Biblical Case For Schism

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1416030' date='Nov 8 2007, 12:52 AM']1) Catholics often use "early church" to refer to a very wide period of time, up to and including 400 AD, by which
point very many changes had occured in many of the churches. Since you don't give any citations for your "historical
fact", I'll have to assume that's what you're doing.[/quote] This does'nt in any way deal with my original argument. You see, to want to rule out tradition,especially when it contradicts you.This is highly illogical.
[quote]2)
Keep in mind -- sin is a very old historical fact. It entered the world with Adam.
It does not matter how early the practices you refer to were practiced. Age does not mean right.
Many religions claim to be older than Christianity, for example.
Many heresies were documented in the early and later church -- these are historical facts. That means nothing for
true doctrine.[/quote]You are right,age does not mean truth, but we can usually know from these same fathers what things were considered heresy, and what was considered truth. While you will find many apologies against things like docetism,gnosticism,etc. , you do not find fathers writing against infant batism,the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the ordaining of presbyters and bishops, prayers for the dead,etc.Heresies were documented, but where are any of these things documented as heresy?From what one could glean from the Early church fathers, they would be common accepted practices.

[quote]You claim tradition can be proved by "other outside sources other than the church fathers". Where is this proof?[/quote] Things like the writings of pliny the younger,Tacitus,philostratus and various other pagan and jewish writers on christianity which verify the practices of the early church.
[quote]In addition to proving that everything in Catholic tradition was done, prove that they are [b]right[/b].
You have not done so.[/quote] I'm sorry, but there you are asking too much. lets stay on one point please?

[quote]As for canon, I think I and others have made this point before. All of the books of the New Testament were used and accepted as scripture [b]before[/b] the councils which are now used to claim a relatively late date of canonization occured. Such a council can only [b]recognize[/b], not define what is scripture.[/quote] Is this why Justin martyr didn't recognize Philippians or first timothy?And the Muratorian canon excludes Hebrews, James, and first and second peter?Why revelation was rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom,and Gregory Nazianzen?Why the Council of nicea question the canonicity ofJames,2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude? If there was such and agreement, why were people considering the Shepard of Hermas to be scripture along with the supposed epistle of Barnabas? In Alexandria, the First letter of clement was read as scripture. If All the books were accepted, why did some reject what's now in the canon, and some consider as scripture what we don't?

[quote]As for "Why do we worship on Sunday?" For a true Christian the answer is "because we worship every day".
If your question is "why do Christians gather together on Sunday in specific meetings?", then I can answer a) not all do and b) that it is not a matter of doctrine, and thus there is no conflict.[/quote] Missed the point. Scripture says that we should worship and rest on Saturday,not Sunday. God never changes that rule in the Bible,As such, there would be no scriptural mandate for disobeying God's command to worship on Saturday, outside of apostolic and early church practice.
[quote]Err, why?[/quote] Because of that whole "Burden of Proof" thing?
[quote]Remember, in the words you quoted from me, I was merely pointing out a fallacious attack against
non-Catholic churches on your part... I guess I refuted that particular point if you can only respond by redirecting
my response...[/quote] Actually, the post wasn't in response to me, I just responded to it anyway.And second, I asked A question: You claim that A) there were doctrinal changes in the early church, and B)The establishment of a Catholic hierarchy hastened it. Please offer proof for this.
[quote]The truth is independant of who knows it. You and your brother might both be wrong. No one has authority higher than the word of God.[/quote] Sola Scriptura again? We've been through this, sola scriptura is fallacious.If you'd like to take a stab at proving that, go ahead.
[quote]You're just avoiding the point by saying "it's difficult".
See John 6:60, Isaiah 55:8, Proverbs 14:12.[/quote]Sadly irrelevant. The question is How do we know who's right? Which one? There must be some biblical principle to decide who's right,according to the Sola Scriptura premise.How can we know who has discovered the biblical truth on a matter? And why should I accept his interpretation over mine?Because he says his interpretation is the right one?I'm not saying it's difficult, I'm saying that it's Impossible to settle biblical disputes on doctrine based on the bible alone when both or all parties have biblical support. There must be some biblical or non-biblical principle to settle the dispute.

[Guest klomp44]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1416714' date='Nov 9 2007, 04:33 PM']Missed the point. Scripture says that we should worship and rest on Saturday,not Sunday. God never changes that rule in the Bible,As such, there would be no scriptural mandate for disobeying God's command to worship on Saturday, outside of apostolic and early church practice.[/quote]

Where does it say that? I'm curious. It does not say worship on Saturday. What it may say is worship on the last day of the week, is that correct? At the time the Bible was written, didn't the calendar week start on Monday, which would make Sunday the last day.

Wouldn't it be more logical to change from the last day to first day than to switch the days of the week?

[jeffpugh]

No, the Jewish week ends on Saturday. The Julian ("civil") calender ends on Sunday.