History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[PeaceByJesus]

Is this a real question? Why do you think the Orthodox and Catholics aren't unified today? I can tell you it's not a minor point of Ecclesiology that forbids union at this time.

It is indeed a a real question, and one you need to answer rather than retorting, "why do you think...?" I substantiate some of the differences btwn RCs and EOs, with both invoking Tradition for them, but as delineated in my post , the issue is in regards to the differentiation btwn bishops and presbyters, and the separate sacerdotal class of clergy ordained as "hiereus."

All of which you blithely dismissed with, "Not a Catholic. So tell us the difference that warrants this utter dismissal.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Also I would like to know, do you consider anything besides simple faith in Jesus Christ as necessary? I know you consider many things good, many things perhaps even absolutely important, but are they necessary in the grand scheme of things?

Only faith is needed to justify, but as faith effects works of obedience by the Spirit, (Romans 8:14), works are needed if one claims to have faith. Which is what Luther himself formally taught. Thus salvation is promised to those who will believe, as well as to those who do works of faith. For the former justifies the believer, but the latter justifies that one is a believer, and is of saving faith. (Roman 10:9-10)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The problem comes about for the Evangelical is that it cannot account for the Church for 19 or so centuries.

And where do you get this? What did the equivalent of the church exist as before the NT church, if not a relative remnant? Catholicism did not and has not yet become so corrupted that it did not retain salvific Truth by which humble contrite souls could be saved, and thus the the one true church continued.

And the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell is the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You say you 'sympathize' with my lack of energy' but I certainly don't feel any mercy or sympathy in what sounds like false judgment to me. A point which does enter into my 'walk' versus 'talk' preference. So please, do tell me just exactly what 'faulty Catholic answers' have I have posted here in your opinion? So far, I know of none.

It is that "the Protestant Canon, which we know differs from the Catholic Canon, even received resistance from Martin Luther, because he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible."

That is a typical faulty Catholic answer, but that the Protestant Canon received "resistance" from Luther is hardly an apt term, and and that he had a big problem with the theology problems of the book of James being added to the Protestant bible" is hardly accurate. For the reality is that Luther's position on the canon was expressly a private judgment, which he said others were free to differ with, and he also died in 1546.

Luther actually translated the books he considered to be Apocrypha and included them in his translation, but in a separate section as per an ancient tradition.

And here it should be understood that there was no infallible/indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who along with other scholars down thru the centuries, was free to doubt the canonical status of apocryphal books, and Hebrews, James and Revelation. For, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books church "fathers" and the Scriptures ]continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, [/url] until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther in 1546.

As even the Catholic Encyclopedia states as regards the Middle Ages,

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament)

And on the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture." (Evangelicals and the Canon of the New Testament)

The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms this, saying that “he [Cajetan] seemed more than three centuries in advance of his day in questioning the authenticity of the last chapter of St. Mark, the authorship of several epistles, viz., Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude...”— CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan

And as with others before him, Luther had scholarly reasons for his dissents. As regards Luther and James, Luther expressed, “In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4[:2–22] St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15[:6]. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15[:6]. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.,"

Yet Luther says although he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

Neither was Luther without means of reconciling James to sola fide. In The Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308, Luther offers the harmonizing solution: “This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘Faith without works is dead.’ That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith.”

And in Luther's early Commentary on Romans he states,

When James and Paul say that a man is justified by works, they argue against the false opinion of those who think that (for justification) a faith suffices that is without works...

Note also that Luther treats James as Scripture in reconciling him with justification by efficacious faith, and even more so in in the Luther's Works version of Luther's Commentary and writings on Romans, stating,

Therefore, when St. James and the apostle say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works.
More for those who want it.

And Luther himself is subject to interpretations. Roman Catholic professor Peter Kreeft believes that,

"When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love." — http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

Therefore Luther does not seem to be compelled to reject James due to its seeming conflict with justification by faith, and he rejects it as not written by an apostle, and as being weak on the gospel. And indeed, while the soon coming "of the Lord" is mentioned twice, yet the Lord Jesus is only mentioned by name twice in this letter of 5 chapters (and inferred once as the "name by which ye are called"), and with zero mention of His death and resurrection, and redemption thereby.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

But, there was still nothing official. You see, these books where agreed on by men with out anything in scripture telling them so. You can make all sorts of reasonings such as OT references but there are many other rejected books that not only have references to the other canon, but are also referenced by the canon.

