Fifty Works From the Early Church That Every Christian Should Read

List Challenges ^ | January 7, 2020

[boatbums]

One more point...do you know WHY the Council of Trent finally formalized their canon to include the seven Apocryphal books after the Reformation? One of the main reasons was because they wanted something, anything that they could use to try to support the dogma of Purgatory and Indulgences from Scripture. All they could come up with was the story from the Maccabees about a soldier who died while he carried around an idol and they talked about offering up some money to buy his forgiveness in the afterlife.

Saying those books were part of the "Greek Canon" - meaning the Septuagint - ignores that the Septuagint contains other books, too, and they weren't included. It's a bogus reason. Ironically, nowadays, the Roman Catholic church claims they don't even need to find their dogmas in the Bible - they can invent whatever they want. That certainly goes against the early church fathers beliefs, many who said that if they couldn't prove their doctrine by the Scriptures, they shouldn't accepted.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Further Gooder problems...

“along with gay rights advocates Robert Beckford and Paula Gooder.”

https://virtueonline.org/england-cms-sponsors-gay-evangelicalism

[Mrs. Don-o]

I dont know who any of these are: Robert Beckford, Paula Gooder or CMS. Does this have something to do with me?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Gooder is in charge of theology at the UK Bible Society you referenced.

[Antoninus]

Somebody give me a accurate rundown of the number of Biblical (Complete) manuscripts in circulation between the time of Pentecost to (I will give you) the Leningrad Codex.

Read this. It's the transcript of an investigation during the Great Persecution (ca. AD 304) when copies of the Scriptures and other Christian writings were collected by pagan Roman officials. Note, this is one relatively minor town (Cirta) in provincial Africa. In this account alone, we find 32 sacred books handed over to the Romans.

“The Scriptures Destroyed by Fire” ~ An official Roman transcript from the Great Persecution of AD 304"

I think sometimes we underestimate how advanced the late Romans were because so much was lost during the barbarian invasions.

[Antoninus]

Yes. Errors.

Really. It's kind of funny to see a protestant so concerned about dogma. One can barely ever get two protestants in a room to discuss theology without one revealing aspects of his faith that the other regards as "errors."

The canon was re-examined many times and earlier errors corrected.

Pray that your belief isn't regarded as "errors that were corrected" by future protestants.

[Antoninus]

I am. You failed. Why...?

Please. You set up the question to ensure failure. You don't care where the Catholic (Assumption) and Orthodox (Dormition) beliefs come from. You're just trying to score rhetorical points, as if all of your beliefs originate in the 1st century when they don't. They originate in a faulty 16th century and later interpretation of books originally compiled by Catholics/Orthodox in the 1st century AD and transmitted via those same Churches through the centuries.

Given that, my ability to point to 6th century teachings on the Assumption/Dormition should be more than sufficient.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You set up the question to ensure failure. You don't care where the Catholic (Assumption) and Orthodox (Dormition) beliefs come from.

1. I complimented a poster on demonstrating in every century protestant beliefs in the writings of the fathers

2. I said Catholics couldn't do that with half of what they practice and teach.

3. You posted a picture of a book and said they could.

4. I asked you then to start with the Assumption of Mary and demonstrate it in all 6 centuries in the writings of the Fathers

5. You posted just one quote from the 6th century and said it was easy.

6. I pointed out you missed 5 earlier centuries. NOW, you want to go back to the beginning and whine about it :-) You were unable to complete what you claimed.

I will take that as a clear admission that the Assumption of Mary was never taught in the first century.

It wasn't ever taught by an apostle.

Nor was half the stuff catholics teach or practice.

[Luircin]

You might as well take it as seriously as some random post on the Internet claiming that George Washington ascended directly to Heaven on a horse made of cherries and wooden teeth.

Except it’s only been two centuries since Washington, not five.

[fishtank]

Specifically,

Paul’s letter to the Romans explains the gospel for the church at ROME. Faith in the sacrificial death of Christ as payment for our sin is SUFFICIENT.

Galatians teaches us not to add any human work to the FINISHED work of Christ.

Hebrews teaches there is only now the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ. He is our high priest. ...There is no valid RCC priesthood.

Hebrews teaches the sacrificial death of Christ was once for all.

......

The RCC only reads Scripture as a devotional exercise or for its liturgical function.

There is no didactic, corrective, exhortative, reproving aspect of Scripture for Rome, because she thinks she sits above the Word.

The RCC practices “ Sola Eccelesia” which is a Latin term best translated as “churcholatry”.

For now,
Fishtank

...born and raised RCC, thirteen years Catholic education, two years CCD, and raised in a house with subscriptions to the National Catholic Register, the Wanderer, the Angelus magazine and Fidelity magazine. I was expected to be current on my readings in those publications while growing up.

....

By the way, after about four weeks in a Bible study at work, I got saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ when I was reading through Ephesians chapter 2.

God made me realize that He was right and that I was wrong.

All the Bible books I list at the beginning of this post are the lessons I learned from those books.

The RCC doesn’t even understand and has never effectively implemented the Romans letter that Paul wrote to them.

[fishtank]

If you read and understand the Bible’s gospel of salvation, here is your rank:

A saint who is saved from sin by the sufficient grace of Christ, seated in the heaven lies, sealed by the Holy Spirit, with no future condemnation at all.

[Antoninus]

Paul’s letter to the Romans explains the gospel for the church at ROME. Faith in the sacrificial death of Christ as payment for our sin is SUFFICIENT.

Again, (and again, and again), if not for the "RCC", you wouldn't have St. Paul's Letter to the Romans to read today.

You're welcome.

[Luircin]

Ah, the Roman rooster, strutting around and claiming credit for making the sun rise.

Or in this case, claiming credit for the work that the Holy Spirit has done.

You have just proven fishtank’s point about Catholics believing in sola ecclesia.

I find that amusing.

[fishtank]

No .

Paul wrote the letter because he was moved along by the Holy Spirit.

The RCC had nothing to do with that.

[MayflowerMadam]

“if not for the “RCC”, you wouldn’t have St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans to read today.”

Oh, dear. Blasphemy.