A few questions for Protestants

[Albion]

Ok, so we agree, the Bible as a whole, the Bible we have today was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, right? Meaning, the first century Christians did not have the Bible that we have today, right?

Only in a very technical sense.

Almost everything that was gathered together and given the church's seal of approval in the fourth century had, by that time, long since been acknowledged by the churches as being the inspired word of God.

 

[Albion]

That Being?

So, you are not a sola scripturist, that being a believer in the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith? Interesting, if you do not rely on the bible alone, what other authority do you rely on?

"Sufficient as a rule of faith" is not the same as "rely on the bible alone."

 

[timothyu]

Almost everything that was gathered together and given the church's seal of approval in the fourth century had, by that time, long since been acknowledged by the churches as being the inspired word of God.

The church's seal of approval applied only within the Roman Empire. Christianity had over the 300 years spread a lot further and was not under their State religion jurisdiction. That took many more centuries of manoeuvring and outright warfare to bring many under one roof of an institution that had outgrown and outlived the Roman Empire. Think of it as today's Corporatism movement.

 

[Albion]

The church's seal of approval on within the Roman Empire. Christianity had over the 300 years spread a lot further and was not under their State religion jurisdiction.

No, it hadn't spread much further. And being "under the State religion" or not under the State religion wouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Fidelibus]

That's right, but it's called the era of the Undivided Church because the other major divisions of the Church hadn't "come into existence" at that time

But once again, who called it " the era of the Undivided Church?"

My question/questions to you on post #401 that went unanswered were:

"Who called it the "the Undivided Church?" From the first century up to the late forth century when the bible was compiled?"

And:

"Could you please provide some historic documentation or writings in this timeline to back up what you stated?"

Something you failed to do.

Now as you may recall Albion, on my post #290 to you, I provided historic writings of the ECF from the years 110 a.d. to 250 a.d. where they spoke in unison on the Catholic Church being the only Church of their time. I could have provided many more historic writings of the ECF in later years and centuries about "The Catholic Church!" Still could if you'd like.

So, if it is the Catholic Church you are referring to as the "Undivided Church", I will agree with you 100%, as does early Christian Church history!!

Have a Blessed Day!

Now, it's getting close to have a beer, fire up the old BBQ, throw some steaks on it and watch the Super Bowl!!

 

[renniks]

Okay, since the official Canon of the Bible was not ratified until the late forth century, would you agree some of the "written words of the apostles" you speak of, that they heard could have been some of the written words that were excluded from the official Canon of the Bible that was agreed upon in the late forth century, right? If you do not agree, how do you know?

Well I guess I could ask how you know that it wasn't only what was later included? I'm sure they were not reading anything that wasn't from an actual apostle. For example, they were not reading the gnostic writings. I'm sure they read from the Torah also. Paul uses it extensively in his writings. Jesus himself used it to explain how it spoke of him. I'm not really sure what point you are trying to get to.

 

[renniks]

So, you are not a sola scripturist, that being a believer in the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith? Interesting, if you do not rely on the bible alone, what other authority do you rely on?

I rely on the Holy Spirits authority. Not any particular church affiliation. There's the true church, that is, true believers of every stripe, and there's tares in every denomination also.

 

[returntosender]

I don't understand why there is a distinction between protestants and other Christian beliefs. It is the same Bible. Unlike Mormonism and Catholic, etc, that have their own bibles.
I resent the separation.
I don't question your beliefs if you believe in the Christian God and his word. Why do you question mine?

 

[timothyu]

Why do you question mine?

I doubt the complaint is over the teachings of Jesus but more a case of asking why some refuse to bow to the authourity of a man made religious institution in the same way we do with secular governments.

 

[returntosender]

I doubt the complaint is over the teachings of Jesus but more a case of asking why some refuse to bow to the authourity of a man made religious institution in the same way we do with secular governments.

It's just a question I always have when I see protestents separated from the fray.
No angst intended.

 

[timothyu]

No angst intended.

No angst noted

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, hundreds of millions of them for sure, but how many exactly I couldn't say offhand

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no creed that all Protestants share and recite every Sunday

 

[Buzzard3]

As I said a collection of men with differing motives, some to keep the words of Jesus pure, some seeking literature that would fit in with the new kingdom they were building. A likely reason why epistles of Paul on church building made it in while any writings he may have most likely made on the Gospel of the Kingdom (being his primary mission) which he too taught and which would contradict religious empire building, might have been left out.

What "collection of men" decided which writings "made it" and which were "left" out? Try providing some facts instead of just childish guesses.

It sounds like you're completely ignorant of Church history. The contents of the NT were not decided on until the fourth century. Who decided that content and what authority did they have to make those decisions?

 

[Buzzard3]

The principle you are referring to held that the whole church was the responsible party you're asking about.

That tells me nothing. What "whole Church"? Who? When? Where? Provide some facts instead of vacuous guesses.
.

 

[timothyu]

. Who decided that content and what authority did they have to make those decisions?

The collection of men building their gentile empire using God as their justification to do so, who apart from the authority of the Emperor, were self proclaimed authourity as hundreds of years of infighting and incorporation lead them to the top of the heap. That's how governments and corporations work. It was supposed to be a people's church but just like governments today the people had no say.

 

[Buzzard3]

And I never said we rely only on the Bible.

If you don't rely on the Bible, what do you rely on?

 

[Buzzard3]

The collection of men building their gentile empire using God as their justification to do so, who apart from the authority of the Emperor, were self proclaimed authourity as hundreds of years of infighting and incorporation lead them to the top of the heap. That's how governments and corporations work. It was supposed to be a people's church but just like governments today the people had no say.

You are clueless. It's a waste of time trying to have a rational conversation with you. You have nothing intelligent to say and your posts are vacuous.

 

[timothyu]

You are clueless. It's a waste of time trying to have an rational conversation with you. You have nothing intelligent to say and your posts are completely vacuous.

You entitled to see it the way you want. But I repeat, man's kingdoms are not of God.

 

[Buzzard3]

The collection of men building their gentile empire using God as their justification to do so, who apart from the authority of the Emperor, were self proclaimed authourity as hundreds of years of infighting and incorporation lead them to the top of the heap. That's how governments and corporations work. It was supposed to be a people's church but just like governments today the people had no say.

Your fantasy about the Church being an unstructured, leaderless "movement" is patently contradicted by both Scripture and history. .

 

[Buzzard3]

"Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life ... This was pretty much the answer to that.

Yes, but Ephesians 1:21-22 says the Church is the "body" and "fullness" of Christ. Is your church the "fullness" of Christ?

The bible, the words of Jesus, is the pillar of our truth and faith. It's how we live and how we're guided.

This is an interesting inversion of what the Bible actually says. 1Tim 3:15 says the CHURCH is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" and Eph 4:11-16 says the CHURCH is our guide:

"And He Himself (Christ) gave

some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers (ie, the Church)

12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head--Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."

Notice that there's no mention whatsoever of the Bible in that passage.

Nowhere does the Bible state or imply that it is "the pillar of our truth and faith", which is a man-made Protestant tradition.