Wrong. Unlike canonical OT writings, nothing from outside OT Scripture, including the the deuteros is quoted or referenced in the NT as "Scripture," or referenced as authoritative as in "it is written," "thus saith the Lord" or the like. Possible (sparse) references or allusions to apocryphal texts no more make the bodies of such Scripture proper than does quoting truth from Enoch or pagan poets.

And as with passed on truths such as the identification in 2 Timothy 3:8 of the rebels against Moses, we know by inclusion in the NT what is valid from apocryphal writings, whether Enoch or Wisdom, just as we do from pagan poets.

So since there was no actual note in scripture telling these men such as Irenaeus as to what is truly from God then he is pretty much just following Apostolic tradition. Again, these were all agreed on with out any scriptural note.

And so how is this against Scripture being supreme? Your argument seems to be that we need your magisterium to tell us what is of God, yet Scripture attests that men can discern both men and writings of God as being so, without leadership assuredly telling them so.

Have you answered my question yet, "Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her. "

And if you want to argue the just as the apostles orally preached the word of God, so does your leadership, then you need to deal with my response,

And so Catholic popes and prelates speak as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public express revelation thereby, as men such as the apostles could? If not, what is the basis for assurance of the veracity of your church in declaring such?

Is it (as some seem to argue) that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God? And what about the EOs?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And where do you get this? What did the equivalent of the church exist as before the NT church, if not a relative remnant? Catholicism did not and has not yet become so corrupted that it did not retain salvific Truth by which humble contrite souls could be saved, and thus the the one true church continued.

And the church which the Lord promised would overcome the gates of Hell is the body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) the one true church to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) which uniquely only always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

Your speaking as if before the reformation all there could be was Catholicism. This is a mistake you should know to avoid when speaking about Church history. There was more than just the Catholic west at any given time.

In regards to Evangelicals not being able to handle 19 centuries of Church history, it's simply because they don't exist in those 19 or however many centuries you want to make it. We could be generous and say Evangelicalism appeared as early as the Reformation yet even then you have to contend with the radically different nature of the Church in each era which doesn't accommodate itself well to this radical protestant vision of the faith.

Quite simply put, how do you explain Evangelicalism's absence in history until fairly recently? If you deny the premise, then go beyond the bible and demonstrate a Christian living according to Evangelical values in the Second century or beyond. That's why we were discussing Ignatius in the first place. He is much more in line with pre-reformation Churches on the nature of the Episcopate than a majority of Protestantism. It also won't do you good to simply quote the bible to me in response, since that is not historical attestation of the movement we are talking about.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It is indeed a a real question, and one you need to answer rather than retorting, "why do you think...?" I substantiate some of the differences btwn RCs and EOs, with both invoking Tradition for them, but as delineated in my post , the issue is in regards to the differentiation btwn bishops and presbyters, and the separate sacerdotal class of clergy ordained as "hiereus."

All of which you blithely dismissed with, "Not a Catholic. So tell us the difference that warrants this utter dismissal.

The differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are numerous and obvious to anyone actually families with the Churches. Treating Orthodox as if they are Catholics is like if I were to treat Evangelicals like they were Lutherans. Similar in many ways, different and substantially hostile to each other in many as well. So it was a dismissal worthy of reminding you that you're not talking to a Catholic.

I'll list one difference that cuts to the heart of the matter that divides Catholic and Orthodox and that would be ecclesiology. The Pope's place and part in the Church is a matter hotly debated and books have been written on the subject from both a Catholic and Orthodox viewpoint. Does the Pope have unilateral authority to determine by himself a doctrine for the Church without the consent of the other Patriarchs? The Orthodox say no. This isn't minor and this isn't even getting into the competing theological claims concerning the filioque and liturgical differences. Needless to say I'm not doing any justice to the differences that actively keep us apart.

If we are the same, baring one jot or tittle, prove it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you read his entire post you would have seen quotes from Jerome, other RC scholars and even one EO scholar. Your answer seems to be you are not interested in that.


How many pages now? And the same “born again movement” nonsense. How many times does this straw man need to be knocked down?

If it is a movement Jesus started it in John 3. If born again of the Spirit believers are absent in your church then you should reconsider the words of Christ and His Apostles.

