Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

[Mountainmike]

There is a question of horse and cart in your post.
Which came first scripture or church?

It comes as a surprise to many , there was a long period before there was a new testament.

And what may be alarming for some reformationists, is that by reading early so called ante nicense fathers (such as Iraneus) you can see that true doctrine was handed down by succession of bishops, and that the church at Rome was regarded as having primacy over doctrine. And that role of succession bishops is evidenced from the first ones, even those taught by the apostles..

That squares with scripture. "stay true to tradition (ie faith handed down) we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and also explains why scripture says "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" finally "how can they teach, if they are not sent?"

Which comes to the next problem for "scripture alone" . It is Only because of the fathers and councils do we even know what is new testament scripture. The gospels did not carry definitive author identification, it is only because of the early fathers and such as iraneus we even know who wrote them. And at the time there were MANY books in circulation, others that claimed apostolic authorship. eg Protoevangelium of James (and many others) The church declared the first canons heretical (eg Marcion) so without the church you would have a false canon. So the church deciding on scripture is not as publisher, it is as determiner of truth. Unless you accept the infallible decision of the church you cannot accept the infallibility of scripture (or you end up in an odd philosophical compromise which is a non starter in logic "fallible collection of infallible books")

So how is it we can trust what the fathers did?
This again can be seen in Scripture which explains that Jesus gave the apostles jointly and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which in Jewish Speak of the time, means "give definitive judgement on meaning of law or doctrine" That is the power the apostolic successors wield, which was given by Christ himself.

Which brings to the next logical issue:
What does scripture mean? Without studying the early church there can be many alternative meanings given , and they account for the denominations. Take the eucharist - sacramental or not? Real Presence or Not? Real flesh or not?

But if you study the very first fathers (eg ignatius, polycarp) who were taught by John the apostle - They describe a sacramental eucharist, valid only if performed by a bishop or appointee. That several stated was "real flesh" - indeed even those who decided canon and creed eg such as anathasthasius is clear in saying before the blessing is only bread, after is flesh and blood of jesus.
The early church is consistent. And that is as Paul says staying true to sacred "tradition" the fullness of faith handed down.

Only by study of early church can you know what scripture means.
And so that is why Paul spoke of the eucharist "is it not the body and bloof of our Lord" and of profaning the eucharist "some are ill, some have died" because of it. How so if it were only symbolic? You only know what those things mean because of those taught by apostles and succession

Indeed the creed or trinitiy is the inspired churches pronouncement on basic matters of faith.

The problem is too many modern day Christians who dont study history seemingly think
1/the new testament dropped out of the sky. It didnt. It was a long process by the church of weeding out chaff, and deciding true grain, as a part of the deposit of faith , not the entireity of it. Jesus never said "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" "go out and teach"

Or 2/ That any meaning consistent with words of scritprue is good enough. It isnt. If youonly have the words , you do not have the word of God. You need the true meaning to have the word of God. And for that you need to study tradition - the faith handed by the early church.

Which came first? The horse is the church appointed by Jesus. The new testament didnt exist then. It was The apostolic succession. The cart is new testament scripture. Not the other way round. The cart also contains tradition - the faith handed down -inseparable from scripture because without it you cannot know what scripture is or scripture means. Jesus leads his horse.

To disregard the above, is to imply Jesus did not hold true to his promise "the gates of hell would not prevail" against his church. Indeed to consider the first church apostasized in declaring the "real flesh" of Jesus, is also questioning the power of Jesus to keep his church on track. Even worse is it implies present readers have a monopoly of wisdom over the ones actually chosen by apostles to hand on the truth! Which is a VERY bold place to be! The belief that "only we know the truth" having ditched the authority to appeal disputes, is why the post reformation church has fractured so much

Luther despaired of the pandoras box he opened. "now every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" "as many doctrines as heads". He lamented. And all becuase, he cut away the meaning of scripture from the words, all made up their own meanings! Including him!

