• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Catholics: How important is studying Church history to being a Christian?

Discussion in 'Denomination Specific Theology' started by friend of, Jul 27, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    509
    +148
    Catholic
    Private

    Come on now Major1, I know being a sola scripturists, these questions are difficult for you to answer, but yelling is uncalled for. Back to the matter at hand. Now when you say "the moment it was penned by men" thats what I've been asking of you from the get-go! Just saying the "moment" is painting time with a wide brush, I'm looking for specifics.....the years, centuries it was penned by these men. Now for the sixth time:
    Was the year 15 a.d.? 25 a.d.? 36 a.d?
    Again, I'm talking about specific year/years or century/centuries.
    Dates with actual numbers.
    Again.....Don't you think this would have been a very important thing to do if the Apostles believed in the Bible Alone Doctrine? So where does one found this list in Scripture? Or will you admit such a list does not exist in the bible?
    This is probably the simplest question I aske you. The only answer required is either the Alexandrian canon or the Palestinian canon.
    You know Major1, deflecting the way you are only hurts your credibility. If you don't know, or would rather not say, just say so. Like I said before, I'd be more than happy to help you out with the dates. Welp..... I off to Mass! Have a great Sunday!
     
  2. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    509
    +148
    Catholic
    Private
    Sorry you feel that way Albion, but that wasn't my intent at all.

    If you feel I am in error, please tell me what other church at that time it would have been.

    Again, my apologies.
     
  3. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +20,851
    Anglican
    Married
    I answered that question in my earlier post. This was the era before the great breakups occurred. It's often called the era of the 'Undivided Church.' If anything, it would be identified with the Eastern Orthodox churches, not the Roman Catholic Church, but any good historian would say that the church of that time period was not one of today's denominations or communions to the exclusion of all others.

    Now the questions that might be asked would be "Did you not know this?," and/or "Did you mean something else by the use of the word Catholic?"

    The rest of us grow weary of having people promoting their own denominations to us as being the one and only one Christ founded, whether that comes from Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. That's really a disrespectful way to "discuss" any of these topics, even when we are discussing some substantial doctrinal issues that separate all of us.
     
  4. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,297
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Amen brother, amen!
     
  5. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,297
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    I am aware of what you are looking for and the reason. You see, you are attempting to give the RCC more authority than the Scriptures by the circular reasoning that if the RCC made the Bible it is more important than the Bible.

    The bottom line however is that no one church is responsible for canonizing the books we have today in the bible. Several churches did and still do have their own sets of canon. It is my understanding that it was the Council of Nicea ordered by Constantine in Aug. 25, 325 AD that established a wider spread convention of what was canon.

    Not one church, or disparate bishops. Constantine was tired of the constant bickering amongst priests and theologians so he ordered them to come to a decision. There would have been no need for this if there was unity in 'the church' in the first place.
     
  6. bbbbbbb

    bbbbbbb Well-Known Member

    +9,548
    Non-Denom
    Really now? Do you actually think the Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves to be part and parcel of your denomination prior to the Great Schism?
     
  7. Constantine the Sinner

    Constantine the Sinner Well-Known Member

    +663
    Eastern Orthodox
    Celibate
    I'm Orthodox, but we consider studying Church history to be very important, because it is fundamental to our continuity with the Church of Apostolic times and even the Old Testament. The Bible includes a lot of history because it's important.
     
  8. prodromos

    prodromos Senior Veteran Supporter

    +5,510
    Australia
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    How many Churches were there at the time the New Testament canon was closed?
    I'm only aware of one New Testament canon. Who are the other Churches you are referring to and what are their canons?
    And it is my understanding that Nicea was a council of ONE Church with many bishops attending from all over.
     
  9. Major1

    Major1 Well-Known Member

    +2,297
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    From (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27)............
    "One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities".

    There is the Catholic canon.
    The Protestant canon.
    Anglican Church.
    Coptic Church.
    Armenian Church.
    Ethiopic Church.
    Greek Orthodox Church.
    Syriac Church.