“The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

No organization controls the Holy Spirit. The Body of Christ is an organism.

Church history? Have been a student of Church history since a lad. All of it the good the bad and the ugly.

By born again movement, are we not talking about the Evangelical Church which emphasizes faith above everything else, denying doctrines regarding sacraments (eucharist and baptismal regeneration)? If not we are simply talking past each other or speaking to each other not knowing what the other means.

You're quoting the scripture to me as if it should evidence of people believing in your view of being born again (which is to deny baptismal regeneration and focus merely on the confession of faith). That's why it doesn't convince me since I understand the fathers did not have that modern theology. Not even the reformers did.

Yet if you believe the Church, your vision of the Church, has been present throughout Christian history I would ask you to demonstrate that from actual history. We've already discussed Ignatius to which you haven't responded to my points. Is there anyone at all you can point to before the reformation (and after the bible) that reflects an Evangelical understanding of what constitutes the Church? I can think of a few but they were heretics, Montanus and the like.

I think you have the wrong line of questioning. The above question is from an authoritarian nature as in the “or less.”

My counter question is why wouldn’t a Christian belong to a church?

You truly have it backwards.

I notice you keep avoiding answering. That's fine but don't pretend to have answered when we both know you haven't.

In answer to your question, I could say a certain Christian on understanding faith alone to be the only thing truly essential would argue that they don't need Church or that there's no Church they personally could agree with. They are saved, what does it matter if they don't go to a Church? Christ is still in them and they lack nothing except maybe a social group.

 

[redleghunter]

Your speaking as if before the reformation all there could be was Catholicism. This is a mistake you should know to avoid when speaking about Church history. There was more than just the Catholic west at any given time.

In regards to Evangelicals not being able to handle 19 centuries of Church history, it's simply because they don't exist in those 19 or however many centuries you want to make it. We could be generous and say Evangelicalism appeared as early as the Reformation yet even then you have to contend with the radically different nature of the Church in each era which doesn't accommodate itself well to this radical protestant vision of the faith.

Quite simply put, how do you explain Evangelicalism's absence in history until fairly recently? If you deny the premise, then go beyond the bible and demonstrate a Christian living according to Evangelical values in the Second century or beyond. That's why we were discussing Ignatius in the first place. He is much more in line with pre-reformation Churches on the nature of the Episcopate than a majority of Protestantism. It also won't do you good to simply quote the bible to me in response, since that is not historical attestation of the movement we are talking about.

So for 19 centuries there were no born of the Spirit Christians? I find that hard to believe.

True, institutional religion is well established in Christian history, but I would gather even souls in the institutional church received effectual call from the Holy Spirit.

I was Roman Catholic and that did not stop me from responding in regenerate faith from above .

 

[redleghunter]

By born again movement, are we not talking about the Evangelical Church which emphasizes faith above everything else, denying doctrines regarding sacraments (eucharist and baptismal regeneration)? If not we are simply talking past each other or speaking to each other not knowing what the other means.

You're quoting the scripture to me as if it should evidence of people believing in your view of being born again (which is to deny baptismal regeneration and focus merely on the confession of faith). That's why it doesn't convince me since I understand the fathers did not have that modern theology. Not even the reformers did.

Yet if you believe the Church, your vision of the Church, has been present throughout Christian history I would ask you to demonstrate that from actual history. We've already discussed Ignatius to which you haven't responded to my points. Is there anyone at all you can point to before the reformation (and after the bible) that reflects an Evangelical understanding of what constitutes the Church? I can think of a few but they were heretics, Montanus and the like.

I quoted Scriptures because Jesus tells us we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.

The demonstration of His teachings is evident in Acts of the Apostles and the epistles.

People heard the Gospel, believed and acted on their faith and were baptized then being added among the church.

Perhaps Ezekiel 36:24-27 can be instructive.

I notice you keep avoiding answering. That's fine but don't pretend to have answered when we both know you haven't.

In answer to your question, I could say a certain Christian on understanding faith alone to be the only thing truly essential would argue that they don't need Church or that there's no Church they personally could agree with. They are saved, what does it matter if they don't go to a Church? Christ is still in them and they lack nothing except maybe a social group.

We are Justified by faith. Do you agree with this?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So for 19 centuries there were no born of the Spirit Christians? I find that hard to believe.

True, institutional religion is well established in Christian history, but I would gather even souls in the institutional church received effectual call from the Holy Spirit.

