| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Radagast |
Posted - 06/28/2007 : 06:57:56
Some evangelicals consider Tradition, Church History, and the Fathers irrelevant and some go as far as saying today's writers are equal to or superior to the writers of the early Church. Some go out and learn greek to unlock the true meaning of the New Testament but discount those Fathers who spoke Greek as their primary language and were closer to the Greek spoken at the time the New Testament was written.
But apparently there is a growing number of evangelicals who are becoming restless for true meaning. Here is a first step, promoted by internetmonk this week Recommendation and Review: Evangelicals and Tradition by D.H. Williams
Peace,
Radagast |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Theophilus |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 19:14:55
Nikki,
"I would not be moved to accept the Gospel, were it not for the Catholic Church."
--Augustine of Hippo
As for me, I can't see how anyone can remain outside of the Catholic Church when they have read the entirety of Scripture. There is no other Christian Church that teaches the totality of the NT with as much vehemence and truth to it as the Catholic Church does.
Too many ignore the Epistle of James and other books that clearly spell out our required action to make faith real. Others teach a false, presumptive salvation despite clear warnings of being cut off or falling away. Still others ignore the clear teachings of Christ and the Apostles about the necessity of Baptism and Eucharist.
Historically speaking, too many ignore the very clear, undeniable role Catholicism played in canonizing the NT, and the obvious implication: the Catholic Church would not canonize Scripture at odds with its teaching, so the teachings of the Church cannot be at odds with Scripture.
That's why the Trinity is giving you such difficulty. You simply cannot accept that what we believe as Christians today was undeniably shaped by Catholic bishops who also believed in a Pope, the Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration, Mary as the New Eve, and other Catholic (and Orthodox) distinctives. You'd rather deny the Trinity than admit to the mistake. |
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 11:34:20
The Body of Christ.  |
| Nikki |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 09:10:29
quote:
Originally posted by Diana Holberg
Hmm... one has to know what it really is before one can examine it reasonably.
What is it, really?
|
| Diana Holberg |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 08:46:42
Hmm... one has to know what it really is before one can examine it reasonably. |
| Nikki |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 08:23:14
quote:
Originally posted by mikejuli
how anyone can remain outside of the catholic church after really seeing that picture of the early church in scripture is beyond me.
How anyone can remain in the Catholic Church after examining it in the light of the Scripture is beyond reason.
|
| mikejuli |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 05:45:28
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere.
Do you have any links to this "stock Protestant erspective"?
That was just some guy making a comment on a blog entry offering his opinion. It's just more of the same standard objections given by Protestants. I don't think it's supported by any hard evidence.
The hard evidence is the picture of the early church painted in scripture. The meaning of the word ekklesia and root of at the time of Christ.
how anyone can remain outside of the catholic church after really seeing that picture of the early church in scripture is beyond me.
|
| mikejuli |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 05:43:35
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere.
Do you have any links to this "stock Protestant erspective"?
That was just some guy making a comment on a blog entry offering his opinion. It's just more of the same standard objections given by Protestants. I don't think it's supported by any hard evidence.
The hard evidence is the picture of the early church painted in scripture. The meaning of the word ekklesia and root of at the time of Christ.
ekklesia means called out ones... i don't see how that can form any opinion about church function or model. it does explain why catholics go to mass and not to "church" on suday, where everyone else goes to church (a building or someones home).
|
| alcovey |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 14:22:41
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
The hard evidence is the picture of the early church painted in scripture. The meaning of the word ekklesia and root of at the time of Christ.
The early Church in the New Testament evolved even over the course of the book of Acts. As for determining doctrine based on word definitions, that is a shady practice at best. We have to look beyond the pages of the New Testament (and reading our biases into it) and look at how the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians actually carried out the Gospel mission entrusted to them by the apostles. That's the kind of evidence we need to look at. |
| SolaChristo |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 14:11:22
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere.
Do you have any links to this "stock Protestant erspective"?
That was just some guy making a comment on a blog entry offering his opinion. It's just more of the same standard objections given by Protestants. I don't think it's supported by any hard evidence.
The hard evidence is the picture of the early church painted in scripture. The meaning of the word ekklesia and root of at the time of Christ. |
| alcovey |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 13:48:12
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere.
Do you have any links to this "stock Protestant erspective"?
That was just some guy making a comment on a blog entry offering his opinion. It's just more of the same standard objections given by Protestants. I don't think it's supported by any hard evidence. |
| alcovey |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 13:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by Nikki
quote:
The 'they' are the independent Christian sects that stood aloof from the valid Eucharistic celebrations (in communion with valid bishops).
Were any of these sects similar to Protestants today?
Only in that they presumed to start their own communities apart from the apostolic Church. Protestantism is not really found anywhere in history until the times leading up to the Reformation - Wycliffe and Hus may have been 'proto' protestants.
quote:
What do you mean by valid bishops?
Those who were ordained by the apostles or their successors and in communion with them.
quote:
Did any of the sects have "vaild bishops"?
Some of the early heretics - the Montanists and others had valid bishops but were marginalized and removed from their bishoprics for their heresies. |
| Nikki |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 12:40:41
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere.
Do you have any links to this "stock Protestant perspective"?
|
| Nikki |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 12:32:35
quote:
Originally posted by alcovey
The 'they' are the independent Christian sects that stood aloof from the valid Eucharistic celebrations (in communion with valid bishops).
Were any of these sects similar to Protestants today?
What do you mean by valid bishops?
Did any of the sects have "vaild bishops"?
|
| alcovey |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 11:05:42
quote:
Originally posted by SolaChristo
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton . . .
Well, it's obvious you would agree with his comments - it's the pretty stock Protestant perspective. One that we don't think there is evidence to support, so that's why you never get anywhere. |
| SolaChristo |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 10:50:16
There is one who gets it.
From Radagast link under comments:
Nicholas Anton
The dynamics operating in the early church in the first centuries were integral with and virtually identical with those operating within secular politics of the time. It seems that as the “world” functions, likewise the church. The transition of the early church from a family-type natural organism (elder/senior led which includes both male and female in their respective traditional roles) as Jesus taught, to an autocratic class defined institution (the rulers versus those ruled) occurred very rapidly towards the end of the first and into the second century A.D. Along with practice, the definition of the terms themselves [“elder” (presbuterus), overseer (episkapos), servant (diakonos)] transitioned from Hebrew to Greco-Roman concepts, frequently without the general populace being aware of and taking significant note of the change. This debate continues into our times as seen in the various forms of church government. And yet, few in our generation are aware of the dynamics of early church history.
It is so obvious I keep banging my head against the wall that none of you can see it. |
Subscribe by Email
RSS