Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)
Young, Evangelical, and Catholic ^ | November 5, 2011 | Brantly Callaway Millegan

Posted on 11/06/2011 4:29:37 AM PST by markomalley

Pentecost
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch 2 (~A.D. 200):
That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date.
Below is a list of the year of the earliest (of which I am aware) extant extra-biblical witness of various Christian doctrines.


(A.D. 33 - death and resurrection of Christ)
A.D. 90 - the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice
(A.D. 95 - death of the last apostle, John)
A.D. 95 - apostolic succession
A.D. 110 - real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
A.D. 150 - baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism for salvation
A.D. 150 - basic structure of the Mass as Christian worship
A.D. 155 - veneration of saints and their relics

A.D. 160 - Mary as the New Eve
A.D. 170 - use of the word 'Trinity'
A.D. 180 - primacy of the bishop of Rome
A.D. 200 - 'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' formula
A.D. 367 - today's 27 book New Testament canon
(A.D. 1500s - Protestant Reformation)

(Note: Those that are (underlined) are relevant events to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines in bold are accepted by evangelicals and Catholics and are also listed to help put the other dates in perspective. Those doctrines not bolded are accepted by Catholics and are rejected by most evangelicals as corruptions of the faith. All dates listed are of course approximate. The quotes showing the witness to these doctrines in those years are at the end of this post.)

I have seven comments:

1) Notice the large number of doctrines/practices that are rejected by most evangelicals as Roman Catholic corruptions of the faith that are witnessed to prior to explicit development of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the first extant witness to the 27 book New Testament canon. In other words, if all of those beliefs which most evangelicals tend to view as sure markers of the obviously perverted corruption of the Catholic Church were already there, then the same Church that settled the New Testament canon and fought the Trinitarian and Christological fights of the 4th century was already well immersed in corruption, superstition, and heresy.

2) Remember that evangelicals claim that all of those Catholic beliefs listed above - the Lord's Supper as sacrifice, apostolic succession, veneration of saints and their relics, etc - were all invented and did not come from the apostles, even though the Christians immediately following the apostles, including some who knew the apostles personally, did think that those doctrines came from the apostles.

St Athanasius, bishop of
Alexandria, who was ban-
ished five times by the gov't
for preaching the teachings
of the Council of Nicea
regarding the Trinity
3)Ironically, those issues that evangelicals claim to be obvious corruptions of the faith were accepted throughout the early Church with relatively little dissent*. And it was on issues like the New Testament canon and the doctrine of the Trinity - two issues on which evangelicals agree with the early Church - that had the most widespread disagreement and dissent. The confusion/dissent regarding these two issues was so widespread and entrenched that they were only settled for the whole Church when the bishops of the Church wielded their authority from apostolic succession - the same authority who's existence evangelicals deny.

4) As I stated in a previous postthe evangelical must hold that all of this occurred despite the fact that Jesus himself promised to be "with [us] always, to the very end of the age," (Mt 28.20) as well as that, since He would build His Church on the rock, "the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Mt 16.18).

5) Modern evangelicals, in their rejection of those early Catholic beliefs are largely following a tradition that started in the 16th century.

6) So, who is more likely to be closer to the original teaching of the Apostles? The Catholic Church, following the beliefs and practices of the early Christians who first received the teaching of the Apostles directly, or those who, 1500 years or more after the fact, reinterpreted the writings of the Apostles to mean things that Christians had never believed before and rule out as corruption and heresy those things that Christians had always believed/practiced from the very beginning?

7) Since it doesn't appear as though any of the authors are proposing a new doctrine in any of the quotes, it can be assumed that all of these doctrines in the very least pre-date by some amount of time their first extant historical witness. It should be noted that in some cases, the authors most likely knew some of the apostles themselves, e.g. St Clement, who was the bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century and is traditionally identified with the Clement referred to by Paul in Philippians 4.3. And in other cases, the authors knew disciples of the apostles, e.g. St Irenaeus was a disciple of St Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John.