I was Roman Catholic and that did not stop me from responding in regenerate faith from above .

I don't believe that for a second. There have obviously been spirit filled people. Simply look at an Orthodox Calendar. What I do believe is that we have different concepts of what it means to be born again and we're seemingly discussing two different questions. My concern and focus has been to ask whether or not the Evangelical understanding of being born again, has been present historically in the Church.

I contend that Evangelicalism is late, extremely late given the positive statements we see all throughout Church history on the importance of Baptism, sacraments and Church. We see this not only in theological speculations but in the lives of the faithful who baptized their children or Kings whom upon becoming Christian the first thing they did was become baptized and hence began the Christanisation of their domains.

Now if I am right that your specific understanding of theology didn't exist what does that mean for Evangelicalism? I can only relate that it makes me personally dismiss the whole idea of Evangelicalism being valid.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I quoted Scriptures because Jesus tells us we must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.

The demonstration of His teachings is evident in Acts of the Apostles and the epistles.

People heard the Gospel, believed and acted on their faith and were baptized then being added among the church.

Perhaps Ezekiel 36:24-27 can be instructive.

We are Justified by faith. Do you agree with this?

Like i said in the previous post. I haven't been discussing theology but history. I'm asking a historical question which I do not think has been dealt with. Hence I'm confused why you're bringing up your interpretation of the bible to demonstrate your interpretation of the bible. How does that respond to my inquiry?

 

[Cis.jd]

You mean someone later had to make what the Holy Spirit inspired authoritative? Or did they recognize the works as authoritative as being the words of Christ and His apostles? Remember the NT books the early fathers had were written and passed down written from the apostles.

For example:

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.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)​

There's nothing in tradition which says it comes from the apostles. However, every epistle of Paul is introduced as Paul as the author. The heretics claimed apostolic authority of a secret nature. Irenaeus refuted this by presenting Holy Scriptures from the apostles. Then he showed how the apostolic tradition he and others followed was orthodox because it could be found in the written books of the NT.

Remember the NT books the early fathers had were written and passed down written from the apostles.

But 2nd Thess says "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
So here you see that it wasn't just writing that was passed down.

The belief in the writings of the apostles is an example of apostolic tradition. There where many different writings all coming in claiming they were followers of Christ but they were not accepted by the early church (as you said, 27-29 was what Irenaeus believed was the canon), why? Because they were not passed down by the apostles. Writing wasn't the only way of teaching or evangelizing.

In fact, take a look at Mark and Luke. Neither men met Jesus, yet both men wrote his gospels. Mark is believed to be the very first gospel. Where did he get these accounts from if Matt, Luke, and John where not made yet? Paul doesn't contain the life of Jesus and i'm sure he didn't just compile prophesies to make events with out doing actual research.

Luke even explains it in chap 1. It was handed down to him by "The first who were eye witnesses", and that he "carefully investigated" so he can provide an account. All the gospel writers have done this because how else would they know about Jesus prior to him reaching 30 years old? This info was orally passed down to them from those who were personally around Jesus. The whole construction of the NT and it's contents itself is already a visual example of apostolic tradition and despite all that.

This all relates to Iraneaus, because his beliefs of the canon are all passed down to him from the generations before him.

 

[redleghunter]

My concern and focus has been to ask whether or not the Evangelical understanding of being born again, has been present historically in the Church.

Yes I've pointed this out. The Biblical explanation of born again is most ancient in the history of the church.

The Apostle Peter explained it well at the very first church council:

Acts 15: NASB

6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

 

[redleghunter]

Like i said in the previous post. I haven't been discussing theology but history. I'm asking a historical question which I do not think has been dealt with. Hence I'm confused why you're bringing up your interpretation of the bible to demonstrate your interpretation of the bible. How does that respond to my inquiry?

Because you seem to dismiss the earliest Christians in the New Testament.

 

[redleghunter]

But 2nd Thess says "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
So here you see that it wasn't just writing that was passed down.

You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. We have Paul in several letters to several different churches teaching the same doctrines, exhortations and corrections.

The belief in the writings of the apostles is an example of apostolic tradition. There where many different writings all coming in claiming they were followers of Christ but they were not accepted by the early church (as you said, 27-29 was what Irenaeus believed was the canon), why? Because they were not passed down by the apostles. Writing wasn't the only way of teaching or evangelizing.

