Ephesians 4:5

[FullTruth]

One Lord, one faith, one baptism

Strong's concordance meanings of the scripture -

One -

heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

Lord

kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

one

mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

Faith

pistis
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

one

heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

baptism

baptisma
bap'-tis-mah
From G907; baptism (technically or figuratively): - baptism.

G907
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

This scripture is often used by people who really believe in their religion that they're religion is "God's religion".

Strong's concordance translations of the meanings of the words of that scripture says something much different.

One Authority, which is God, one Faith, the confidence in the Christ, and one Baptism, to be fully immersed in water.

Let me say, God doesn't have a religion, he has a church, people who have confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, trusting in God's authority alone.

The bible never said you are saved by being a Roman Catholic. It did say -

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8.

So really, Christians are not identified by their religions, but by the belief in the saving grace of Jesus Christs death on the cross.

So my Catholic breathern, shall we argue about religion, or shall we both boast in the fact the Christ died on the cross so we sinners could be forgiven of our sins, and through him we have access to God now, an access we didn't have before.

Edited December 16, 2006 by FullTruth

[beatty07]

Just so I'm clear... you posted this because you DON'T want to argue about religion?

I must agree with you that it's awfully cool that Christ atoned for our sins.

Read much of the Church Fathers? Or are you more of the Adolph Harnack school that Christianity was off track by 100 AD and stayed that way for 1600 years until your version showed up in very recent history?

Edited December 16, 2006 by beatty07

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143452' date='Dec 15 2006, 11:15 PM']
One Lord, one faith, one baptism

Strong's concordance meanings of the scripture -

One -

heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

Lord

kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

one

mia
mee'-ah
Irregular feminine of G1520; one or first: - a (certain), + agree, first, one, X other.

Faith

pistis
pis'-tis
From G3982; persuasion, that is, credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly constancy in such profession; by extension the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself: - assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

one

heis
hice
(Including the neuter [etc.] ἕν hen); a primary numeral; one: - a (-n, -ny, certain), + abundantly, man, one (another), only, other, some. See also G1527, G3367, G3391, G3762.

baptism

baptisma
bap'-tis-mah
From G907; baptism (technically or figuratively): - baptism.

G907
baptizō
bap-tid'-zo
From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.

This scripture is often used by people who really believe in their religion that they're religion is "God's religion".

Strong's concordance translations of the meanings of the words of that scripture says something much different.

One Authority, which is God, one Faith, the confidence in the Christ, and one Baptism, to be fully immersed in water.

Let me say, God doesn't have a religion, he has a church, people who have confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, trusting in God's authority alone.

The bible never said you are saved by being a Roman Catholic. It did say -

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8.

So really, Christians are not identified by their religions, but by the belief in the saving grace of Jesus Christs death on the cross.

So my Catholic breathern, shall we argue about religion, or shall we both boast in the fact the Christ died on the cross so we sinners could be forgiven of our sins, and through him we have access to God now, an access we didn't have before.
[/quote]



Catholicism is not a religion. Its Reality! The Truth of Christianity. These facts are base upon much more than just one verse of the Bible, in fact the Bible is built upon Holy Mother Church, inspired by God.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143452' date='Dec 15 2006, 11:15 PM']


Let me say, God doesn't have a religion, he has a church, people who have confidence in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, trusting in God's authority alone.

So really, Christians are not identified by their religions, but by the belief in the saving grace of Jesus Christs death on the cross.

So my Catholic breathern, shall we argue about religion, or shall we both boast in the fact the Christ died on the cross so we sinners could be forgiven of our sins, and through him we have access to God now, an access we didn't have before.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ founded the Church in 33 AD. St Ignatius referred to it as Catholic, so it is commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. Gods authority comes thru the Church which the Bible itself called the pillar and foundation. Baptised people who are members of this Church are referred to as christians therefore christians are identified as being christians because they are a member of the Church by virtue of their baptism into the Body of Christ.

