Catholic?

[Albion]

The Angelican church was a church of the reformation and wasn’t established until the 16th century.

Ah yes. The "Angelican" church. But how can you beat the church that the angels themselves belong to??

 

[Radagast]

Ah yes. The "Angelican" church. But how can you beat the church that the angels themselves belong to??

Non Angli sed Angeli, si Christiani

 

[ralfyman]

NO!

Someone did use that as an "excuse" but it was certainly not a correct and proper explanation.

What you are repeating is Catholic apologetics. What we who disagree with the Catholic church are telling you is Bible truth and the two are not the same thing. We all know that what you are saying is what you want the truth to be but that is not the case. Just THINK for a moment...………………...

If Jesus were to write a sentence on papyus, it would automatically be inspired. Would the Catholic church then approve of it and delare it true, or would it recognize it as true? If the RCC declared it to be true by its authority, then it is setting itself above the words of Christ. On the other hand, if it recognizes Jesus' words as authoriative, then it is doing just that, recognizing what is already authoratitive. The Christian church recognizes God's word as inspired and true. It does not declare it to be inspired and true lest it claim its own authority to decide the truth of God's word.
Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible? | CARM.org

You are free to argue that the tradition that led to the selection of books that make up the Christian Bible is not Catholic, but you still acknowledge that authority, doctrine, etc., led to the selection of those books. That puts your whole argument concerning sola scriptura to question!

 

[ralfyman]

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.

But the contents of the Bible that you referred to come from the same tradition! For example, it was Irenaeus who argued that there should be four Gospels, but he does not include other books that would be part of the NT. It would take several more decades before scholars like Origen would add to it, and two more centuries before both Eastern and Western Churches agreed on the canon.

Meanwhile, devotion to Mary was articulated as early as the second century, together with infant baptism, and so on.

 

[Albion]

You are free to argue that the tradition that led to the selection of books that make up the Christian Bible is not Catholic, but you still acknowledge that authority, doctrine, etc., led to the selection of those books. That puts your whole argument concerning sola scriptura to question!

No, it doesn't. The choice of books does not make the books into something they were not before. That action simply acknowledges which books are inspired to the exclusion of others. Thereafter, the Bible is the guide to essential doctrine rather than something else.

 

[concretecamper]

No, it doesn't.

It certainly doss since none of the books are self authenticating.

The choice of books does not make the books into something they were not before

It certainly does. Only the Church, His bride is guided by the H.S. and was able to recognize His work. Therefore, these books would have remained "good reads" unless the Church said differently.

Thereafter, the Bible is the guide to essential doctrine rather than something else.

the Bible is A guide.

 

[Albion]

It certainly doss since none of the books are self authenticating.[/quote
Nope. We, the Church, the people of God, however you want to put that, decided that they are indeed what the Bible claims it is. And there are sound reasons for doing that. The process of choosing the books at the councils of the 4th century, however, didn't make the books authentic.

[quotethe Bible is A guide.

Sure, it is a guide. I have said that myself. It is the sole guide that is the revealed word of God, however, and that is why it is the sole authority for doctrine.

 

[concretecamper]

Sure, it is a guide. I have said that myself

no, you said it was "the" guide.

It is the sole guide that is the revealed word of God,

your assumption, yet to be proven. Of course, you can try try again.

 

[Albion]

no, you said it was "the" guide.

It is.

 

[concretecamper]

It is.

I am glad you saw your error

 

[Albion]

I am glad you saw your error

No error. I simply started by rebuttal by referring to your choice of wording there.

 

[concretecamper]

No error. I simply started by rebuttal by referring to your choice of wording there.

You corrected yours

 

[Major1]

You are free to argue that the tradition that led to the selection of books that make up the Christian Bible is not Catholic, but you still acknowledge that authority, doctrine, etc., led to the selection of those books. That puts your whole argument concerning sola scriptura to question!

Incorrect.....again.

God Himself was the one who made that decision.

The Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. It was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament. The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles - not the Catholic Church.

 

[Major1]

It certainly doss since none of the books are self authenticating.
It certainly does. Only the Church, His bride is guided by the H.S. and was able to recognize His work. Therefore, these books would have remained "good reads" unless the Church said differently.
the Bible is A guide.

Why do you think that the Roman Catholic church is the only one who is guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Major1]

But the contents of the Bible that you referred to come from the same tradition! For example, it was Irenaeus who argued that there should be four Gospels, but he does not include other books that would be part of the NT. It would take several more decades before scholars like Origen would add to it, and two more centuries before both Eastern and Western Churches agreed on the canon.

Meanwhile, devotion to Mary was articulated as early as the second century, together with infant baptism, and so on.

Please post ONE Scripture in which any Apostle spoke of veneration to Mary, or infant baptism, or Purgatory, or the Immaculate conception of Mary or the Assumption of MAry.

 

[Major1]

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

You are most welcome and if I may be of any help in the future, please ask.

 

[concretecamper]

Please post ONE Scripture in which any Apostle spoke of veneration to Mary, or infant baptism, or Purgatory, or the Immaculate conception of Mary or the Assumption of MAry.

Before you dare to make this challenge, YOU must prove that scripture says all matters of faith must be in the bible. You were asked this question before and refused to answer. Here is your chance.

 

[concretecamper]

Why do you think that the Roman Catholic church is the only one who is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Becasue of Jesus' promise.

 

[concretecamper]

The Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. It was the Jews who gave us the Old Testament. The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles - not the Catholic Church.

So your logic is that the OT was given to us by the Jews (His Old Covenant People) but there is no way the NT was given to us by His Church (New Covanent People.)

Ok then

 

[Radagast]

For example, it was Irenaeus who argued that there should be four Gospels

He pointed out that there were only four gospels, and speculated as to why.