Posted on 04/05/2015 4:56:11 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
In an article entitled Saint Patrick the Baptist?, Stephen R. Button tries to claim St. Patrick for Evangelical Protestantism... or at least disassociate him from Roman Catholicism. Button is hardly alone: you can find similar attempts by Don Boys and others, some of them dating back several decades.
The argument tends to work like this. From Patrick, we have (in Button's words) only the “84 short paragraphs that make up both his Confession and his 'Letter to Coroticus.'” Baptist authors then mine these texts for any doctrines that Patrick doesn't mention explicitly, and then claim that he must have held the Baptist view.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicdefense.blogspot.it ...
It has been posted time and time again where the early church fathers promoted and adhered to scripture alone...You people must resort to and then repost lies that have been handed to you by your corrupt religion...
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
Exactly...And that teaching authority became contained in the scriptures...And that was the final authority for the church and the early church fathers...And it still is for Christians 2000 years later...
I can only assume this is another fake article...Why???
I have yet to meet a Catholic who had the desire to know the scriptures or one who thought the scriptures were authoritative...
I ate the Catholic cracker twice...I didn't get any revelation except that it wasn't a pleasant experience...
And yet Paul had to correct Peter on his error of not eating with the Gentiles...Hmmmmmm.
Although I agree with your premise, the dating of Luke and Acts seem to be much earlier. Below is a link to the dating of the NT books as seen by a multitude of Biblical scholars. One piece of internal evidence we do have that Acts was a very early book is that it ends in Rome, but we have other evidence in Paul's epistles of his ministry continuing. Some of this touches on the external evidence of a third missionary journey.
2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..Look at this, Apostolic tradition, Apostolic succession and an authoritative teaching church all before Constantine. How is that even possible?2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
2.3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points... 3.1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
3.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3.3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,-a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,-that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.
4.1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
4.2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established. (Adversus Haereses, 3.2.1-3.4.2)
You should look up the difference between infallibility and impeccability. You should also see with what authority the gathered apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem invoked when they wrote to the church in Antioch:
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us … (Acts 15:28)N.B. that this was not just the decision of the apostles but of the apostles and presbyters. The original apostles had already gathered other men to themselves to share in the governance of the church and invested with the authority of the Holy Spirit. To accept Sacred Scripture one must also accept this abiding authority which Scripture proclaims.
James had to correct the vain man who thought one could be saved by Sola Fide. Paul's reproof was behavioral, while James' was doctrinal, upon which millions have foundered.
And that was done...Hundreds of years before the Roman Constantine religion showed up...
Ah, I see you brought the catholic carte blanche card today. It's issued to all catholics to justify whatever theology they want.
If you allow this then you cannot deny the Mormon their Book of Mormon or the muslim the Koran.
The catholic would do well to read John and his other writings in context.
First, there is no oral tradition mentioned in the text you cite.
John only notes that there are many other things Jesus did that were not written down. Nobody disagrees with that. There are long gaps in his childhood from adulthood we do not have. But then, we don't need them for the very reason John noted in 20:30-31.
In two of those writings John tells us why we have the written accounts we do.
It is so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31 NASB). He said the basically same thing in 1 John 5:13.
Try St. Luke, verse 26 to verse 55. It is very hard to understand how any Christian can study this passage and then refuse to honor Mary. Why, the “Hall Mary,” which Catholics love to address to the Blessed Virgin, is explicitly given there; part of it was said by the angel Gabriel and part by Elizabeth. The angel was inspired by God and Elizabeth “was filled with the Holy Ghost” (v. 41). Let us put together the words that the angel Gabriel and Elizabeth addressed to Mary: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women” (v. 28). “Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
Yes, let's examine Luke 1:26-56.
First correction for catholics.
"Greetings,you favored with grace", is the proper translation from the Greek. Χαῖρε is in the imperative form. Usually this is the mood of command, but in some instances, like this one, it is a greeting. It is not a title as catholicism has made it out to be.
Also note the angel was not inspired....he was sent by God to deliver a message to Mary.
Some background on this time period will help us understand this passage.
There was a great expectation that Messiah was coming. Many felt He would be the political/military leader to free the Jews from the Romans. Many of the women, like Mary, knew the OT prophecy about the Messiah and how He would be born of a virgin. Mary was overwhelmed with the news that she was to be the one to give birth to the Messiah. She just didn't know all of the detail as to how it would happen and Gabriel cleared that up for her. When he left Luke notes that Mary arose and went with haste to see her cousin Elizabeth.
Here we have the salutation that Catholics address to Mary. The only addition we have made are the two names, “Mary” and “Jesus.” So that, in saying the Hail, Mary, Catholics are explicitly following the Bible.
You will notice, that Mary in that sublime canticle known as the Magnificat, which is recorded by the inspired writer from verse 46 to 55, declared: “Behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed” (v. 48).
Who, then fulfills this prophecy: those who refuse to apply the adjective blessed to the Virgin Mary, or Catholics, who love to call Mary the Blessed Virgin?