I'm already saved (Rom 8:24, Eph 2:5-8),
but I am also being saved (1 Cor 1:8, 2 Cor 2:15, Phi 2:12),
and
I have the hope that I'll will be saved (Rom 5:9-10, 1 Cor 3:12-15).
Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phi 2:12),
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom 5:2, 2 Tim 2:11-13).

[FullTruth]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1143529' date='Dec 16 2006, 12:39 AM']
Jesus Christ founded the Church in 33 AD. St Ignatius referred to it as Catholic, so it is commonly referred to as the Catholic Church. Gods authority comes thru the Church which the Bible itself called the pillar and foundation. Baptised people who are members of this Church are referred to as christians therefore christians are identified as being christians because they are a member of the Church by virtue of their baptism into the Body of Christ.

I'm already saved (Rom 8:24, Eph 2:5-8),
but I am also being saved (1 Cor 1:8, 2 Cor 2:15, Phi 2:12),
and
I have the hope that I'll will be saved (Rom 5:9-10, 1 Cor 3:12-15).
Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phi 2:12),
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom 5:2, 2 Tim 2:11-13).
[/quote]

I have respect for your answer, much more than the others who have replied to my post. The reason I like your response is it is scriptural. You love the scripture and because of it, God will give you more and more truth.

The others response to this post, it sounds to me you trust in a religion more than the scripture and God. My calling in the Lord is to teach the Word of God to the people, and that is what I am doing here. I am here to get people to think outside the 'Religion' box for a second, and trust in the scripture, nothing more, nothing less. It is your obedience to the word of God that saves, not your religion. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), so he doesn't care if you are roman catholic, protestant, buddhist, muslim, jew, hindu, or anything else for that matter. If you don't follow the scripture, you're not part of his church. And anybody who does follow the scripture is part of the church.

To let people know, I know far more about church history than I am letting you know. The only reason why I don't tell you what I know about church history, you'd be surprised by the crimes against humanity the Roman Catholic church has done to people who stood against some of the corruption it was involved in.

[dairygirl4u2c]

trust me, they know. you have a long walk in front of you, my friend.

[KnightofChrist]

I did not say anything that deserved lack of respect. But Bible verses you want here some of Salvation.

What the Bible Says

To be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but the Sacred Scriptures show other things you must also do to be saved.

* You must endure to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13.
* You must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27.
* You must be baptized with water. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5 Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21.
* You must be a member in God's true church. Acts 2:47.
* You must confess your sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9
* You must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21
* You must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7.
* You must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16, I Corinthians 11:23-29

All of which is taught by Holy Mother Church the Bride of Christ.

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143554' date='Dec 16 2006, 01:36 AM']
The others response to this post, it sounds to me you trust in a religion more than the scripture and God.
[/quote]

Catholics fully trust God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefor we also trust His Bride, Holy Mother Church. You are asking us "for just a moment" not to trust the Bride of Christ, a man and his bride are "one flesh", therefor you are asking us not to trust the Bridegroom of Holy Mother Church.


[b]THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK[/b]


Are you among the millions who accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of God?

And how do you know that it is? How do you know where it came from—who wrote it?

No man living today was on earth during the life-time of Christ or His Apostles. None living today heard what the Savior said, or what the Apostles were instructed to teach. We do not hear a voice from Heaven nowadays saying: "Read the Bible; believe in Me and you will be saved."

The plain truth which every sincere person must eventually face is the fact that you can accept the Bible only upon the word of the Catholic Church. The Bible truly is a Catholic book, and it would not be in our possession today but for the Catholic Church.

The Record is Clear

The books of the Old Testament were inherited by the Church from the Jews. And all of the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics, for the use of the Church in carrying out Christ's work for the sanctification and salvation of mankind.

It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It was the Catholic Church which preserved and used the Scriptures in the early centuries and down to our day. If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as the Inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is.

