Catholic?

[Major1]

It was called the Catholic Church which was the only Christian church that existed before 1500AD. They adopted the name Orthodox meaning traditional when Rome was excommunicated in 1054AD.

Are you trying to say that longevity equals correctness?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Consult history books. I often recommend A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker and Christianity by Roland Bainton. Both authors are highly regarded. This is fairly routine stuff, but you cannot ask me or anyone else to recount the whole history of Christianity in a discussion board post.

I just asked for the name and where I can find evidence of it’s existence. I’m not prepared to read a 600 page book to get that information. If you’ve read it perhaps you could simply share the name of the church?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Are you trying to say that longevity equals correctness?

No I’m simply saying that Jesus’ Church must have existed continuously and uninterrupted since it was first established until today.

 

[Major1]

No I’m simply saying that Jesus’ Church must have existed continuously and uninterrupted since it was first established until today.

I see. Now may I say to you that the ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.”

The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim. Some Protestant denominations make this claim. Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim. How do we know which church is correct?

The biblical answer is – it does not matter!

Lets consider Bible facts, shall we?

The first church—its growth, doctrine, and practices—were recorded for us in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and indeed it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that these apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.

Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church's roots back to the "first church" is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture.

Whether a church is the "true church" or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.

This dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individual "founders" is seen again in Gal. 1:8-9 in which Paul states...……..
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

Right there we see the basis for determining truth from error which is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is the same gospel that they had already received – and this gospel is recorded in Scripture.

So then from...……..What was the first / original church? Is the original / first church the true church?
The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.”

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following:
1). praying to Mary,
2). praying to the saints,
3). venerating Mary,
4). submitting to a pope,
5). having a select priesthood,
6). baptizing an infant,
7). observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments,
8). passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.
9). Immaculate Conception of Mary
10) Assumption of Mary
11) Purgatory.
12) Works included for salvation.

All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is not the point is it?

IT of course is the church.

However the church was NOT founded upon Peter. THAT was the point.

The church was founded upon the confession of Peter when he was asked by Jesus who he thought Jesus was. And Peter's answer was...…….."You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".

That confession is the cornerstone of the church.....not Peter.

Both you and Albion can’t seem to give a simple answer to simple questions, why is that? It was a simple question of what was Jesus referring to when He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The simple answer is He was referring to His Church. See, what reformers don’t understand is that Jesus’ Church must remain intact since the day it was established otherwise the entire plan to create the church has failed to do what Jesus intended it to do which is to spread the good news to all nations. There is only 1 church that fits that description throughout history going all the way back to the very beginning of Christianity, which is the Orthodox Church. If the reformed church was the correct church then there is a huge gap in the church’s existence. It would mean that every single church established by the apostles had been defeated by evil and for 1500 years no one was spreading the correct gospel to all nations. In 180AD St Iranaeus wrote Adversus Haereses which has been embraced by every church established by the apostles in which he refutes predestination and eternal security. So this would mean that the churches established by the apostles would fall away from the “true teachings” of the apostles less than 100 years after their death, that is of course provided that the reformed churches are correct in their teachings. The sad thing is that too many people are so disgusted by the Roman Church that they are too blind to see Jesus’ true church that kept the same teachings as the apostles and yeah they added a few. I would expect they would. Look how much Paul added to the scriptures that Jesus Himself never said. The Jews said the same thing about Jesus when He spoke. I think it would be very unlikely that the church would never have anything new to teach us for over 2,000 years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I see. Now may I say to you that the ability to trace one's church back to the “first church” through apostolic succession is an argument used by a number of different churches to assert that their church is the “one true church.”

The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church makes this claim. Some Protestant denominations make this claim. Some of the “Christian” cults make this claim. How do we know which church is correct?

The biblical answer is – it does not matter!

Lets consider Bible facts, shall we?

The first church—its growth, doctrine, and practices—were recorded for us in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and indeed it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that these apostles had to fight against false teachers early on.

Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church's roots back to the "first church" is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture.

Whether a church is the "true church" or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.

This dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individual "founders" is seen again in Gal. 1:8-9 in which Paul states...……..
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."