The quotes themselves are below. In a few cases, if the earliest witness is not without any doubt stating the doctrine, then I've listed another early quote that is more clear.
____________________________________________________________

A.D. 90
The Lord's Supper as a Sacrifice
Didache, 14:
Offering the Sacrifice of the Mass
"But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. [Malachi 1.11,14]"
If the above is unclear:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 41:
"He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist"
A.D. 95
Apostolic Succession
St Clement, bishop of Rome, First Clement 42, 44 (for more, see The Early Church Was Catholic: Apostolic Succession and Authority):
"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. [...] Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
A.D. 110
Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
St Ignatius of Antioch, bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6-7 (for more, see 1500 years of Gospel-compromising heresy & idolatry...or not):
"Let no man deceive himself. ...[I]f they believe not in the blood of Christ, shall, in consequence, incur condemnation. [...] But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. [...] They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."
If the above isn't clear enough:
A.D. 150
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 66:
"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
A.D. 150
Baptismal Regeneration (baptism is not merely symbolic)
and Baptism Necessary for Salvation
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 61, 66:
"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. [John 3.3]"
"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined."
If the necessity of baptism is not clear enough in the above quotes:
A.D. 200
Tertullian, On Baptism, 12:
"...the prescript is laid down that without baptism, salvation is attainable by none (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, Unless one be born of water, he has not life [John 3.5])"
A.D. 150
Basic structure of the Mass
St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 67:
"[O]n the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons."
A.D. 155
Veneration of Saints and their Relics
Martyrdom of St Polycarp
Author unknown, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 17 (for more, see Relics of Saints and the Early Church):
"[After Bishop Polycarp was martyed in a Roman stadium] But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, lest, said he, forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one. This he said...being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!"
A.D. 160
Mary as the New Eve
St Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100, ~A.D. 160:
"[Jesus] became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to your word.'"
A.D 170
Use of the word 'Trinity'
Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus to Autolycus 2.15:
"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man."

A.D. 180
Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
Some take the attitude and posture of St Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter First Clement written around A.D. 95 to the church in Corinth as indicating an early understanding of the primacy of the bishop of Rome (see First Clement, 1, 58-59, 63). Some also see an indication of the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch circa A.D. 110 (see Letter to the Romans, 1, 3). The date listed above - A.D. 180 - is for the quote from St Irenaeus below. His is the first clearly explicit witness to the primacy of the bishop of Rome of which I am aware:

The crucifixion of St Peter
St Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
A.D. 200
'Trinity', 'Person', 'Substance' Formula
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 2:
"...especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."
A.D. 367
27 book New Testament Canon

St Athanasius, Easter Letter of 367, 5:

"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."
*Except perhaps with the primacy of the bishop of Rome, but the early dissent was small compared to the confusion/dissent regarding the Trinity and the New Testament canon. Major dissent regarding the role of the bishop of Rome came much later.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-364 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2011 4:29:38 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Turns out the first three centuries of the Pure Christianity Church were Catholic centuries, eh?

And you can add to that, Catholic doctrine written right on the walls of the catacombs ("[Name of martyr] ora pro nobis," "Sancta Maria semper virgine" etc.

Nor is there any evidence of these Catholic doctrines being considered innovative or controversial at the time, although the earliest Christians were very conservative in doctrrine and vigilant for heresy.

Curious, is it not?

2 posted on 11/06/2011 4:43:27 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." - 1 Tim 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Thanks for this post. Happy Sunday!

I went to the link, great site.


3 posted on 11/06/2011 5:14:24 AM PST by Not gonna take it anymore (Member of the First Church of Christ, I am Catholic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Nor is there any evidence of these Catholic doctrines being considered innovative or controversial at the time, although the earliest Christians were very conservative in doctrrine and vigilant for heresy.