The Bible did not drop out of Heaven ready-made, all bound and printed in the language we speak and understand. None of the huge printing plants which today publish the Bible by the millions was in existence in the time of Christ on earth. No typesetter who composes the text of the Bible knows if the words he puts into form are God's Word, unless he accepts the assurance of the Catholic Church that they are such.

The Bible is, of course, the only book whose principal author is God Himself. But somebody had to write the original manuscript. Somebody had to be responsible for protecting the original manuscript from man-made changes affecting the meaning. Fair-minded and sensible people eventually have to admit that this responsibility has been with the Catholic Church from the very beginning. Since the invention of printing, many versions of the Bible have been published. But they are not all the Bible as written and preserved by the Catholic Church. Books and sections of books of the Old Testament which are still in the Catholic Bible, have been deleted from others. Books are given different names .. . many of the Psalms are numbered differently ... proper names have not the same spelling . . . the text is often changed from the Catholic original.

When we realize that the writing of the Bible covered a span of 1500 years between the writing of the first book of the Old Testament and the last book of the New Testament... and that the whole Bible contains 73 books and almost as many authors . . . we are forced to realize that the Bible, besides being the Inspired Word of God, also represents a monumental human effort and solicitude, which is preserved in the Catholic Bible — the Douay version — which anyone can order, at reasonable cost, from a mail-order catalog.

[b]CHRIST DID NOT MAKE BIBLE ONLY AUTHORITY[/b]


If Christ intended the Bible to be our sole guide to faith, why did He not see to it that everybody had a copy . . . and that all could read and understand it?

We all know that the Bible was not completed for hundreds of years after Christ left the earth. Are we to believe that the Savior left the millions of people who lived in those times without a means of receiving His teaching? Are we to believe that Christ intended all these people to remain in ignorance of His teaching until such time as the Bible could be written ?

In Jerusalem alone, 3,000 converts came into the Church after Peter's first sermon (Acts 2:41), and 5,000 more shortly afterward (Acts 4:4). Were there 8,000 copies of the Bible ready to distribute among them, so they could understand Christ's teaching and believe in Him? There were not, of course, either 3,000 copies or 5,000. There was no Bible! Christ and the Bible

If Christ intended the Bible as the sole means of salvation, why did He not write it Himself? And why did He not miraculously multiply its copies to place it in the hands of all people as He had multiplied a few loaves to feed the people? Why did He not, before leaving the earth, see to it that the Bible was translated into the languages of the whole world, so that all could understand it? And why did He not instantly banish illiteracy and miraculously endow all people with the ability to read, for how else could they understand what was written?

Christ never did command His Apostles to write a book, to translate it into all languages, and to place it in the hands of every living human on the face of the earth. He did not say that all His teachings were to be placed between the covers of such a book, and that all who failed to read it, understand it and believe it would be condemned.

If that had been His intention He would undoubtedly have said so. And having omnipotent power, He would have made it possible. But He did neither. Instead, He gave His teaching to the Apostles and commissioned them to "teach all nations." And He instituted an infallible and everlasting Church to see that these teachings were preserved and taught ever more widely by the successors of the Apostles.

There were uncounted Christians who lived and died, without having seen a Bible—without the ability to read it if they had one in their possession. These millions were saved during all these centuries, s*si because they were readers of the Bible, but because they were hearers and doers of the spoken word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was preached to them by the Catholic Church.

Can anyone believe that God allowed millions to lose their souls during this long span of eighteen centuries — and is allowing many millions to be lost now—simply because they are unable to read? Are we to believe that salvation is reserved only for those who lived after the invention of the printing press?

Even if the Bible contained Christ's complete teaching, think of the vast numbers of people intellectually incapable of understanding it.

And consider the even greater number who . . . because of work, illness and other causes ... do not have the time for the reading and study required for even a moderate understanding of the Scriptures.

It is plain that Christ could never have intended to make the Bible as a whole, and the New Testament in particular, the final and only authority for the truths of Christian faith.
[b]
The Seven Missing Books
[/b]

Did you know that the Catholic Bible contains seven books generally not found in other Bibles? And do you wonder why?