Right there we see the basis for determining truth from error which is not based upon even WHO it is that is teaching it, “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is the same gospel that they had already received – and this gospel is recorded in Scripture.

So then from...……..What was the first / original church? Is the original / first church the true church?
The “first church” is the church that is recorded in the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” We can know this because it is described, in great detail, in Scripture. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis, let’s examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.”

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of the following:
1). praying to Mary,
2). praying to the saints,
3). venerating Mary,
4). submitting to a pope,
5). having a select priesthood,
6). baptizing an infant,
7). observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments,
8). passing on apostolic authority to successors of the apostles.
9). Immaculate Conception of Mary
10) Assumption of Mary
11) Purgatory.
12) Works included for salvation.

All of these are core elements of the Roman Catholic faith. If most of the core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were not practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A study of the New Testament will clearly reveal that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the church that is described in the New Testament.

Roman Catholicism is not the apostolic Catholic Church. Certainly not the first Christian church. Jerusalem and Antioch we’re established before the church in Rome. As far as apostolic succession I completely agree. If apostolic succession had any bearing on the validity of a church or an individual the great schism of 1054 would’ve never happened, not to mention the inquisitions which lasted for 686 years and was sanctioned by 99 popes during that time period who were supposedly successors in the line of succession going all the way back to Peter. Another thing that doesn’t make sense is Peter established the church in Antioch before going to Rome. I’m sure he must’ve left a successor in Antioch before he left and yet when the schism of 1054 occurred Antioch sided against Rome as did all of the other bishops of the pentarchy. So yes I agree apostolic succession is irrelevant to whether or not a church or an individual is teaching the true gospel.

 

[Albion]

I just asked for the name and where I can find evidence of it’s existence. I’m not prepared to read a 600 page book to get that information. If you’ve read it perhaps you could simply share the name of the church?

There were many. Included were Christian, The Way, Church of God, Nazareen, Apostolic, Anglican, Catholic, Greek Church, Roman Church, Church of Rome and others depending upon where they were located.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There were many. Included were Christian, The Way, Church of God, Nazareen, Apostolic, Anglican, Catholic, Greek Church, Roman Church, Church of Rome and others depending upon where they were located.

The first people to be called Christians were in the Church of God in Antioch which is an Apostolic church that later adopted the name Catholic some time between 107-180AD as did all of the Church of God then later adopted the name Orthodox in 1054AD. The church in Antioch is a Greek church as was most of the eastern churches. Honestly you are naming the same churches several times. The Way is also another name for the apostolic Church of God and is mentioned a few times in Acts. All of these that I’ve mentioned here are the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

The first people to be called Christians were in the Church of God in Antioch which is an Apostolic church that later adopted the name Catholic some time between 107-180AD as did all of the Church of God then later adopted the name Orthodox in 1054AD. The church in Antioch is a Greek church as was most of the eastern churches. Honestly you are naming the same churches several times.

I was answering your question as it was asked.

The Way is also another name for the apostolic Church of God and is mentioned a few times in Acts. All of these that I’ve mentioned here are the Catholic Church.

No, they're obviously not. And of course, you chose to ignore every one of the others which are clearly not interchangeable with something else. Copts, for example.

 

[prodromos]

I was addressing the proposition that says if X is not in Scripture or not condemned by Scripture, the church or someone is free to make it be a religious belief. That, in fact, is a concept essential to the theory of Holy Tradition.


OK, and you have also said that praying to the spirits of departed humans is proper. Right or not? And if it is proper or permissible, what's the basis for it?

What order of service does your Church follow?
Why does your Church follow that order of service?
Where is that order of service found in Scripture?

 

[prodromos]

True, but what about 1965?

Wasn't there a Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965 that lifted the mutual excommunications dating from 1054.

The Orthodox Church does not have a papacy. Excommunications held to by the entire Church cannot be lifted by a single Patriarch. They are still in place.

 

[Albion]

What order of service does your Church follow?
Why does your Church follow that order of service?
Where is that order of service found in Scripture?

The order of service is not a doctrine or dogma, prodromos.

 

[PoppyB]

It will not be possible for anyone to post a contextual Scripture for you on praying to the dead believers in heaven. Allow me to give you an example:

Rev. 19:10...…………..
"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy,".