Excellent point! Given that the Church has never scoured the record-books of the heretical writings of the Donatists, Manichees, Arians, etc., from the annals of history, where is the record of the hue and cry from the supposed "real Christians" against this supposed "hostile take-over of the Church by heretics"? To say that there were deleted is simply not plausible; it really does seem that the REJECTION of Catholic teaching was the cause of the hue and cry, from the earliest ages.
4 posted on 11/06/2011 5:16:17 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Definitely too deep for me this morning.


5 posted on 11/06/2011 5:38:30 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

:) Take a few steps back, apply coffee copiously (I don’t want to say “liberally”), then return; repeat as needed.


6 posted on 11/06/2011 5:40:29 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: paladinan
The warnings against heresies are in the Bible.

Paul warned us about those introducing false teachings, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 1Cor 1:10-12

You could easily read the above as “One of you says, "I follow Luther"; another, "I follow Calvin"; another, "I follow Wesley"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Christians cannot be “perfectly united in mind and thought” when they have different beliefs on, say, the necessity of water baptism, while others believe “This is my Body” means “This is a cookie”

7 posted on 11/06/2011 5:44:30 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Well-put! FR seriously needs a “like” button! :)


8 posted on 11/06/2011 5:48:03 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Whoever makes the most rules wins.

Like the U.S. today. Our country has evolved from the basic and fairly simple framework set down by the Founding Fathers into an enormously complex and authoritative bureaucracy. Not to mention a populace that neither knows nor respects the gift it has been given.

It’s our nature to think we can improve on the original, when in fact we just corrupt it.

I’m speaking of all Christian sects, not just Catholics.


9 posted on 11/06/2011 5:50:53 AM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah; Mrs. Don-o
It’s our nature to think we can improve on the original, when in fact we just corrupt it.

I agree. Completely.

10 posted on 11/06/2011 5:53:35 AM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good-Pope Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

There are several difficulties in trying to reconstruct
church history. We cannot always know with absolute
certainty what ancient people believed about every point
in question. Here are some reasons why.

1. Bias can affect writers and historians. Every
doctrinal writer and church historian has his own presuppositions,
which can affect his objectivity. Early writers
were no exception. It was only natural for them to tend to
slant things in their favor, sometimes deliberately and
sometimes unconsciously. When they described the doctrine
of someone they disagreed with, they often made it
look foolish or illogical, because to them it was. Sometimes
they simply did not understand a point their opponents
made.
History is written by the victors. Whenever there were
clashes in history, the people who won usually were the
ones who left the record of what happened. Often the
views of a minority are preserved only in the writings of
their opponents. To see the difficulty here, we can imagine
trying to understand and assess the Pentecostal movement
solely by reading the documents of critics and
skeptics. How accurately could some define the doctrine
of Oneness, or explain the experience of the Holy Spirit
baptism, if all he had were records of opponents who castigated,
smeared, and misrepresented these teachings,
whether intentionally or not?
We should also note that there is doctrinal bias among
church historians today. We cannot evaluate church history
simply by reading church historians. We must go back
to the primary sources themselves and look at them from
our perspective. Of course, another historian would say
we have a bias, but at least we try to establish the “bias”
of our doctrinal position from the Bible. We cannot
depend totally on writings from church historians who
come with a different doctrinal perspective. Instead, we
must read the original historical sources as much as possible
to see what the writers said for themselves. By
examining these writings from our point of view, we may
uncover information, evidence, or possibilities that other
church historians have missed.

2. Writers of a certain age do not always represent
the views of the majority of believers at that time.
The writings that survive from a particular era may not
have been written by the most influential leaders or teachers
of the time. Before the invention of printing in the
West in the 1400s, all documents had to be copied by
hand. If later scribes deemed a manuscript to be unimportant
or heretical, they had little desire to copy it
repeatedly. Censors often destroyed writings later judged
to be heretical. Generally, what has been preserved from
early times are documents that fit the beliefs of the people
who had the opportunity to preserve or discard them.
Only a fraction of the writings from early times still
exist, and it is difficult to say how representative the remnant
is. If a writer was a known bishop, pastor, or other
church leader, we have some reason to believe he represented
a significant view in the church. If a writer is
unknown or had no significant position in the church, it is
quite possible that he was not truly representative of the
church of his time. Perhaps he gained greater favor with
later generations, who preserved his work, than he
enjoyed in his own lifetime.
We should also consider that people who tend to write
do not always reflect the piety and views of the average
person. Particularly in ancient times, those who had the
leisure and education to write scholarly treatises may
have had a different perspective from the average believer.
Even in our own day, the works of major theologians
are often much more liberal than the views of most lay
members in their own denominations.