The answer is not that something new has been added to the Bible by the Catholic Church; rather something old has been removed from non-Catholic versions of the Bible.

The books, conspicuous by their absence in modern non-Catholic Bibles, and which should be found in the Old Testament, are the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Eccesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Machabees—and portions of the books of Esther and Daniel.

To understand this matter fully, it must be borne in mind that before the time of Christ, there were two divisions of Jews. Some remained in Palestine and continued to use the Scripture written in Hebrew. Others, scattered throughout foreign lands, particularly in Egypt, were better acquainted with Greek because Greek was then the common language.

For the use of the Greek-speaking Jews, who were numerous in Alexandria and other parts of Egypt, the Old Testament was translated into Greek several centuries before the coming of Christ. And it was these Greek-speaking Jews who, even before the time of Christ, regarded the seven books of which we speak as inspired.

The Jews in Palestine who spoke Hebrew did not rank these books among the inspired books of the Old Testament, either because they were not written in Hebrew, or because they came too late to be placed in the list of inspired books made by Esdras. After the Babylonian captivity, Esdras collected all the inspired books which could then be found. After his time, the books of Bar-uch, Tobias, Judith and Wisdom, as well as more complete copies of Daniel and Esther, were brought to light. The book of Ec-clesiasticus and the two books of Machabees were not yet written when the collection of inspired books was made.

The Apostles used the Scriptures of the Greek-speaking Jews, and it is upon the authority of the Apostles that the Old Testament, with the seven books under consideration, was held to be inspired. To these Apostles, Christ had said: "He who hears you, hears me." And the Apostles used these seven books. The Apostles must have known whether these books were inspired or not, whether they were the word of God or merely the word of man. If they had been only the word of man, the Apostles surely would have eliminated them from the Old Testament.
As they did not do so, but on the contrary, retained these books in the Old Testament... and as all the editions of the Bible used by their immediate disciples contained these books ... the Catholic Church must hold them to be inspired Scripture. This is not on the authority of the Jews from whom they were inherited, but on the authority of the Apostles.

From the day when the Catholic Church first published the official list of the inspired books of both the Old and the New Testaments, in 397 A.D., there never has been any interruption in the teaching of the Church concerning their inspired source.

These seven books are accepted as inspired Scripture by 300 millions of Catholics spread over the globe. They are called inspired Scripture by the Greek Church, though separated from the Catholic Church. They are held to be inspired Scripture by all the other Oriental Christian sects. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, all editions of the Christian Bible contained these books. Many of the oldest editions of the Protestant Bibles contained them, sometimes listed in the back of the Bible as Apocrypha — not to be considered inspired Scripture.

When the King James version of the Bible, which is still used by many English-speaking non-Catholics, first appeared, it contained these books. Later complaints, however, caused publishers to begin to omit them and by the year 1827, Bible Societies had eliminated them from the Bible altogether.

When a non-Catholic considers his Bible, it would be well for him to ask ... why were those seven books omitted? It is not justified by the authority of either the Jews or the early Christians.

[KnightofChrist]

[b]THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH?[/b]


[b]How Protestants Regard the Bible[/b]
Protestants generally take it as a principle that the Bible is the sole and adequate Rule of Faith. This is only natural, since, after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, there is no other rule to be found. Yet the results of this view are calculated to raise serious doubts of its correctness. In the New Testament even the most essential points of doctrine are touched on so incidentally, and require such careful study and balancing of different texts that it is an extremely delicate matter to arrive at a definite conclusion. Most Protestants believe that the Divinity of Christ is clearly taught in the Bible; yet the Socinians have argued with apparent sincerity, that the New Testament presents Christ merely as an inspired man. Protestants also forget how much of their firm conviction is due to early education, and to a traditional interpretation of the Bible, rather than tetany critical investigation of their own. And, if this be the case with regard to fundamental doctrines, much more is it so with those points which are hinted at rather than expressed in the sacred text, and upon which the sects cannot come to any agreement.