As I stated many were second century and unknown to the church.

In fact, take a look at Mark and Luke. Neither men met Jesus, yet both men wrote his gospels. Mark is believed to be the very first gospel. Where did he get these accounts from if Matt, Luke, and John where not made yet? Paul doesn't contain the life of Jesus and i'm sure he didn't just compile prophesies to make events with out doing actual research.

The history is Mark wrote for Peter and Luke for Paul. Remember Paul received 3 years instruction from our Lord.

Luke even explains it in chap 1. It was handed down to him by "The first who were eye witnesses", and that he "carefully investigated" so he can provide an account. All the gospel writers have done this because how else would they know about Jesus prior to him reaching 30 years old? This info was orally passed down to them from those who were personally around Jesus. The whole construction of the NT and it's contents itself is already a visual example of apostolic tradition and despite all that.

Yes the apostles taught in public verbally and also wrote letters when they were still alive. With the exception of The Evangelist's (John) works the remainder of the NT was complete before 70AD.

Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses. Means they were still alive.

I'm still not seeing evidence there was a difference between what was written and what was apostolic oral tradition.

This all relates to Iraneaus, because his beliefs of the canon are all passed down to him from the generations before him.

I don't think you will find many disagree from the Reformed camp nor Evangelical scholars that the church had basic creed they held to which was called the apostolic tradition.

That is why I asked for you to source your quote from Irenaeus. No problem I will.

You quoted from Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10) specifically paragraph 2:

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.​

I've seen this quote used by several Roman Catholic apologists. Yet they always leave out paragraph 1.

1. The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciplesthis faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophetsthe dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confessPhilippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortalityon the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
​

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.10 (St. Irenaeus)

100% from Holy Scriptures. Thanks to the New Advent site they even linked direct quotes from the NT.

This is the apostolic tradition Irenaeus speaks of. This is what the church taught to the numerous nations who could not read Greek or Latin. Completely and totally from Scriptures I'm here to tell you. This is 'yuge.'

 

[Cis.jd]

Wrong. Unlike canonical OT writings, nothing from outside OT Scripture, including the the deuteros snip
And as with passed on truths such as the identification in 2 Timothy 3:8 of the rebels against Moses,
snip

Yeah, you didn't get my argument there. Pleas re-read carefully.

And so how is this against Scripture being supreme? Your argument seems to be that we need your magisterium to tell us what is of God, yet Scripture attests that men can discern both men and writings of God as being so, without leadership assuredly telling them so.
snip

Because the Church passes down what the apostles taught. John 21:25 says not everything Jesus did was written and 2nd Thess states that are passed down other than writings.

I've already quoted Irenaus on this: "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith..." We don't deny that men can discern what writings of God are, but many men can also interpret it incorrectly and even make a religion out of their interpretations. Just take a look at the Iglesia Ni Cristo and look at all the verses they are pulling out in where their faith is based on.

Then you have protestantism; you guys who condemn the importance of having a Church, and look at how you are all divided; it is said that there are around 3k-5k different Protestant denominations - Each denomination is a reformation of a previous protestant denomination. The reason why it is important to value the authority of the Church, is to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen that we keep inline to what the Apostles pass down from Jesus (look up 2 Thess. 3:6).

You obviously deny the need of a magisterium but by that then you are forced to reject the canon NT. If you disagree with this then answer this:

Does the Bible state that there are only 27 or 55 books that are from God?
If no, then who are you to tell someone that whatever "gospel" they wrote in their school notebook isn't a new revelation from God? Unless you don't believe there is a closed canon (which i bet you more than 100 protestant denominations will tell you you are wrong).

Have you answered my question yet, "Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her. "

It's on #103.

 

[Cis.jd]

You have not demonstrated the word of mouth differs from what was written. Unless of course you have examples of critical apostolic teachings which were not written down. We have Paul in several letters to several different churches teaching the same doctrines, exhortations and corrections.

Of course I have. John 21:25 says it. Not everything is written so there are things that are not put down in writing, so logically there is a word of mouth that is different from the word on paper.

The history is Mark wrote for Peter and Luke for Paul. Remember Paul received 3 years instruction from our Lord.