3. There is always the strong possibility of interpolations
(insertions) in ancient manuscripts. The
scribes who copied manuscripts by hand often changed
statements, whether by mistake, misunderstanding, or
deliberate alteration. They often felt free to add clarifications,
“corrections,” or simply their own views. Comparisons
of different manuscripts of the same works reveal
that interpolations were quite common.
Sometimes a scribe involved in a theological controversy
would insert a few lines supportive of his own position
into a book by an ancient, widely respected leader.
The temptation was great to use such an authoritative figure
to help resolve a dispute. On the other hand, if a
scribe found a questionable phrase in the work of such an
author, he might feel it important to edit the work and
strike the offending or potentially dangerous words. As a
result, we are not always sure that we actually have the
original words or views of a certain author. Sometimes we
can only guess or suppose.

4. False doctrines existed in the
earliest times. Even if we were to find a nonbiblical document
from the first century, its antiquity does not guarantee
that it is truly apostolic or teaches the correct doctrine,
for the New Testament reveals there were false teachers
even in the first century. Moreover, documents from the
second century were written approximately a century
after the founding of the New Testament church, and one
hundred years is a long time in doctrinal history. For
example, vast doctrinal changes, innovations, and movements
have developed in the twentieth century: the entire
modern Pentecostal movement arose in this century.
People from all theological perspectives disagree with
the earliest postbiblical writings on some points. For
instance, evangelical Protestant scholars typically conclude
that the earliest postbiblical writers did not clearly
proclaim the doctrine of justification by faith but fell into
legalism.

5. Early terms were often imprecise, especially in
light of later controversies. For example, in the Middle
Ages and during the Reformation great controversies
arose over the Lord’s Supper. The issue was whether the
bread and the fruit of the vine were symbolic, or whether
Christ’s blood and body were physically present. Both
sides in these debates appealed to writers from the first
few centuries. For instance, a proponent of the doctrine
of the real presence would find a writer who described the
Lord’s Supper as a partaking of Christ’s body. But did the
writer mean this statement to be figurative or literal? It is
difficult to know for certain, since he wrote before the
controversy existed.
Early writers did not anticipate later disputes and
therefore did not guard against certain misinterpretations.
We cannot demand of them a precision of terminology
that was foreign to their time, nor can we make them
speak of doctrinal issues that arose after their time. In
some cases there is enough evidence to predict what position
they would have taken had they lived during a certain
controversy. In many cases, however, they did not use certain
definitive terms, or at least not with the connotation
or precision of later times.
It can be anachronistic to cite certain writers in support
of a particular doctrine, even though they may have
used words that later acquired a certain theological significance.
When we study ancient authors, we must determine
what their words meant in the context of their
writings and their times.

6. Sources for church history are neither authoritative
nor infallible. Only Scripture can claim those distinctives.
It is from Scripture alone that we must derive
instruction for salvation, Christian living, and Christian
belief.
Our sole authority is the Bible, the Word of God. God
has inspired and preserved it for doctrine, reproof, correction,
and instruction in righteousness (II Timothy
3:16). If an ancient, well-respected source seems to teach
a doctrine that is contrary to Scripture, we must choose
the message of Scripture.


11 posted on 11/06/2011 6:06:01 AM PST by BigGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I guess the author is a Gnostic heretic.


12 posted on 11/06/2011 6:22:27 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

I’m sorry, I’m not sure which author you’re referring to. There are many authors referred to the article. Or do you mean Millegan? Perhaps you didn’t notice that he wrote his headline ironically.


