Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
Read Stephen Ray's book _Upon This Rock_.
-A8
Three councils (Carthage, Hippo, and Rome) and a Papal decree (the "Tome of Damasus") in the west between the years AD 380 and AD 410.
The canon formation process in the East was a bit different and took longer (they ended up with the same NT canon, but some of the Eastern Orthodox recognize more OT books than anyone in the West does).
Oh, yes. A member of a "Bible" church. That is something I've found to be code for a "church" that's essentially a shrine to the ego and wallet of the "pastor."
There are two versions of Ignatius's epistle to the Magnesians. But neither uses the word "Catholic". That term is found in his epistle to the church at Smyrna, where Polycarp was the bishop. Polycarp, who was martyred much later (around 155 AD), was also an 'auditor' [i.e. hearer] of the Apostle John. So was Ignatius, whose life long overlapped that of the Apostles. According to the fathers, Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch (where believers were first called 'Christians') was ordained by Peter. Just read through all seven of his epistles (find them here), and the account of his martydom, and think about his proximity to the Apostles, and then ask yourself, who is more likely to be a better witness of the nature of the early Church: Ignatius or Luther?
Reading through the fathers is one of the things that coverted me to Catholicism after 37 years as a Protestant. The Church I found described in the fathers was the Catholic Church, not any form of Protestantism.
-A8
Acts 9
You are right that Protestants do have "scripture" (though not all of it). But Protestants do not have any authoritative determination of the canon of Scripture, nor any authoritative determination of the interpretation of Scripture. That is why there are over 20,000 Protestant sects.
Without Apostolic succession of bishops and a primacy even among the Apostles, every man becomes his own ultimate authority. For Protestants the following statement is true: "This [the Bible] is the book where everyone seeks his own proper opinion; This is the book where still everyone finds what he seeks", which is why there are so many Protestant sects. If you don't agree with what you're hearing from the pulpit, you can just keep walking down Main Street until you come to a group of people that believe and teach just what you believe, and if you are *really* picky, you just start your own church (thus nullifying Matt 18:17). To be one's own authority means in principle that there is no authority. Protestantism is the democritization of Christianity. But Christ did not set up a democracy; He gave authority to Twelve (and a unique authority to one of the Twelve). That Apostolic authority is what distinguishes between heresy and orthodoxy. That is why 'apostolicity' is one of the four marks of the Church listed in the Nicene Creed.
-A8
Here's a sample from St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (written about 180 AD).
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [the church at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority"
-A8
That is false and you know that.
Oh, yes. A member of a "Bible" church. That is something I've found to be code for a "church" that's essentially a shrine to the ego and wallet of the "pastor."
Well Well!!!! --- you must be one of them thar "Bible Code" experts.
I didn't claim that proximity guarantees correct thinking. But if we are trying to determinine what the early Church thought, there is no better way than reading (in addition to reading the writings of the Apostles) the fathers. Otherwise, why read the New Testament? We read the NT and treat it as authoritative precisely because it comes ultimately from the Apostles, who were appointed and entrusted with the authority to represent Christ. Their credibility as representatives of what Christ taught follows mostly from their proximity to Christ. That is true even if proximity is not a guarantee of correct thinking. Protestants cannot explain the fact that the early Church, spread all over the known world, held to the same Catholic faith. The best explanation for that fact is that the content of that faith had a common origin, i.e. in the Apostles. There was no church that said, "Hey, we had an Apostle come through here and preach to us, but he never said anything about bishops, or ordained a bishop for us." Everywhere the Apostles went they ordained bishops to lead the churches over which they were appointed. But Protestants (except Anglicans, and some Methodists) reject episcopal authority.
-A8
BTW you never answered my question.
Who was in this Magesterium that formed the Canon?
When did they form the Canon?
Where did they meet when they formed the Canon?
Get used to the cheap shots. It usually happens when you confront someone with facts.
I have an M.Div. from a Protestant seminary. Do you have any other ad hominems for me?
Your just wrong.
Nothing like begging the question. Show me one church in the first three centuries that did not have a bishop.
Why isn't Tertullian a St. in your church?
Later in his life, Tertullian became a Montanist.
-A8
-A8
Luke 16:15 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luke 14:11 11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Paul many times stated that he was not worthy to be apostle where others fought to be seated next to Christ in the Kingdom.
When Christ asked (in just a couple of sentences in the New Testament) WHO Peter said the HE was? Peter answered Christ that He was Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus told Peter that he was the Rock (and no longer a little stone because he recognized just who JESUS was) and upon this Rock (people who recognize Him as the Christ, the Son of the Living God) He would build His church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. - In another place, Christ referred to Peter as Satan, as in "get thee behind me Satan" because Peter wanted Christ to shrink from what He was sent to do.
I'm sorry, but to build a whole hierarchy on the physical bones of a flesh and blood man (other than Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God) is rightfully not the cup of tea for everyone - and is not the rightful domain of anyone to keep beating everyone else over the head with the constant reminder that "you aren't in the REAL Church".
The Word of God has been kept from a lot of people over the centuries with the explanation that priests and the religious organization will tell you all you need to know with little or no Bible study and certainly no questioning of man's traditions. Christ places "living stones" in His church, which is His body, daily as He sees fit. All the posturing in the world and all of mans' rolls of names aren't going to dictate His Book of Life.
As to Mary, I personally call Mary blessed as she stated people would do - but Scripture states that Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and us, and that we can go directly through the vail (His flesh) and petition the Father in Heaven our own selves for our needs and forgiveness (boldly before the throne of grace).
Well, Paul clearly was superior to Peter in some respects. Peter was just a shepherd, feeding sheep, feeding lambs, feeding sheep. Just a shepherd, after all. V's wife.
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.