In such a state of uncertainty, the only resource left to the inquirer is to suppose that Christ meant us to believe only what is clearly taught in the Bible, and left us free to form our own opinions as to the rest. But yet, on each of these disputed points, Christ must have taught either one thing or the other; and whatever He taught He must have intended us to believe. Hence, it seems strange that He should have left us without the means of ascertaining which of the two doctrines we ought to believe. As the case stands, an earnest man can only throw in his lot with the sect whose views of Bible teaching approach nearest to his own, without the least guarantee that in doing so he has embraced Christ's real teaching, and not the exact contrary.

Again, the New Testament does not bear the marks of having been drawn up to serve as a code of Christian belief. Neither does it anywhere direct us to take Scripture as our sole Rule of Faith, or free us from the obligation of believing more than is clearly taught in its pages. Therefore, to assume that the Bible is the sole and adequate rule of Christian Faith may perhaps be the only alternative left after rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church; but neither Scripture nor history seems to afford any warrant for such an assumption.

[b]How Catholics Regard the Bible[/b]

Catholics, on the other hand, cherish the highest esteem and veneration for the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and regard it as a treasure of unique value; first, because of the vivid picture of Christ's life and character which it presents; secondly, because of the rich spiritual suggestiveness of its writings; thirdly, as a precious storehouse of dogmatic and moral instruction; fourthly, as an historic witness to the claims of the Catholic Church. Still, they consider that the Bible was never intended for the sole and adequate Rule of Faith; partly because it is not a sufficiently exhaustive account of all Christ's teaching, partly because its expressions of doctrine are often ambiguous, and require authoritative interpretation. At the same time they believe that the New Testament itself points to another means provided by Christ for the preservation of His full teaching through all ages, and that means is the authority of the Catholic Church. The facts alleged to show this will be frankly admitted by Protestants themselves, even if they hesitate to agree with the conclusions drawn from them.
[b]
Christ Founded an Apostolic Teaching Body[/b]

We find that Jesus Christ, without saying a single recorded word about a written creed or code, appointed twelve Apostles to carry on the work He had begun. Invoking the power which had been given Him in heaven and on earth, He bade them go and teach all nations, baptizing those who should believe, and teaching them to observe whatsoever He had commanded. The Apostles were sent, not as mere messengers, but as ambassadors bearing Christ's authority and power, and teaching and ministering in His name and person; so that in hearing them men were hearing Him, and in despising them they were despising Him (Matt. xxviiL 18-20; Mark xvi. 15; Luke x. 16). Besides the office of teaching and baptizing, they were intrusted with the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and received a special power by the Holy Ghost to remit and retain sins (Luke xxii. 19; John xx. 21-23). In order that they might infallibly carry out this commission, Christ promised them the Spirit of Truth, which should lead them unto all truth and bring to their minds whatever He had said to them (John xiv. 17-26; xvi. 13). Finally, He promised to be with them in person, not for a few years or a generation, but for the indeterminate future; thereby seeming to imply that the apostolic order should last beyond the lives of its present members, even to the end of time (Matt, xxviii. 20).

In thus constituting the apostolic body, Christ was in reality constituting His Church. The Church was no mere collection of individual believers, but a definite organization, which was to be the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. iii. 15). It was to be founded on a rock, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it (Matt, xvi. 18). The Church, taken as a whole, comprised the teaching body and a body of lay believers; but its essential constitution lay in the existence of that teaching body, authorized and guaranteed by Christ. Such was the original constitution of the Church; and as the Church was to last for all ages, it is natural to suppose that it should always continue to exist according to its original constitution—that is to say, as an apostolic teaching body. The burden of proof lies on those who deny so obvious an inference. There are no signs that this organization was a temporary expedient, to die out after a few years and leave a totally different system in its place.
[b]
How the Apostles Regarded the New Testament[/b]