13 posted on 11/06/2011 6:47:26 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Your sarcasm tag: don't leave home without it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

You wrote:

“Our country has evolved from the basic and fairly simple framework set down by the Founding Fathers into an enormously complex and authoritative bureaucracy.”

Our society became enormously complex: dense population, major world-class cities, telecommunications, moon trips, etc.

“..It’s our nature to think we can improve on the original, when in fact we just corrupt it.”

Maybe, but I think we do improve on the original as well. I don’t believe getting rid of slavery (which we had in 1776) is a corruption of society, for instance.


14 posted on 11/06/2011 7:14:21 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy

what someone really means when they say the Bible is the sole authority, is that THEY are the sole authority.

Jesus gave His authority to the Church to teach and baptize in Matthew 28, don’t we have an obligation to learn?

how would you even know which books belonged in the Bible, without the authority posessed by the Church?


15 posted on 11/06/2011 7:15:53 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“25And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

36And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, 38being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again.” - Acts 20

“12Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” - 2 Peter


16 posted on 11/06/2011 7:20:21 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; BigGuy

“how would you even know which books belonged in the Bible, without the authority posessed by the Church?”

How did the Apostles know what scripture was? When did the Jews have a council and determine what was or was not scripture?

And when did the Roman Catholic Church publish an authoritative list, leaving off some passages that they had accepted for over 1000 years?

Why was it that Luther’s accuser was free to deny the authority of the Apocrypha, and why did a Catholic theologian need to invent the term ‘deuterocanonicals’ in 1566?


17 posted on 11/06/2011 7:25:13 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

yes, false teachers did arise such as the Arians and Gnostics.
but since the true Church is protected by the Holy Spirit,the gates of hell would not, could not and did not prevail against it.
Mormons, Baptists and others teach the Church went “apostate” in the 2nd century and needed to be “restored”, they only differ whether the “restoration” took place in the 16th or 19th century.


18 posted on 11/06/2011 7:27:24 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

they didn’t need to publish authoritative lists, they published the Bible. the 73 books in it were Scripture, the books not in it weren’t Scripture.

why did it take until the 16th century before anyone realized the correct canon should only have 66 books in it?

who has the authority to say infallibly this is the correct cannon of Scripture? anyone? do you have this authority?


19 posted on 11/06/2011 7:30:43 AM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

ping me in, ping me out, we’ll raise a mighty shout.


20 posted on 11/06/2011 8:13:23 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT (I will go back to New Hampshire to campaign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Wasn’t the Book of Revelation considered a “deuterocanonical” work at one time?


21 posted on 11/06/2011 8:21:25 AM PST by FourtySeven (When does the race card run out of credit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; FourtySeven

“Mormons, Baptists and others teach the Church went “apostate” in the 2nd century and needed to be “restored”, they only differ whether the “restoration” took place in the 16th or 19th century.”

Actually, I’ve said that large parts of the visible church went astray, particularly in theology, but that God still saved those who responded to Him.

It was called the “Reformation”, not the “Restoration”. By Baptists and by Protestants.

“they didn’t need to publish authoritative lists, they published the Bible.”

Well, not in the vernacular, and not with the intent for commoners to read it. As you well know, the Catholic Church took a pretty strong stance AGAINST commoners reading scripture, from about 1200-1800 AD.

“the 73 books in it were Scripture, the books not in it weren’t Scripture.”

Nope. Not according to the Roman Catholic Church. That is why the term “deuterocanonicals” needed to be invented in 1566. The Old Vulgate had 3 books that didn’t make the cut in the Council of Trent - probably just a mistake on the part of the infallible council - so the revised Vulgate was published with those 3 separate, and they later were dropped.

But what to call the Apocrypha minus those 3? Thus “deuterocanonicals” - coined in 1566.

“who has the authority to say infallibly this is the correct cannon of Scripture?”

God. And each individual will answer for listening, or not.