I'm not asking about who was it for originally, i'm asking how did they get the info about Jesus' life? There was no available scripture to tell Mark the whole story of Bethlehem or anything that happened in Jesus life. He was not with Jesus when came out of Mary's womb, he was not there when Jesus was 14, he was not around Jesus personally. So how did he get this info?

You say Paul received 3 years instruction from God, were part of these instructions the events in the life of Jesus to record?

Yes the apostles taught in public verbally and also wrote letters when they were still alive. With the exception of The Evangelist's (John) works the remainder of the NT was complete before 70AD.

Luke was interviewing eyewitnesses. Means they were still alive.

I'm still not seeing evidence there was a difference between what was written and what was apostolic oral tradition.

Because oral tradition comes first. Oral tradition was passed down before the scriptures where made.



I don't think you will find many disagree from the Reformed camp nor Evangelical scholars that the church had basic creed they held to which was called the apostolic tradition.

That is why I asked for you to source your quote from Irenaeus. No problem I will.

You quoted from Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 10) specifically paragraph 2:

2. As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.​

I've seen this quote used by several Roman Catholic apologists. Yet they always leave out paragraph 1.
snip [/QUOTE]

You are getting lost in your own arguments. First of all, no one just leaves out a paragraph because you think they are avoiding something. There is a thing in the internet called tl;dr which normally happens when we quote the entire thing. You only needed one sentence to get to the main point in where are converstation began.

You are showing me the whole quote of his that contains all the Bible references he used in his writings, yet you clearly have ignored the point i've made. The fact is, there was nothing in scripture to validate what books are from God and what verses to take his inspiration from. The belief in them were all taught and passed down. That 100% from scripture is from Apostolic tradition. The belief in Matt-Rev and all the stuff they say is not a tradition that was born from the scriptures, it was verbally taught and passed down first. My reference with Mark and Luke is also connected to this. Their writings about Jesus' life isn't 100% taken from written/scripture it is all info passed down to them by his apostles. How did Peter and the rest of the 12 find out about Jesus as a baby, or what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary, or even the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth? The info given to them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your speaking as if before the reformation all there could be was Catholicism. This is a mistake you should know to avoid when speaking about Church history. There was more than just the Catholic west at any given time.

Certainly, but the EOs also posses many of the beliefs of Catholicism which are simply not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), while there was always a relative remnant of simple pious faith.

In regards to Evangelicals not being able to handle 19 centuries of Church history, it's simply because they don't exist in those 19 or however many centuries you want to make it. ..
Quite simply put, how do you explain Evangelicalism's absence in history until fairly recently? If you deny the premise, then go beyond the bible and demonstrate a Christian living according to Evangelical values in the Second century or beyond. That's why we were discussing Ignatius in the first place. He is much more in line with pre-reformation Churches on the nature of the Episcopate than a majority of Protestantism. It also won't do you good to simply quote the bible to me in response, since that is not historical attestation of the movement we are talking about.

What? Evangelicalism's absence in history until fairly recently? The Bible not being historical attestation of the movement we are talking about?! Rather, Scripture,. est. Acts thru Revelation, is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including hoe they understood the gospels, and looking therein what we see is not praying to created beings in Heaven, or the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice as only offered by a ordained sacerdotal priest/"hiereus" (this being his primary unique function) on behalf of both the living and the dead, and as the center of the Church’s life, and as the spiritual nourishment of man, or priests who cannot marry after ordination, including after being widowed, or paeodobaptism, without repentant personal faith, etc.

Instead, what we see is only prayer being made to God, and in the only description of detail, the understanding of the Lord's supper as remembering His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in thier dedicatory feasts, ( 1Cor. 10,11) and with no clergy distinctively ordained as "hiereus," and as normatively married, and free to marry as such, and with only such as could comprehend, repent and believe the gospel, as was required, being baptized. Etc. And with heart-purifying regenerating faith being counted for righteousness, and effecting obedience by the Spirit.

That is why Catholics selectively focus on uninspired writings of so-called church fathers, as if these were determintive of what the NT church believed, which they are not, but attest to the progressive accretion of traditions of men, along with retaining salvific Truths which a remnant could perceive and believe and be saved by, amidst traditions of men.

 

[Karola]

Does critical here mean necessary or extremely important? There is a difference and I can't imagine any Evangelical or adherrent to the modern born again theology believing Church communion is just as necessary as faith in Christ.

Well faith in Christ is a believers righteousness/justification