A few questions for Protestants

[parousia70]

there was NO Church of Rome back in bible times!

Paul's Letter to the Church in Rome, you know, the Biblical epsitle called "Romans" would seem to refute your claim.

Perhaps you don't believe the Book of Romans is a true, correctly addressed letter to the then present people of the Church in Rome?

 

[timothyu]

Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—

So explain why the "church', comprised of more than just defeated (civil war) Rome's influence, rejected the will and governance of God and sided with the will and governance of man when they whored themselves to the Roman Empire, thus becoming just as worldly as the governments they modelled themselves after. That is a reversal of the truth Jesus gave us in the Gospel of the Kingdom. This is nothing but a useless matter of which worldly government is more powerful than the other and nothing to do with the Kingdom which is over and separate from all.

 

[Albion]

Paul's Letter to the Church in Rome, you know the Biblical epsitle called "Romans" would seem to refute your claim.

The term "Church of Rome" is often used as a synonym for "Roman Catholic Church." The Christian church was undeniably operating in the city of Rome during "Bible times."

 

[timothyu]

The term "Church of Rome" is often used as a synonym for "Roman Catholic Church." The Christian church was undeniably operating in the city of Rome during "Bible times."

Leaning more to the gentile side and hoping to exclude the original Jewish faction of the Church who would have been Christian but remained Jewish in nature and practice as Jesus had done. Long before the RCC reverse engineered itself into history.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Wait a minute. The RCC did not add those books. They were included with the others back in the fourth century AD, but only provisionally.

The Jews were divided on whether these were inspired writings or not and the Church wasn't sure

In the sixteenth century, the Protestants decided that none of them belonged in the Bible, and the Catholic Church responded by deciding that some but not all of them did.

There are, however, hardly any doctrines that are dependent upon what is in those books.

Those books were never seen and regarded as being inspired until included ion by Rome, as even when included in say the Kjv 1611. were said to be useful to read for history, but not for doctrines as were not inspired!

 

[YeshuaFan]

The term "Church of Rome" is often used as a synonym for "Roman Catholic Church." The Christian church was undeniably operating in the city of Rome during "Bible times."

There was no official Catholic Church until papacy arose, much later on!

 

[Albion]

Those books were never seen and regarded as being inspired until included ion by Rome, as even when included in say the Kjv 1611. were said to be useful to read for history, but not for doctrines as were not inspired!

That's not true.

However, some of the wording there seems imprecise, such as "until included by Rome" and "as even when included in say the KJV 1611."

The RCC considered them to be Scripture until the Reformation, and of course all the Protestant churches rejected the idea that these books should be part of the Bible.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Good Day, Albion

I do not think they reject the authority of Scripture, I just think the Roman Church peddles it's ( Scripture) authority as dependent on it's own:

Catholic Encyclopedia: One may not appeal to the inspired authority of the Scriptures, since for the fact of their inspiration the authority of the Church must be invoked, and unless she be infallible in deciding this one would be free to question the inspiration of any of the New Testament writings. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, Infallibility (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 792, 1st column.

Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

In Him,

Bill

The Church in Acts would have been FAR more akin to a Baptist Church then the one of Rome!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Paul's Letter to the Church in Rome, you know, the Biblical epsitle called "Romans" would seem to refute your claim.

Perhaps you don't believe the Book of Romans is a true, correctly addressed letter to the then present people of the Church in Rome?

There was a local assembly of Christians there, but not the Catholic Church!

 

[YeshuaFan]

That's not true.

The reformers did not see them as being inspired!

 

[BBAS 64]

The Church in Acts would have been FAR more akin to a Baptist Church then the one of Rome!

Good Day, YeshuaFan

Not sure historically you can prove such an assertion, I am not sure that "Baptist Church" would be a standard that the Bishop of Rome, or the Bishop in Jerusalem would know anything about in antiquity.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Albion]

Or maybe we could say that the 1st century church at Rome would have been more like a Baptist church than some denominations, but it surely was not more like a Baptist church than it was like a bunch of other denominations that could be named.

 

[timothyu]

I am not sure that "Baptist Church" would be a standard that the Bishop of Rome, or the Bishop in Jerusalem would know anything about in antiquity.

