... not being a member of "The Church" yet is not a problem so long as you are a Christian (professing belief in Christ as the Son of God and denouncing Satan and his Angels) and moving in the right direction.

From a Protestant point of view (I used to be one) it's troubling when someone tells you you're not in The Church.

Don't be troubled. Nobody doubts your salvation. We don't even see salvation in the same way. Nobody is condemning you, except the fire and brimstone preachers of your past.

You've likely been told at one time or another that you can't be saved if your not in The Church. Or that if you are saved... you're in The Church.
Foolishness and utter rubbish. Christ God saves whom he will.

Forgive me...