Following the career of the Apostles as they carry out their work, we find these conclusions confirmed. There occurs no mention of any scheme for producing a written code to dispense with the authority of apostolic preaching. The Apostles show no signs of regarding it as a duty to leave behind them a full written legacy of their teaching. They write to meet incidental occasions and local needs. The Evangelists seem to think it an important matter to leave us, in outline, their recollections of Christ's life and character, but they make no pretence of giving us a complete scheme of His dogmatic teaching. St. John himself declares the impossibility of writing anything like an exhaustive account of all that Christ did (John xxi. 25). There appears nowhere in the New Testament a consciousness that its writers were thereby supplying Christendom with the one sole and adequate Rule of Faith, which should supersede the need of appeal to their oral teachings. As far as we can gather, nearly all the Apostles were dead or dispersed before half the New Testament was written. According to the verdict of history, neither St. Peter nor St. Paul were alive when Mark and Luke wrote. There is no clear evidence to prove that any of the Apostles saw each other's writings, with one or two exceptions. None of them, except the author himself, ever saw the Gospel of St. John. Only St. John lived long enough to see the whole series which make up the New Testament; but there is no evidence to show what he actually did see. The only clear allusion made by one Apostle to another Apostle's writings is that of St. Peter, who tells us how hard St. Paul's epistles were to understand, and how some had wrested them to their own destruction (2 Peter iii. 16).

On the other hand, we find many allusions to Christian doctrine as derived from oral teaching. The Thes-salonians are told to "hold fast the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word or by epistle" (2 Thess. ii. 14). Timothy, who had been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul (cf. note at end of Second Epistle, Authorized Version), is instructed to "hold fast the form of sound words which he had heard from his teacher among many witnesses"; "to continue in the things learnt" (viz., "the gospel which was committed to his trust"), "knowing from whom he had learnt them," "and to commit the same to faithful men who shall be able to teach others" (1 Tim. i. 11; iv. 11-16; vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 6, 13; ii. 2; iii. 10, 14; iv. 2, etc.)—all of which certainly stands in favor of the Catholic idea of apostolic authority transmitted to a line of successors, and against the Protestant idea of substituting the Bible as the sole and adequate rule of faith.
[b]
The Early Church Carries on the Apostolic System of Teaching[/b]

Still following the course of history, the Catholic view receives yet further confirmation. The various parts which now make up the New Testament were carefully treasured and read in the local churches where they had been received, and it was only by degrees that copies were spread to other places, and the whole series came to be circulated throughout Christendom. Though held in the highest authority, we find no signs of the Scriptures being substituted for traditional teaching as a sole Rule of Faith. The bishops were regarded as the authoritative successors of the Apostles, responsible for the preservation of Christian doctrine, and the people looked to them for the true interpretation of Scripture. Belief did not follow interpretation of Scripture, but interpretation of Scripture followed belief. When heretics cited Scripture in support of novel views, the Fathers denied them the right to do so, reserving the interpretation of Scripture to the Church. On the other hand, the Church quoted Scripture against the heretics, not as the sole basis of its teaching, but as an inspired witness to its correctness. Moreover, it is remarkable how clear the Church was in its traditional teaching even before the evidence of Scripture had been fully discussed—I refer to such questions as the nature and person of Christ. What the heretics regarded as indisputable on Scripture grounds, the Church regarded as indisputable on grounds of tradition. In short, the general impression given by the history of the third and fourth centuries shows us still in operation the idea of an apostolic teaching body, authorized and guaranteed by Jesus Christ, to provide the Rule of Faith; while Scripture is still regarded as a witness to the correctness of the Church's teaching, but not as a sole and adequate Rule of Faith to be put in its place.
[b]
How the Contents of the New Testament Were Determined[/b]

Moreover, during the first four centuries of the Church, it remained an unsettled question what belonged to the sacred Scripture and what did not. There were many Gospels current besides the four we now acknowledge, and a few other works, like the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas. Of these, several were regarded by certain of the Fathers as parts of Scripture, and were publicly read in local churches; on the other hand, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Revelation, James, Jude, 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, were called in question in some parts of the Church. It required much discussion to arrive at a final conclusion. But when in the Synods of Hippo and Carthage, about A. D. 393-397, a list of authentic books was agreed upon, and Pope Innocent I., and afterwards Pope Gelasius (A. D. 494) confirmed this list, the discussion was closed; and for the first time the New Testament was capable of being bound up into one book as we have it now.