Yes it would have been more a hybrid mix of Jewish and gentile Christianity until a gentile vaccine was found to remove the Jewish influence which had kept it's traditions and turn the movement more gentile in nature. Forerunner of a movement mid 20th century. Ironic they would keep Peter and Jesus who followed non gentile ways and both whom focused on the Kingdom of God rather than the new religious gentile kingdom being built.

 

[Albion]

Yes it would have been more a hybrid mix of Jewish and gentile Christianity until a gentile vaccine was found to remove the Jewish influence which kept it's traditions and turn the movement more gentile in nature. .

The observation was probably more about such things as the threefold system of church officials (bishops, presbyters, deacons), the Lord's Supper being seen as more than just a memorial and Baptism as more than just an obligation, etc.

 

[parousia70]

The Church in Acts would have been FAR more akin to a Baptist Church then the one of Rome!

Really?
Lets see.
The Church of scripture (including the one in Acts), is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), and where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5)

Go ahead and tell us HOW these above attributes of the Church found in scripture are more akin to the Baptist Church than the Catholic Church.

 

[timothyu]

Anybody can build a generic version of the original Way. The proof in the pudding, or as scripture says ye shall be known by your fruits, is whether it mirrors human governments and becomes a worldly institution or mirrors the Kingdom of God as the Way did in practice and purpose..

 

[YeshuaFan]

Good Day, YeshuaFan

Not sure historically you can prove such an assertion, I am not sure that "Baptist Church" would be a standard that the Bishop of Rome, or the Bishop in Jerusalem would know anything about in antiquity.


In Him,

Bill

There were NO Bishops in the church in Acts, as they were overseers/elders/pastors, not the Bishop role as Rome holds to it as being!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Really?
Lets see.
The Church of scripture (including the one in Acts), is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), and where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5)

Go ahead and tell us HOW these above attributes of the Church found in scripture are more akin to the Baptist Church than the Catholic Church.

They would have a local church, a pastor elders and deacons, local autonomy, believers baptism, saved by grace alone thru faith alone!

 

[Fidelibus]

You asked what the standard of truth was. I answered. How is that not addressing the question?

No, that is not completely true. Take a closer look at my quote you posted on #358:

For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes, or no?

It's the same question I asked on my OP. So please take a real close look at my first question. Then take an even closer look at my last two questions. Once you do this, then please try to answer them as honestly and truthfully that you can.

Thank you, and God Bless!

 

[Fidelibus]

The Apostles used the Septuagint on their missionary journeys. So I would say using the Bible started there.

You are aware that the O.T. books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the N. T. books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. Right? And that the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century? Pretty sure the Apostles were long gone by then.

Of course most of the first Christians didn’t have any opportunity to own a personal copy of the Scriptures...the evidence shows that most people could not even read or write.

Yes, I agree that evidence shows that most people could not even read or write, even after the printing press was invented by German inventor Johannes Gutenberg around 1439.

Christian learning in the early church was centered on the story of God, Israel, and the world as found in the sacred writings.

Sacred writings? You must mean the writings of the O.T. alone, for history shows us the Bible did not exist until after the late fourth century.

Communal reading was the norm and that reading was a way of avoiding any serious alterations in the traditions and teachings of the first Christians.

The question was..." Can you show me when it started?" Can you show any early Christian historical writings or documentations that backs this up?

So they didn't bring their Bibles but they certainly heard the Bible read regularly.

Well renniks, I agree with you here somewhat, but not completely. My question was...."Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?" First off, as history shows, the bible was not compiled or in existence until the late forth century. Secondly, as shown above, evidence shows that most people could not even read or write, even after the printing press was invented around 1439. Even then, 99% of people could not afford them! However, I do agree that they heard the writings from the bible after it was compiled, (again, late 4th cent.) orally, as in Oral Tradition.

So renniks, let me ask you, if Christians were intended by our Lord to rely only upon the Bible for truth, then from the start Bibles would have to have been available to the average believer, don’t you agree? If so, when do you believe the Bible was available to the average believer?

Have a Blessed Day!