Is Early Christianity (pre Nicaean Council) the only True Form (tradition, Gospels)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or 73, or 76, or some other number, depending on which "objective" standard you pick. That's the great thing about "objective" standards like this, there are so many different "objective" standards to pick from you're bound to find one that matches what you want.
If one has more than the 66, one has none at all. Those with 73 or 76 also have their own counsels, which effectively means that they have no canon at all.
Whoah! Even in apostolic times, there were rats in the church. (Ok, dogs, or wolves, in those days.) There were legalists in the Jerusalem church, people who said that there was no resurrection, people being baptised for the dead. There's not a lot that's new!
There is only one objective standard. The 66 books.
I agree with your first section. Many writings of the early Church including some NT books in the Bible were to keep the different Christian areas in line with orthodox teaching. Yes, there were heretics from day one.
However, your second comment is completely false. Did Jesus say the Book of Romans would be in the Bible? Did He say that Acts should be in the Bible? Not hardly. Jesus did quote Old Testament scripture, but Jesus never told the apostles what books should be in the New Testament. Come to think of it, Jesus didn't even discuss a New Testament. Now obviously Jesus is the source of much of the NT writings, but He did not write any of the books nor did He determine what books would be in it.
So the question is: What objective standard did Jesus leave us? Jesus left us one Holy and Apostolic teaching and living CHURCH that not only spread the Word but eventually decided what books would be in the Bible. The Church also teaches us today about things that the Apostles and Early Church Fathers couldn't possibly have anticipated like the ramifications of stem-cell research and cloning. What Jesus left us was the Authority given first to Peter and the Apostles and then down through the last 2000 years in the Catholic Magisterium. That's the only objective standard. If the Bible was an objective standard, then why the 30,000+ flavors of protestantism who declare the Bible as their only source of truth? There is no objectivity when you have a man, a Bible, and an opinion. The only true objective standard is the Authority given the Church that Jesus began almost 2000 years ago. Period.
In addition, you state the 66 books are the standard. Why aren't the 73 books of the original Bible, the Bible of the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Catholic Bible of today, the standard? If you agree with Luther and Calvin, that 7 books should not be in the Bible, who gave them the Authority to decide that? Why were other books like James, which Luther wanted to remove, not also removed? Why weren't other books that were rejected by the early Church not added back in? Who gave the Christians of the 4th Century the Authority to make the call on what books would be canonized and what books would not.
If you refute the Authority given to the 4th century Christians to canonize the Bible, then how can you possibly give the Authority to a bi-polar run-away German Monk and a egotistical self-proclaimed prophet like Calvin? Answer: You can't.
Bottom line, Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose and that same Authority has been passed down through the ages by Apostolic Succession. The 4th Century Bible (73 books) is the correct Bible because that Authority that Jesus gave to HIS Church was present at that time as it is today. Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against HIS Church and hell did not prevail in 397 AD.
So you still think your 66 book Bible is the only objective standard?
None whatever. The point about 66 books is for Protestants only- who may disagree about other things, but not about what is Scripture.
This claimed church may have decided for some, but certainly not for Protestants.
What is the Bible for? Is it just a book that protestants can agree on is the Word, but the plethora of interpretations of it's contents are irrelevant? Is it just an idol tha sits on a dusty shelf?
Isn't the contents and the application of it's contents to the Christians world relevant? Is the correct intrepretation of salvation and how it's accomplished not important? IT"S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE BIBLE!!!!! Yet, protestants don't even agree on that. There is no objectivity. The Bible cannot and has never interpreted itself. So who has the objective Authority to do it?
Authority to determine's Christianity true form IS the crux of the discussion for ALL Christians. Who gave the protestants the authority or the RIGHT to make that call? Who decides what form of Christianity is the only true form? It cannot be decided by mortal man. Jesus had a plan. And that plan is creating a Church that contained the Jesus given Authority. It was decided almost 2000 years ago when Jesus began His ONE Church. Once the Christian world took that Jesus given Authority out of the equation, the Christian world started on it's current trajectory of total chaos. How can that be possibly be correct?
It's a resource, the only resource, for knowing what the church in its true form should be.
Circle speak. I don't agree it's the only resource, but for the sake of your argument, let's say it is. If the Bible is the only resource, who's intrepretation of that resource should I follow? The Bible doesn't tell me what intrepretation is correct. It is crystal clear that protestants cannot agree on the most basic of doctrinal truth, so how is your only resource doing? What protestant denomination, organization, or individual man has the Authority to make the call on what the church's true form is?
Circle speak. I don't agree it's the only resource, but for the sake of your argument, let's say it is. If the Bible is the only resource, who's intrepretation of that resource should I follow?
The Bible's own. These books tell people all they need to know- much more than they want to know, in some cases.
Quote:
The Bible doesn't tell me what intrepretation is correct.
That's exactly what it does. Scripture interprets Scripture. One cannot go wrong. God charged his apostles with passing on his whole will, and they did not fail.
Quote:
It is crystal clear that protestants cannot agree on the most basic of doctrinal truth,
The word is 'Protestants'. Protestants get heavily criticised for their tenets of sola Scriptura, sola fide and the priesthood of all believers, but also for being divided!
Christians of many Protestant denominations and none can work and pray together without disagreement about theology or practice, and have done so.
As is only to be expected, where the gospel is concerned, the devil has done his best to confuse the issue, bringing various legalisms and liberalisms, but the perceptive observer ignores these phenomena as being what they are.
Scripture interprets Scripture. One cannot go wrong.
Scripture intreprets Scripture? Well, I would give the Bible an "F" when it comes to intrepreting itself. The wide variance of important life or death truths are clearly not being revealed universally. So I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shibata
Christians of many Protestant denominations and none can work and pray together without disagreement about theology or practice, and have done so.
Yes, protestant denominations have prayed together. For the Catholic Church, reunification is a goal, but the reality is the Reformation let the cat out of the bag. It was Pandora's Box. There continues to be cross-Christians programs like Habitat for Humanities and the like, but it will definitely be hard, if not impossible, for the Christian universe to come back as one. But that doesn't mean an individual can't make a decision to come back to Mother Church. Short of that, we can always pray for unity and peace among men.
My point is that if all Christians can agree that the Early Church probably had it right. If you believe that to be true, then study what they believed on fundamental issues like salvation, baptism, forgiveness of sins, etc. Then go find the Church that believes in the same things. I promise you, you won't find protestant concepts like "you must be born again" or "once save, always saved" in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Heck, they didn't even have a 66 or 73 book Bible. However, you will find those early Church beliefs to be very similar to those of the Catholic Church.
So what is the true Church? I guess that is for you to decide. However, if you are truly looking, then I would have to say "cold" in response to where you are.
I am sure True Christianity can be found without having to go back to the apostles, but I am sure many would not recognize it if it smack them in the face. Lord forbid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