See what a bad understanding of the Word will lead to? Catholics have assigned this title, Mary the Blessed Virgin to Mary. It is how the deification process starts.
And we come to another correction for the catholic.
Blessed is not an adjective in the Greek! It's a verb!!
μακαριοῦσίν is in the future tense. It is translated as "will count me blessed". The root word means to pronounce blessed, as the result of enjoying the benefits that extend from God.
Same root verb is used in James 5:11 though in a different form.
You will also note in this same passage that Mary declares herself to be a sinner in v47 when she notes, "my soul exalts the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave."
Those are not words spoken by someone who is sin free as catholics claim.
If St. Paul asked the Romans to “help him in their prayers for him to God” (Rom. 15:16); if he wrote to the Thessalonians, “Pray for us,” why may we not ask Mary, who is far holier and nearer to God than the Roman and Thessalonian converts, to “pray for us”? In fact, we read in the Old Testament that God positively commanded Eliphaz and his two friends to go to the holy man Job and seek his intercession: “My servant Job shall pray for you; his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you” (Job 42:8).
Third correction for the catholics. There is a false assumption that Mary is "far holier and closer" to God than any other believer. There is no proof from Scripture for this assertion. None.
Paul never noted it.
Peter never noted it.
James (Jesus's brother) never noted it.
Matthew never noted it.
Mark never noted it.
Luke never noted it.
John never noted it.
The catholic will do well to note that in all of the examples about prayer they are people on earth praying to God. We see no example of Paul ever writing the early church to pray to Abraham, Moses, Elijah or anyone in the the OT.
This mistaken belief about praying to the dead comes from 2 Maccabees 12:46 which is not considered to be canon. This is why all things must be measured against Scripture; which the Apocrypha is not.
When Jesus taught His disciples to pray the prayer was directed to God.
When Paul was writing his letters all of the focus was on Jesus.
And that is where all of our focus should be is on Jesus. Him and Him alone.
James had to correct the vain man who thought one could be saved by Sola Fide. Paul's reproof was behavioral, while James' was doctrinal, upon which millions have foundered
What was Abraham saved by??
When was he saved?
What did he do to "earn" his salvation?
Paul and James both use the example of Abraham in their writings. Suggest you read both and then we can chat.
And when did the authority of the Holy Spirit working through the assembled apostles and presbyters (as illustrated in Acts 15:28) cease to operate?
Oh wait a minute......
LOL, roger that.
That's easy...It's because they don't say what you claim they say...Your religion even adds words and deletes words to try to get the distorted interpretations it comes up with...Protestants tend to leave the scriptures intact while believing what they say, not what your religion thinks they should say...
Those are meaningless...Theology and Christianity are two totally different animals...
You don't need to dig too deeply bro.
You are picking out the wrong word. First the entire greeting in Greek:
καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.Χαῖρε is not the title "full of grace" but the greeting "hail." The title by which Gabriel addressed her was κεχαριτωμένη. This is vocative perfect passive singular participle meaning: "O grace filled one."
There is a true church with the true scripture...And that scriptures tells us to prove all things...
When someone comes along and claims God has a mother, that's a false prophet...When others claim Jesus' mother is the Queen of Heaven, that's a false prophet...
You are picking out the wrong word. First the entire greeting in Greek:
καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. Χαῖρε is not the title "full of grace" but the greeting "hail." The title by which Gabriel addressed her was κεχαριτωμένη. This is vocative perfect passive singular participle meaning: "O grace filled one."
Apologies...fingers working too fast.
The point is that this is not a title as catholicism claims. Hail is not a title....nor is "favored with grace".
The vocative is simply the case of direct address. It is not used as a title as catholics would like to claim.
The catholic translation of κεχαριτωμένη is an incorrect one.
Only two of the major translations render it as "full of grace". Douay-Rheims and Aramaic Bible in Plain English.
.
>> “Let me get this straight. For 300 years Christians were so strong in their faith that that they were willing to suffer martyrdom. Despite the persecutions the faith continued to grow.” <<
.
Essentially correct.
It is exactly what our savior told his disciples was going to happen soon after he departed.
The part that is wrong is the 300 years. It began to crumble sooner than that, as the Nicolaitans began to expand their own power, and base their churches on men rather than “The Teaching” (the Torah, literally, that is what the apostles taught).
The hierarchy is the false church.
What Constantine did was to take control of that hierarchy, and paganize it to match his personal “faith.”
The followers of Yeshua moved northward, to distance themselves from the power of Rome, and branched out as small congregations meeting in homes, just as the faithful are doing again today.
The “sacrament” of the catholic church is the heart of Satan. It is a lie by the father of lies, as is the worship of “Mary,” actually men communing with demons that offer that which they seek.
Yeshua ordered us out of the churches (the whore and her daughters) in the Revelation.
You love to attack Luther, yet he was still one of you in many ways.
>> “The church prior to Constantine looks pretty much like the one after Constantine.” <<
That was exactly why Yeshua called his remnant out of her.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.