Indeed without accepting the actions of councils and early fathers - you cannot accept scripture when it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church"

What should it really matter what the "Council of Nicea" or any other council or post-Biblical theologians said? Yes, there's been a great deal of deviation from Biblical Christianity due to such religious celebrities. More to the point is whether such people and councils should be reckoned infallible and not allowed to be subject to scrutiny in light of scripture.

Many of us simply don't go along with the post-Biblical Magisterial concept, replacing the scriptures with the ponderings of a religious elite class.

 

[JoeP222w]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

Do all Christian disregard the history of the faith? By no means.

Do some? Yes, some do. Probably far too many ignore the history of the Christian faith.

 

[bcbsr]

There is a question of horse and cart in your post.
Which came first scripture or church?

It comes as a surprise to many , there was a long period before there was a new testament.

And what may be alarming for some reformationists, is that by reading early so called ante nicense fathers (such as Iraneus) you can see that true doctrine was handed down by succession of bishops, and that the church at Rome was regarded as having primacy over doctrine. And that role of succession bishops is evidenced from the first ones, even those taught by the apostles..

That squares with scripture. "stay true to tradition (ie faith handed down) we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and also explains why scripture says "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" finally "how can they teach, if they are not sent?"

Which comes to the next problem for "scripture alone" . It is Only because of the fathers and councils do we even know what is new testament scripture. The gospels did not carry definitive author identification, it is only because of the early fathers and such as iraneus we even know who wrote them. And at the time there were MANY books in circulation, others that claimed apostolic authorship. eg Protoevangelium of James (and many others) The church declared the first canons heretical (eg Marcion) so without the church you would have a false canon. So the church deciding on scripture is not as publisher, it is as determiner of truth. Unless you accept the infallible decision of the church you cannot accept the infallibility of scripture (or you end up in an odd philosophical compromise which is a non starter in logic "fallible collection of infallible books")

So how is it we can trust what the fathers did?
This again can be seen in Scripture which explains that Jesus gave the apostles jointly and Peter alone the power to "bind and loose" which in Jewish Speak of the time, means "give definitive judgement on meaning of law or doctrine" That is the power the apostolic successors wield, which was given by Christ himself.

Which brings to the next logical issue:
What does scripture mean? Without studying the early church there can be many alternative meanings given , and they account for the denominations. Take the eucharist - sacramental or not? Real Presence or Not? Real flesh or not?

But if you study the very first fathers (eg ignatius, polycarp) who were taught by John the apostle - They describe a sacramental eucharist, valid only if performed by a bishop or appointee. That several stated was "real flesh" - indeed even those who decided canon and creed eg such as anathasthasius is clear in saying before the blessing is only bread, after is flesh and blood of jesus.
The early church is consistent. And that is as Paul says staying true to sacred "tradition" the fullness of faith handed down.

Only by study of early church can you know what scripture means.
And so that is why Paul spoke of the eucharist "is it not the body and bloof of our Lord" and of profaning the eucharist "some are ill, some have died" because of it. How so if it were only symbolic? You only know what those things mean because of those taught by apostles and succession

Indeed the creed or trinitiy is the inspired churches pronouncement on basic matters of faith.

The problem is too many modern day Christians who dont study history seemingly think
1/the new testament dropped out of the sky. It didnt. It was a long process by the church of weeding out chaff, and deciding true grain, as a part of the deposit of faith , not the entireity of it. Jesus never said "write this" or "read this" he said "do this" "go out and teach"

Or 2/ That any meaning consistent with words of scritprue is good enough. It isnt. If youonly have the words , you do not have the word of God. You need the true meaning to have the word of God. And for that you need to study tradition - the faith handed by the early church.

Which came first? The horse is the church appointed by Jesus. The new testament didnt exist then. It was The apostolic succession. The cart is new testament scripture. Not the other way round. The cart also contains tradition - the faith handed down -inseparable from scripture because without it you cannot know what scripture is or scripture means. Jesus leads his horse.