John wants to bow the knee and worship the angel. But the angel tells him not to do that because he is a fellow creature. If the angel says that he is a fellow creature like John and that John is not to bow to him, then neither should anyone else bow to an angel or any creature so as to offer worship. Worship includes prayer. Therefore, no one should pray to any created thing.

Biblically, prayer is always offered to God and is a form of worship. All religions view prayer as an act of worship to their god(s) since they contain petitions, confession of sin, requests of intercession, etc.,--things which are received and answered by God and not by created things. Also, prayer is not the same thing as talking to someone face-to-face. Prayer is a humble petition to the Lord and not to a friend who's in the same room with you or on the other end of the phone--or in heaven. Prayer is offered to God--never to any created thing. To do so is to offer worship that should only be directed to God, which is idolatry. Prayer should be offered only to God, and the Roman Catholic Church needs to repent of its false and idolatrous practice of praying to the saints.
Is praying to the saints biblical? | CARM.org

I hope this is a help for you in your understanding and future conversations who disagree with you.

Thank you it is as I suspected, there is nothing in the bible to support that practice.

 

[PoppyB]

Ok please tell me exactly which part do you need to see proof of from the scriptures, prayers for supplication are encouraged, Christians receive eternal life and are present with The Lord when they are absent from the body, or those in heaven are still active members in the body of Christ (His Church)? I thought these were all common knowledge especially amongst Christians.

It's ok if you can't or won't. I think if there are any they are flimsy at best. I don't want to put you under pressure or fall out with you.

 

[prodromos]

The order of service is not a doctrine or dogma, prodromos.

I'm shocked, shocked that Albion won't answer the question

 

[BNR32FAN]

I was answering your question as it was asked.


No, they're obviously not. And of course, you chose to ignore every one of the others which are clearly not interchangeable with something else. Copts, for example.

The Way is mentioned several times in Acts.

“Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.”
‭‭ACTS‬ ‭9:1-2‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The Way is the apostolic Church of God. It’s just another name for the same church. An apostolic church means it was established by the apostles. Apostolic churches can only be established during the time the apostles themselves were planting churches. All of these churches adopted the name Catholic some time between 107-180AD. We know this because in 107AD Ignatius of Antioch mentioned the church by name as the Church of God in the beginning of his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, then later in the same epistle he describes the church as being Catholic (universal) in nature. So while the name was still officially the Church of God we can see that the idea of the church being Catholic in nature was already being established. Then in Iranaeus’ writing Adversus Haereses written some time between 170-180AD he mentions the church by name as the Catholic Church. And I quote “while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Adversus Haereses Book I chapter 10 paragraph 3.

The Nazarenes I suspect you are referring to is mentioned in Acts 24:5 which is again another church Paul established. The apostles didn’t go around establishing different churches with different teachings. They all had the same teachings and they were all the same Church of God.

The Angelican church was a church of the reformation and wasn’t established until the 16th century. Now if your referring to the Church of England it was a Catholic Church that converted during the reformation to the first Angelican Church.

The Church of Rome refers to the Catholic Church in Rome while it was still in communion with the Catholic Church. The Roman church refers to Roman Catholicism after the church in Rome was excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Catholicism and Roman Catholicism are two different things.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's ok if you can't or won't. I think if there are any they are flimsy at best. I don't want to put you under pressure or fall out with you.

So I take it your a reformist then? Do you believe in eternal security? What’s your interpretation of John 15:1-10?

 

[PoppyB]

So I take it your a reformist then? Do you believe in eternal security? What’s your interpretation of John 15:1-10?

I don't know what a reformist is. And you seem to be changing the subject.

 

[Albion]

I'm shocked, shocked that Albion won't answer the question

do you have one that is on-topic???

Here is the question we were asked in the OP?

But how can i know those missing books are really taken from the bible, if its ok to pray to saints, purgatory...and being in the church but not 'active'?

Yes, my church follows an order of service that is similar to yours and we have stained glass windows and candles, too, if you want to know that. None of that is a matter of doctrine. Therefore, it is off-topic, not relevant to the discussion, and not relevant to Sola Scriptura.

And yes, I also know that some people do not know what that term, Sola Scriptura, really means.

 

[concretecamper]

Typical