But how was this question settled after so long a discussion? Purely and simply by an appeal to the traditions existing in local churches where each document had been preserved, and by the authoritative verdict of the Church judging according to those traditions; other historic evidence deciding the questions in all its details,, we do not possess. So that Protestants, in accepting the New Testament as it stands, are implicitly reposing the highest confidence in the authority of the Catholic Church in the fifth century; and some of them have candidly acknowledged this (cf. preface to Revised Version). These facts seem fatal to the idea that Scripture was intended by Christ and His Apostles to be the sole and adequate Rule of Faith; since our very assurance as to what the New Testament contains rests historically on the teaching authority of the bishops of the fifth century, the successors of the Apostles commissioned and guaranteed by Christ.

[b]The Apostolic Teaching Body Continues to the Present Day[/b]

Passing on through the ages, we find the same system at work. Down to the sixteenth century there existed in Christendom no other than this idea. The Bishops were looked upon as successors of the Apostles, and their unanimous teaching was regarded as absolutely trustworthy—as truly representing the doctrine of Christ. The Church as a whole could not possibly fall into error—this was guaranteed by the promises of Christ; and those who claimed Scripture in support of their new doctrines, and against the prevailing doctrine of the Church, were regarded as heretics and rebels against Christ, and against His authority delegated to the Church.

It was not till the sixteenth century that this state of things received a rude shock. The radical principle of the Protestant Reformation lay in the rejection of the living authority of the Catholic Church, and the substitution of the Bible, interpreted by each individual, in its place. Reviewing the consequences of this experiment and the absence of all warrant for it in Scripture itself, and considering that it runs counter to the unanimous conviction of Christendom for fifteen hundred years, it will only be prudent for Protestants to reconsider their position; and to ask themselves whether, after all, the conviction of Christendom for fifteen hundred years may not be right. If at length they come to this conclusion, their plain course will be submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.


Just replace Protestant(s) with non-denominational or what have you

Edited December 16, 2006 by KnightofChrist

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143554' date='Dec 16 2006, 01:36 AM']
I have respect for your answer, much more than the others who have replied to my post. The reason I like your response is it is scriptural. You love the scripture and because of it, God will give you more and more truth.

The others response to this post, it sounds to me you trust in a religion more than the scripture and God. My calling in the Lord is to teach the Word of God to the people, and that is what I am doing here. I am here to get people to think outside the 'Religion' box for a second, and trust in the scripture, nothing more, nothing less. It is your obedience to the word of God that saves, not your religion. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), so he doesn't care if you are roman catholic, protestant, buddhist, muslim, jew, hindu, or anything else for that matter. If you don't follow the scripture, you're not part of his church. And anybody who does follow the scripture is part of the church.

To let people know, I know far more about church history than I am letting you know. The only reason why I don't tell you what I know about church history, you'd be surprised by the crimes against humanity the Roman Catholic church has done to people who stood against some of the corruption it was involved in.
[/quote]

I think one reason that you might have been getting brief, terse responses is your apparent assumption that none of us have ever heard these claims before. With due respect to Monty Python, I think that most of us here actually expect the Spanish Inquisition (or rather, we expect to hear about it). None of these objections are new.

[Akalyte]

yeah we have been through quite a lot of debates on here.

[cmotherofpirl]

'FullTruth' said
I have respect for your answer, much more than the others who have replied to my post. The reason I like your response is it is scriptural. You love the scripture and because of it, God will give you more and more truth.