    From The Christian Research Institure at ............
    http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

    "The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendanceThis group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

    The “orthodox” group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria.They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

    The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea and hence often called the “Eusebian” party.

    This was before the creation of the Catholic church. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2017
  10. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    509
    +148
    Catholic
    Private
    Are you sure about that? All I was asking were your thoughts/beliefs when (year/years:approx.) the New Testament writings were produced. Do you believe it occured before or after the Council of Jerusalem in 50 a.d.? As I asked you before, what do you beleive the chronology of the first writings are? For example, (for the fifth or sixth time) In what year of Early Church history do you think Paul’s 1st Letter and 2nd letter to the Thessalonians was written? Or maybe his Letter to the Galatians.



    Now for me, The study of early church history has shown me that Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians was written in the year 51a.d. His second, 52 a.d. And his letter to the Galatians in 54 a.d. Would you agree with these dates Major1? If not, could you explain why not, and show why not. One important thing to keep in mind Major1, some scholars say that these are the absloute earliest dates, where as many historians push the dates even further into the future by a few years.







    Am I now. Hmmm.... Well let me ask you somthing, Who or what is it that the Bible tells us where are we to go to seek the Pillar of Fire, and the Pillar of Truth?
     
  11. Thursday

    Thursday Well-Known Member

    +1,517
    Catholic
    Married

    Jesus is the Truth. We should want the truth, and studying history helps us learn the truth, which is very important.

    Quoting John Henry Newman, a 19th century convert to Catholicism, "to be deep in history is to cease being protestant".
     
  12. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    509
    +148
    Catholic
    Private
    Why don't you ask them.


    As for myself, I believe that there is one catholic (universal) Church founded by Jesus Christ and built up by the apostles. Can you show me if your church, or any other Protestant church that can trace it's lineage back to the apostles?


    p.s. There are many rites within the Catholic Church. we are all united under one head and believe in one common faith, and we, by no means, call our different rites or churches (sui iuris). We don't call ourselves a denomination.
     
  13. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +20,851
    Anglican
    Married
    Oh, they haven't been shy about saying that they were the original church and Rome later entered into schism. ;)

    Absolutely. Mine can, for example.

    Right. There are more than a few denominations that don't call themselves denominations.
     
  14. Fidelibus

    Fidelibus Well-Known Member

    509
    +148
    Catholic
    Private
    Intresting, could you elaborate? I would be most interested to see what the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Church looks like. Thanks!
     
  15. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +20,851
    Anglican
    Married
    Truthfully, there are lots of charts showing these lineages and I have a number of them in my files and books, but as for a tidy internet website, here's one from an American branch that is particularly detailed. It should be noted that every bishop in the world, no matter what his communion or denomination, has many lines of succession.

    Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. friend of

    friend of Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,846
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    His comment was directly contrary to the gospel. You are treating heresy as a thought-experiment.

    If this is supposed to be a defense for the Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition I am so unimpressed with your answer.
     
  17. amariselle

    amariselle Jesus Never Fails

    +4,132
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    I think it would be very helpful to study Catholic history, absolutely. I also think it is very important to understand "apostolic succession" and to research the history of the Papacy.
     
  18. Erose

    Erose Newbie

    +1,177
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    It isn't contrary to the Gospel, if you understand where he is coming from.



    It isn't a defense of Deposit of Faith or Sacred Tradition, it is helping you to understand where Pope Francis is coming from.
     
  19. friend of

    friend of Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,846
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    What you have offered is pure conjecture. You think that this is what Francis was thinking at the time he made those comments. You have presented nothing that would substantiate his thoughts at said time.
     
  20. Erose

    Erose Newbie

    +1,177
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Correct it is pure conjecture on my part. But on my part, I've read quite a few of his writings and interviews (not just quotes here and there), and that is my impression on how his mind works.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...