“Wasn’t the Book of Revelation considered a “deuterocanonical” work at one time?”

Sort of. It was on the lists made around 400 AD in Africa, but not all congregations accepted it.

“While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John’s Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John).(40) In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius.”

“The canon of the Syriac-speaking churches in the third century included the Diatessaron and the fourteen Pauline epistles. In the early fifth century, the Peshitta became the official text of Syriac-speaking churches. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four gospels. It contained the 22 books of our New Testament other than II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Peshitta is traditionally held to be the work of Rabulla, bishop of Edessa from 412-435. However, it probably built on work of the previous century.) The Nestorian church still uses this 22 book canon. In 508, the Jacobite branch of the Syriac church came to accept the standard 27 book canon.”

“Thus, we see that producing the final form of the New Testament canon took a considerable period of time. It took still longer to produce near universal agreement. However, to this day, there exist ancient churches which have either never accepted certain books or which accept more than 27 books. The canon in its present form was not a self-evident fact, but the result of a prolonged struggle-we reap the fruits of other men’s labors.”

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.aspx


22 posted on 11/06/2011 9:08:44 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

So God told you personally that the Book of Revelation is Scripture?

If so, I’m impressed.


23 posted on 11/06/2011 9:26:50 AM PST by FourtySeven (When does the race card run out of credit?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven

Has God sent me a list, possibly by email? No.

Does the Holy Spirit speak to me when I read Revelations? Not a lot, really, but enough for me to be content with it on the list.

Does the Holy Spirit speak to me as I read the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistle of Barnabas? Nope - other than to tell me it is NOT the word of God.

In like manner, when I read the Apocrypha, it is empty of God’s Spirit.

Add in that the vast majority of the christian church has accepted most of the NT almost as soon as it was penned, and all of the OT, and I am comfortable facing God’s judgement in the matter - for all of us will be judged as individuals.

Please also remember that a great many Catholic scholars said all along that the Apocrypha was good for reading, but not for doctrine, and I’ll have a lot of company in rejecting the Apocrypha as authoritative.

And to the best of my knowledge, there are only a couple verses in the entire Apocrypha used for doctrine by Roman Catholics.


24 posted on 11/06/2011 9:41:32 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy

“its antiquity does not guarantee that it is truly apostolic or teaches the correct doctrine”

Yes! Here’s an important consideration to recognize. It’s like the supposed “oldest manuscripts” of the Bible; That’s a false assumption, because the manuscripts that were written on parchment outlasted the earliest ones, which were written on papyrus or paper. So the earliest ones are the later ones.


25 posted on 11/06/2011 9:53:08 AM PST by RoadTest (For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I might add that scripture cites genuine apocryphal writings. Namely the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in the book of Jude.

Perhaps Jude is apocryphal too.


26 posted on 11/06/2011 10:18:32 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I might add that scripture cites genuine apocryphal writings. Namely the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in the book of Jude.

Perhaps Jude is apocryphal too.


27 posted on 11/06/2011 10:18:38 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Mr Rogers wrote:

In like manner, when I read the Apocrypha, it is empty of God’s Spirit.

But... surely you realize that this is a mere appeal to raw emotion and personal taste? That sort of thing simply won't hold; not only is it subject to personal bias and utterly detached from sane reason, but it fluctuates with the day, the hour, one's mood, and even what one had for breakfast!

Case in point: I know of few people who would "feel the Spirit tell them" that Philemon, or vast portions of Numbers, Chronicles, Leviticus, etc., were "true and inspired Scripture" (i.e. what you might call "not empty of God's Spirit"), absent any prior knowledge of their membership in the Bible. I know of few people who would be led to a "saving Faith on Jesus Christ" by reading them; do you?
28 posted on 11/06/2011 10:43:07 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

Paul also cited a Cretan prophet in Titus, IIRC, but he did not do so for authority.

“It is written” appears many times in the New Testament, but never with the Apocrypha.