To disregard the above, is to imply Jesus did not hold true to his promise "the gates of hell would not prevail" against his church. Indeed to consider the first church apostasized in declaring the "real flesh" of Jesus, is also questioning the power of Jesus to keep his church on track. Even worse is it implies present readers have a monopoly of wisdom over the ones actually chosen by apostles to hand on the truth! Which is a VERY bold place to be! The belief that "only we know the truth" having ditched the authority to appeal disputes, is why the post reformation church has fractured so much

Luther despaired of the pandoras box he opened. "now every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" "as many doctrines as heads". He lamented. And all becuase, he cut away the meaning of scripture from the words, all made up their own meanings! Including him!

Indeed without accepting the actions of councils and early fathers - you cannot accept scripture when it says "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church"

Given that Jesus and his apostles quoted the scriptures, the scriptures preceeded the church.

Concerning the New Tsetament, it was not written by the Roman Catholic church. It was written by the apostles and historians, like Luke based on eyewitness testimony.

The New Testament Christian didn't need thousands of years of Catholicism to tell them what was scriptures. Paul writes,

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Paul's word is the Word of God. LIkewise concerning Jesus and the rest of his apostles. That was true prior to Catholicism.

As for the typical misconstrued Catholic quote of "The Gates of Hell", Jesus was not talking about Catholicism, or institutional Christianity. He was talking about when believer die, they aren't stuck in Hades (Actually the Greek word is "Hades" not "Hell"). Rather they would go straight to heaven.

And that's typical of Catholicism misconstruing scripture, which removes any credibility they have with regards to its interpretation.

 

[Mountainmike]

I suggest you read the references I made.
What those taught by apostles said, and the deposit of faith handed down by them.

So - for example take Ignatius to Smyrneans - unless you believe in a sacramental eucharist of "real flesh" by a bishop in succession or his appointee, you do not follow the christianity taught by apostles (in that case John- in the first generation afterwards) . Does that not concern you?. The meaning matters as much as the words. You dont get to choose what they mean. - The above is the true eucharist, because it was what was handed down.

And as for what the new testament is: the church decided that. Also which were valid gospels, and which were not, and who wrote them. That much is verifiable history.
So there are only two choices.
1/ Accept the authority of the church and councils that chose the canon.
2/ Conclude that the canon is not inspired.
An awkward dilemma for those who want to disregard history.

Heres the problem: why do you not accept the gospels of Peter , Thomas Matthias ? or the acts of Andrew or John? or the gospel of James - the protoevangelium? All of which claim to be apostolic. Did you even know they exist? WITHOUT THE CHURCH you have no basis to reject them. Or accept them. Those who dont study history, seem to think true gospel selection was a lot easier than it actually was! You were given the canon by decisions of the church. Which in the main were after Constantine and Nicea even. Dont think nicea even mentioned it. - Late 4th century council at Carthage?

I did not raise the "Roman" Catholic church - which is a name others gave to it, almost a millenium later for the (much larger) western part , when some easterns split. Till then it was just THE church. The one that decided canon and creed.

I took biblical references to Christs church Which the bible says is "the foundation of truth" with the power to "bind and loose"
do you disagree with the bible?

Given that Jesus and his apostles quoted the scriptures, the scriptures preceeded the church.

Concerning the New Tsetament, it was not written by the Roman Catholic church. It was written by the apostles and historians, like Luke based on eyewitness testimony.

The New Testament Christian didn't need thousands of years of Catholicism to tell them what was scriptures. Paul writes,

1Th 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Paul's word is the Word of God. LIkewise concerning Jesus and the rest of his apostles. That was true prior to Catholicism.

As for the typical misconstrued Catholic quote of "The Gates of Hell", Jesus was not talking about Catholicism, or institutional Christianity. He was talking about when believer die, they aren't stuck in Hades (Actually the Greek word is "Hades" not "Hell"). Rather they would go straight to heaven.

And that's typical of Catholicism misconstruing scripture, which removes any credibility they have with regards to its interpretation.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yeah, and you trust the Church to make the right decision in selecting those books.

I trust God. And just because God guided this decision doesn't mean all decisions of those councils were similarly guided.

I also love Christian History.

As do I. Sometimes it proves as an important warning about how men can corrupt the word of God for their own sinful purposes, such as with the selling of indulgences.