[color="#3333FF"]Thank you. My response is scriptural because the bible is a catholic book, and preserved by the church for 2000 years. Catholics hear from the OT & NT and Psalms every time they go to Mass. It is a collection of writings declared [color="#FF0000"]by the Church[/color] to be the Word of God.[/color]

The others response to this post, it sounds to me you trust in a religion more than the scripture and God. My calling in the Lord is to teach the Word of God to the people, and that is what I am doing here. I am here to get people to think outside the 'Religion' box for a second, and trust in the scripture, nothing more, nothing less. It is your obedience to the word of God that saves, not your religion. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), so he doesn't care if you are roman catholic, protestant, buddhist, muslim, jew, hindu, or anything else for that matter. If you don't follow the scripture, you're not part of his church. And anybody who does follow the scripture is part of the church.

[color="#3333FF"]Christianity is a religion based on the teachings of Christ as found in His Church. The only basis to trust the Scripture is if you trust the Catholic Church for the CHURCH says this is the Word of GOD. THe Church guarantees the Scripture since she is older than the New Testament, and in fact put the NT together out of many many writings of the period. God does care if you are a baptised member of the Body of Christ in His Church.[/color]

To let people know, I know far more about church history than I am letting you know. The only reason why I don't tell you what I know about church history, you'd be surprised by the crimes against humanity the Roman Catholic church has done to people who stood against some of the corruption it was involved in.
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]I am sure you think you know more about church history than we do, but that is an extremely common falllacy of people until they get to know us. Phatmass is full of priests, nuns, teachers, catechists, theologians of both eastern and western theology. There is no new item you can come up with we don't already know.
After all, our church is 2000 years old and we know our own history, scriptures and traditions quite well. [/color]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143554' date='Dec 16 2006, 01:36 AM']
My calling in the Lord is to teach the Word of God to the people, and that is what I am doing here.[/quote]Thanks, FullTruth, but we already have a teacher for the Word of God -- that teacher is the Church founded by Jesus Christ who wrote the New Testament from about A.D. 52 to the end of the first Christian century and who canonized the OT and the NT and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old. Who better to teach the NT than the Church who wrote it? The Church is the only authorized teacher and interpreter of her own Scriptures.

We believe the Bible because the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world tells us that it is the Word of God, and we know the Church speaks for Christ. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me," Luke 10:16. In rejecting the Catholic Church, you are rejecting Christ.

Tell us what is the Bible, which books belong in the Bible, and your reason for believing it?

The Bible is not a continuous book, but a collection of 'books,' written by different people at different times and places for different reasons and audiences. Who collected these writings, put them together, and named them the NT? Who canonized and named the OT for Christians? Who named the Bible? What did Christians believe for about four centuries when there was no Bible as we know it?

There are several groups calling themselves Christian that have their own Bibles that differ from all other Biblies. Which is the 'real' Bible, the 'real' Word of God? You are unable to say what the Bible is without the authority of the Catholic Church who decided the original table of contents of the very first "Bible."

Stick around. You might learn a little something yourself and save your soul in the process.

Jesus did not leave us written instructions when he returned to heaven to be with His Father. He left us a teaching Church -- that Church was first called Catholic in writing in A.D. 107, just after the Apostle John died.

The Catholic Church did niot come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church.

-------------------------
Blessed Father Damien, pray for us!

edited to correct a typo

Edited December 16, 2006 by Katholikos

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1143554' date='Dec 16 2006, 12:36 AM']
I have respect for your answer, much more than the others who have replied to my post. The reason I like your response is it is scriptural. You love the scripture and because of it, God will give you more and more truth.
[/quote]
Wow, so Cmom quotes a Catholic Church document that supports Church teaching and you commend that, but you don't like the Catholic Church. That's a bit conflicted.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1144476' date='Dec 17 2006, 03:41 PM']
Wow, so Cmom quotes a Catholic Church document that supports Church teaching and you commend that, but you don't like the Catholic Church. That's a bit conflicted.
[/quote]
Few people seem to understsnd the Bible as a CATHOLIC book