29 posted on 11/06/2011 11:09:36 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

“But... surely you realize that this is a mere appeal to raw emotion and personal taste?”

Actually, it is an appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. “26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

Neither Philemon nor Revelations is my favorite book of the Bible, but I’ve never felt the Holy Spirit telling me they were not God’s word.

Remember, the canon was settled, not by a bunch of theologians making a list, but by congregations agreeing that X was scripture, and Y was not.


30 posted on 11/06/2011 11:13:05 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

Do you consider the Book of Enoch to be scripture?


31 posted on 11/06/2011 11:21:18 AM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

A brief but very insightful presentation.


32 posted on 11/06/2011 12:55:28 PM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And to be clear: these dates are the dates of our earliest extant writings containing those doctrines. They are not new doctrines from those dates, but are rather understood as authentic doctrines by the authors who wrote at those dates, among the very scarce writings.


33 posted on 11/06/2011 1:53:10 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Mr Rogers wrote, in reply to my comment:

[paladinan] “But... surely you realize that this is a mere appeal to raw emotion and personal taste?”

[Mr. Rogers] Actually, it is an appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.


Well... I understand that this is your belief, but: it really doesn't settle anything. If I were to ask you how you distinguished "the guidance of the Spirit" from your own strongly-held opinions, how would you respond? I, for example, could say that I read the twin Books of Maccabees, and found them not only inspiring, but inspired. How would we settle our disagreement? It'd be easy and chevalier for you to say, "But you're not guided by the Spirit; you're only going on your feelings!" How would you prove that? It's my claim against yours, and you haven't any greater evidence for your own claim.

Neither Philemon nor Revelations is my favorite book of the Bible, but I’ve never felt the Holy Spirit telling me they were not God’s word.

Hm. You seem to have weakened your standards, a bit, since you don't say that "the Spirit told you they definitely WERE Scripture". But again: how do you (personally) distinguish the "Spirit" from your own fervent preferences?

Remember, the canon was settled, not by a bunch of theologians making a list, but by congregations agreeing that X was scripture, and Y was not.

Er... friend, I don't mean to offend, but: do you have any evidence for that claim, whatsoever?
34 posted on 11/06/2011 1:59:12 PM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

1 - I’m not interested in proving that scripture is scripture. You decide to accept it or not. You will be judged by God, not by me, so you must follow your conscience.

2 - If you prefer, “The Pope said so”, that is also your choice. I’m underwhelmed by it.

3 - Did anyone wait to use the Gospels, or Paul’s writing, as scripture until 400 AD, when the local church councils were held?

Nope. They were being used and accepted as scripture and authoritative before ANY church council declared anything. Thus, I conclude that it was a bottom-up process. For it to have been a top-down process, folks would have needed to wait until 400 AD at least - and arguably until the 1500s.


35 posted on 11/06/2011 3:03:14 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

the Catholics are the originals.


36 posted on 11/06/2011 3:07:20 PM PST by Not gonna take it anymore (Member of the First Church of Christ, I am Catholic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I like this post. Especially #6

6) So, who is more likely to be closer to the original teaching of the Apostles? The Catholic Church, following the beliefs and practices of the early Christians who first received the teaching of the Apostles directly, or those who, 1500 years or more after the fact, reinterpreted the writings of the Apostles to mean things that Christians had never believed before and rule out as corruption and heresy those things that Christians had always believed/practiced from the very beginning?

37 posted on 11/06/2011 3:15:38 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore; markomalley
How Quickly Catholic Heresy Took Over the Church (Immediately)
Hilaire Belloc’s “The Great Heresies” now available in EPUB format
Chapter 6: The Modern Phase [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 5: What Was The Reformation? [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 4: The Albigensian Attack [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 3: The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed [The Great Heresies]
Chapter 2: The Arian Heresy [The Great Heresies
Chapter 1: Scheme Of This Book [The Great Heresies]

Introduction: Heresy [The Great Heresies]
The Great Heresies
John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]
Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE

The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)

Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies

38 posted on 11/06/2011 3:20:16 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Actually, I’ve said that large parts of the visible church went astray, particularly in theology, but that God still saved those who responded to Him.

care to us what part of the “visible church” didn’t go astray?