 

[bling]

I was asked a friend if she knew about the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed and she had no idea what was that about. Have churches underestimated the Church Fathers and important events in Christianity?

It maybe just the opposite?

There is a reason we have just the few letters we really need in the New Testament.

Were letters not in the New Testament protected and preserved by the Holy Spirit even though they were not inspired by the Spirit (as far as we know)?

You always have to go back to scripture to see if what is being said is scriptural so why not skip a step and start with scripture?

Mohammod is said to be inspired in writing the Quran so should we start with the Quran or scripture?

 

[bcbsr]

I suggest you read the references I made.
What those taught by apostles said, and the deposit of faith handed down by them.

So - for example take Ignatius to Smyrneans - unless you believe in a sacramental eucharist of "real flesh" by a bishop in succession or his appointee, you do not follow the christianity taught by apostles (in that case John- in the first generation afterwards) . Does that not concern you?. The meaning matters as much as the words. You dont get to choose what they mean. - The above is the true eucharist, because it was what was handed down.

And as for what the new testament is: the church decided that. Also which were valid gospels, and which were not, and who wrote them. That much is verifiable history.
So there are only two choices.
1/ Accept the authority of the church and councils that chose the canon.
2/ Conclude that the canon is not inspired.
An awkward dilemma for those who want to disregard history.

Heres the problem: why do you not accept the gospels of Peter , Thomas Matthias ? or the acts of Andrew or John? or the gospel of James - the protoevangelium? All of which claim to be apostolic. Did you even know they exist? WITHOUT THE CHURCH you have no basis to reject them. Or accept them. Those who dont study history, seem to think true gospel selection was a lot easier than it actually was! You were given the canon by decisions of the church. Which in the main were after Constantine and Nicea even. Dont think nicea even mentioned it. - Late 4th century council at Carthage?

I did not raise the "Roman" Catholic church - which is a name others gave to it, almost a millenium later for the (much larger) western part , when some easterns split. Till then it was just THE church. The one that decided canon and creed.

I took biblical references to Christs church Which the bible says is "the foundation of truth" with the power to "bind and loose"
do you disagree with the bible?

I agree with what the apostles ACTUALLY taught, and not falsified records as proven by their very content.

As for "eucharist", the word is absent from the New Testament. According to Paul salvation is by faith in Christ apart from works. According to Catholicism its by one's compliance to Catholic canon law. That says enough. Catholicism is theologically pretty far from Biblical Christianity and certainly doesn't represent my faith. Are you saying I'm not a Christian?

 

[Dave-W]

That squares with scripture. "stay true to tradition (ie faith handed down) we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and also explains why scripture says "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" finally "how can they teach, if they are not sent?"

Except for the historical fact the traditions Paul taught were Jewish. By the early 2nd century the church rejected all things Jewish and created new traditions and doctrines that looked nothing like what went before.

 

[redleghunter]

There is a question of horse and cart in your post.
Which came first scripture or church?

Well of course the Scriptures as Jesus and His Apostles quoted and taught from Law, Prophets and Writings TaNaKh.

It comes as a surprise to many , there was a long period before there was a new testament.

Compiled and canonized? Sure. However, the apostles themselves were living breathing New Testaments. Then they wrote it down and passed it on and they were copied for all the churches.

Irenaeus explains this:

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

And what may be alarming for some reformationists, is that by reading early so called ante nicense fathers (such as Iraneus) you can see that true doctrine was handed down by succession of bishops, and that the church at Rome was regarded as having primacy over doctrine. And that role of succession bishops is evidenced from the first ones, even those taught by the apostles..

He did in fact indicate that. Would you have the references where he states such? And would you like to provide which traditions he was referring to?

That squares with scripture. "stay true to tradition (ie faith handed down) we taught you by word of mouth and letter" and also explains why scripture says "The pillar and foundation of truth is the church" finally "how can they teach, if they are not sent?"

I thought tradition came first and then the Scriptures? Again, which traditions does Paul speak of here? Is there a list we can examine of 1st Century AD Christian church traditions the church catholic held to? Or are you assuming everything which is Roman Catholic today was held in the 1st century AD church?

What we do know of what they held as tradition in the 1st Century AD is actually found in the New Testament. It's why the NT authors wrote the Gospel accounts, history (Acts) and epistles.

 

[redleghunter]

I suggest you read the references I made.
What those taught by apostles said, and the deposit of faith handed down by them.

We should read and take to heart and mind those who were in the faith before us. And if not Christ Himself or His Apostles who wrote the New Testament, test it according to their words.

Meaning we test all things by the words and teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. By the way, foundations and pillars uphold things and do not create the structure. Therefore, the church is to uphold something and that is Truth. The Truth is found in the very words of Christ and His teachings and the Holy Spirit inspired teachings of His Apostles. We can find this in the New Testament.

So - for example take Ignatius to Smyrneans - unless you believe in a sacramental eucharist of "real flesh" by a bishop in succession or his appointee, you do not follow the christianity taught by apostles (in that case John- in the first generation afterwards) . Does that not concern you?. The meaning matters as much as the words. You dont get to choose what they mean. - The above is the true eucharist, because it was what was handed down.

That's a bit packed in there. Ignatius did not teach transubstantiation, which did not become official church teaching until 1213 AD at the 4th Lateran Council. As a matter of fact the early fathers had varying views on the elements of Communion.

The historical context is striking as well. The early fathers were battling Gnostics and other heretics under every stone back then. Heretics which denied Jesus Christ was truly human. They all pointed to the Eucharist (Holy Communion) as evidence the Christian faith recognized the Divine Logos came in the flesh.

 

[redleghunter]

I took biblical references to Christs church Which the bible says is "the foundation of truth" with the power to "bind and loose"
do you disagree with the bible?

Why would we have to disagree with the Bible when it refutes your logical fallacy and by extension eisegesis.

 

[redleghunter]

As for "eucharist", the word is absent from the New Testament.

Not only that but the canons of the Council of Constance admits to a later tradition in what is defined as 'eucharist.' The controversy was there were actually some churches arguing that the laity should receive both the host (bread) and cup (wine). The council argued that the later tradition must be upheld which was one receives both the body and blood of Christ in the bread. Since this is an 'awareness of Christian history' thread I'll share the following:

SESSION 13 – 15 June 1415
[Condemnation of communion under both kinds, recently revived among the Bohemians by Jakoubek of Stribro]

In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father and Son and holy Spirit, Amen. Certain people, in some parts of the world, have rashly dared to assert that the christian people ought to receive the holy sacrament of the eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine. They communicate the laity everywhere not only under the form of bread but also under that of wine, and they stubbornly assert that they should communicate even after a meal, or else without the need of a fast, contrary to the church’s custom which has been laudably and sensibly approved, from the church’s head downwards, but which they damnably try to repudiate as sacrilegious. Therefore this present general council of Constance, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, wishing to provide for the safety of the faithful against this error, after long deliberation by many persons learned in divine and human law, declares, decrees and defines that, although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting, except in cases of sickness or some other necessity as permitted by law or by the church. Moreover, just as this custom was sensibly introduced in order to avoid various dangers and scandals, so with similar or even greater reason was it possible to introduce and sensibly observe the custom that, although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread. For it should be very firmly believed, and in no way doubted, that the whole body and blood of Christ are truly contained under both the form of bread and the form of wine. Therefore, since this custom was introduced for good reasons by the church and holy fathers, and has been observed for a very long time, it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission. To say that the observance of this custom or law is sacrilegious or illicit must be regarded as erroneous. Those who stubbornly assert the opposite of the aforesaid are to be confined as heretics and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors of heresy in the kingdoms or provinces in which anything is attempted or presumed against this decree, according to the canonical and legitimate sanctions that have been wisely established in favour of the catholic faith against heretics and their supporters.

[That no priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine]

This holy synod also decrees and declares, regarding this matter, that instructions are to be sent to the most reverend fathers and lords in Christ, patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, and their vicars in spirituals, wherever they may be, in which they are to be commissioned and ordered on the authority of this sacred council and under pain of excommunication, to punish effectively those who err against this decree. They may receive back into the church’s fold those who have gone astray by communicating the people under the forms of both bread and wine, and have taught this, provided they repent and after a salutary penance, in accordance with the measure of their fault, has been enjoined upon them. They are to repress as heretics, however, by means of the church’s censures and even if necessary by calling in the help of the secular arm, those of them whose hearts have become hardened and who are unwilling to return to penance.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum16.htm​

Which means this council ruled they knew better than the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11. Also anyone who wanted (after this council, which was ecumenical) to receive the Lord's Supper in like manner as souls did in the New Testament church, they were subject to confinement as heretics, and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors. What a nice bunch.

 

[FireDragon76]

American Christians may tend to undervalue history due to the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism and pietism on evangelicalism. Pietism is more anti-intellectual in tone, and SCSR assumes that "common sense" is an adequate basis for understanding reality, that people perceive reality directly. Understanding the historical contingency of ideas, for instance, doesn't factor in so much.

 

[redleghunter]

Except for the historical fact the traditions Paul taught were Jewish. By the early 2nd century the church rejected all things Jewish and created new traditions and doctrines that looked nothing like what went before.

There is some very good evidence for the above. As a matter of fact, Roman Catholic Newman a most revered 19th century Roman Catholic theologian quoted the following about how the church incorporated some pagan designs and traditions. Full disclosure is he claims that such were 'sanctified' by the church so they are ok to use.

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}

Greeks dedicate images to devils, and call them gods; but we to True God Incarnate, and to God's servants and friends, who drive away the troops of devils." [Note 18] Again, "As the holy Fathers overthrew the temples and shrines of the devils, and raised in their places shrines in the {377} names of Saints and we worship them, so also they overthrew the images of the devils, and in their stead raised images of Christ, and God's Mother, and the Saints. And under the Old Covenant, Israel neither raised temples in the name of men, nor was memory of man made a festival; for, as yet, man's nature was under a curse, and death was condemnation, and therefore was lamented, and a corpse was reckoned unclean and he who touched it; but now that the Godhead has been combined with our nature, as some life-giving and saving medicine, our nature has been glorified and is trans-elemented into incorruption. Wherefore the death of Saints is made a feast, and temples are raised to them, and Images are painted ... (John Henry Newman [made a cardinal by Pope Leo III in 1879]; Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power, Chapter 8; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html)​

 

[Mountainmike]

I've asked you to read my post.
So Examine the writings of early fathers that demonstrate doctrine handed by succession, and the role of bishops in that. And the nature of doctrine - take real presence.

Examine scripture that justifies the authority of church and tradition. See my post.

And also that your concept of the New Testament is clearly too simplistic in the light of many books that claim to be apostolic, and it really was the church that had to decide. If the church didn't have authority, neither can your New Testament be inspired,

That is the issue of the thread, and completely supported in history. Study it,

A generic Attack on Catholicism is hardly relevant, nor is it on topic.

So if and assuming you disagree with the early fathers statements on Eucharist, who were taught by apostles, are you saying they had apostasized in the FIRST generation? History tells us what they did and thought.

I agree with what the apostles ACTUALLY taught, and not falsified records as proven by their very content.

As for "eucharist", the word is absent from the New Testament. According to Paul salvation is by faith in Christ apart from works. According to Catholicism its by one's compliance to Catholic canon law. That says enough. Catholicism is theologically pretty far from Biblical Christianity and certainly doesn't represent my faith. Are you saying I'm not a Christian?

 

[Mountainmike]

It's a convenient myth,

The teaching of ignatius and polycarp can be traced to John the apostle who taught them.

So when the man who wrote John 6 - taught those fathers who write that bishops in succession were needed for a valid Eucharist of real presence," real flesh" which teaching was uncontested for a millennium, and is verified by countless Church fathers since. Also the theme of succession bishops handing doctrine is common between all early fathers.

So just like the oft referenced " Constantine apostasy" it's an apostasy that never was. The line is continuous, regardless of Paul.

The "pillar and foundation of truthis the church."

Except for the historical fact the traditions Paul taught were Jewish. By the early 2nd century the church rejected all things Jewish and created new traditions and doctrines that looked nothing like what went before.

 

[redleghunter]

Examine scripture that justifies the authority of church and tradition. See my post.

I thought you asserted the church and tradition came before the Scriptures. Now you are claiming that authority comes from Scriptures. And below you tell us that church gave us the Scriptures. That's a circular argument.

And also that your concept of the New Testament is clearly too simplistic in the light of many books that claim to be apostolic, and it really was the church that had to decide.

Therefore, before the church 'decided' on the New Testament, the very books which are the New Testament had no authority? If so answer this:

How did souls in 1st century AD Palestine determine a holy man in the desert crying out to repent and be baptized for the Kingdom of God has come, and an itinerate preacher from Galilee who stood in opposition to the then magisterial authority (seat of Moses) and rebuking such with Holy Scriptures, know these men were of God?

So if and assuming you disagree with the early fathers statements on Eucharist, who were taught by apostles, are you saying they had apostasized in the FIRST generation? History tells us what they did and thought.

You mean the varying views of the Eucharist which the church fathers held.

For example, as often used by Roman Catholic apologists is John 6 the Bread of Life discourse in promoting transubstantiation. Yet even St Augustine did not believe this:

How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, You shall worship the Lord your God? Deuteronomy 6:13 Yet here it says, fall down before His footstool: and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, The earth is My footstool. I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, fall down before His footstool. I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, the earth is My footstool. In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. But does the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, It is the Spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing....But when our Lord praised it, He was speaking of His own flesh, and He had said, Except a man eat My flesh, he shall have no life in him. John 6:54 Some disciples of His, about seventy, were offended, and said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back, and walked no more with Him. It seemed unto them hard that He said, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you: they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, This is a hard saying. It was they who were hard, not the saying; for unless they had been hard, and not meek, they would have said to themselves, He says not this without reason, but there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with Him, softened, not hard: and would have learned that from Him which they who remained, when the others departed, learned. For when twelve disciples had remained with Him, on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to Him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by His words, and turned back. But He instructed them, and says unto them, It is the Spirit that quickens, but the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm

 

[Dave-W]

It's a convenient myth,

The teaching of ignatius and polycarp can be traced to John the apostle who taught them.

So when the man who wrote John 6 - taught those fathers who write that bishops in succession were needed for a valid Eucharist of real presence," real flesh" which teaching was uncontested for a millennium, and is verified by countless Church fathers since. Also the theme of succession bishops handing doctrine is common between all early fathers.

So just like the oft referenced " Constantine apostasy" it's an apostasy that never was. The line is continuous, regardless of Paul.

The "pillar and foundation of truthis the church."

Not a myth. What do you know of the changes the church took on in the wake of the failed Bar Kochba revolt of 135 ad?

Your church fathers CHANGED any tradition that looked remotely Jewish in order to escape Rome’s wrath against the Jews.

 

[Dave-W]

How did souls in 1st century AD Palestine determine a holy man in the desert crying out to repent and be baptized for the Kingdom of God has come, and an itinerate preacher from Galilee who stood in opposition to the then magisterial authority (seat of Moses) and rebuking such with Holy Scriptures, know these men were of God?

It is all in the Tenach - the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

[bcbsr]

Which means this council ruled they knew better than the apostle Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11. Also anyone who wanted (after this council, which was ecumenical) to receive the Lord's Supper in like manner as souls did in the New Testament church, they were subject to confinement as heretics, and severely punished by the local bishops or their officials or the inquisitors. What a nice bunch.

Well thanks for sharing that information - that Catholicism would confine New Testament Christians as Heretics for following Paul's teachings, and that they reject what Paul taught, reckoning their opinion higher than that of the apostle.

And that's an example of why a lot of us view Catholicism as deviant from Biblical Christianity.