“who has the authority to say infallibly this is the correct cannon of Scripture?”

you answered “God”. please tell me where God provides a table of contents for the canon or does God communicate to you directly the canon?


39 posted on 11/06/2011 3:54:53 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

No. But Jude 1:14-15 quotes from it.

“And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Then using your reasoning for what is or is not canonical, shouldn’t you add the Book of Enoch to your canon?


40 posted on 11/06/2011 4:04:58 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I challenge you to show me exact quotes from the Catholic teachers who supposedly regarded these books of the Bible as “apocryphal.”

The argument that the Council of Trent “added” these books to the Bible is a strawman. These books have been used by Christians since the beginning.

St. Clement of Rome, for example, cites the Book of Judith in his letter to the Corinthians AFTER the Palestianian Jews threw it out of their canon.


41 posted on 11/06/2011 4:11:06 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Every local church had its own canon. Some churches regarded the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians as scripture.

Perhaps James,Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation should be thrown into the apocrypha using your reasoning about the Old Testament scriptures because their inspiration was doubted by many for about 200 years.

Even Martin Luther doubted their authenticity. And considering you don’t accept any Church councils, why not believe the Gnostic books are more authentic.

If the Church is fallible then so is the canon.


42 posted on 11/06/2011 4:19:14 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The Eastern Church has always called them simply “canonical.”


43 posted on 11/06/2011 4:30:37 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Read this. http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html


44 posted on 11/06/2011 4:43:00 PM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

“Then using your reasoning for what is or is not canonical, shouldn’t you add the Book of Enoch to your canon?”

No, for reasons I’ve repeated to you a half dozen times in the last 2 weeks.

“I challenge you to show me exact quotes from the Catholic teachers who supposedly regarded these books of the Bible as “apocryphal.”

Jerome:

“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”

“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.”

Cardinal Cajetan:

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”


45 posted on 11/06/2011 5:06:33 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

“If the Church is fallible then so is the canon.”

No. God’s Word - God-breathed, His breath - does not fall under the authority of councils of the Roman Catholic Church...which cannot even figure out which books were in the Apocrypha, and thus left 3 out when listing them in Trent.


46 posted on 11/06/2011 5:08:15 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

“please tell me where God provides a table of contents for the canon or does God communicate to you directly the canon?”

God works in the hearts of Christians, to confirm or deny. And while any individual Christian may misjudge, the bulk will not. That is why the bulk of the canon was settled and accepted before 150 AD, although there were no councils to review it.

God alone is infallible. His breath is likewise. Men in the church? Not infallible. Including the Pope.


47 posted on 11/06/2011 5:14:21 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; stonehouse01; Goreknowshowtocheat; Absolutely Nobama; Elendur; it_ürür; Bockscar; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


48 posted on 11/06/2011 5:16:05 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rzman21

“The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa ordinaria, is an important witness to the position of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:

A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of ‘glosses’ on the text of a given MS. The earliest Glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century...Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best-known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries...So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism’...

...the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:

Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.

The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html

Also:

“Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).131

This is significant, coming as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome.”


49 posted on 11/06/2011 5:19:10 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

God works in the hearts of Christians, to confirm or deny. And while any individual Christian may misjudge, the bulk will not. That is why the bulk of the canon was settled and accepted before 150 AD, although there were no councils to review it.

interesting, “the bulk will not”

i agree with you, it is how we know the Catholic Faith is true. the Holy Spirit led the Church to all truth.

now, since it was not only the bulk of Christians, but ALL Christians believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist before the 16th century.

how is that possible since the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men and the bulk of Christians will not misjudge?

from prior posts, i know you deny both doctrines, yet to use your canon logic, the doctrines must be true.

care to comment?


50 posted on 11/06/2011 5:23:02 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-364 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson