Posted on 11/09/2007 1:55:47 PM PST by NYer
|
Initially this seemed like an easy task, for the primary reason my Presbyterian heart was turned toward home was because the truthfulness of the Catholic Church was proved to me through the study of Scripture. Books upon books upon tapes upon CD s reiterate the sound biblical footing of our Catholic faith. Regardless, I encountered difficulties as I thought of my perceived audience.
Vincible Foes
First, I remembered that from which I came and the hoards of anti-Catholics who believe there is no biblical defense of Catholicism. They believe the Bible is their book and that if it defends anything, it defends their theological platforms. If this were true, my talk would have been very short and this article over.
But this isn’t true. The Bible is not their book. It exists today first because of the grace of God, but secondarily because of the Catholic bishops, priests, monks, and laity who preserved, protected, copied, and venerated the canon of inspired books we now call the Bible. The entire biblical canon from Genesis to Revelation is a defense of the Catholic Church. From this standpoint, one talk or brief article merely scratches the surface.
Second, I remembered the many people who have been so swayed by the opinions of biblical critics that any biblical defense of the faith is useless, for the Bible to them is at best a collection of myths and fables. Again, this makes for a short presentation.
|
How does a Catholic use the Word of God to unlock the heart of a friend or family member outside the faith? My approach is what I call "The Verses I Never Saw." This is what sparked my own conversion, as well as those of hundreds of others we have worked with through the Coming Home Network International. |
Third, I remembered the many lifelong Catholics who believe a biblical defense of their faith is unnecessary. From birth and baptism they have believed it all, and though they greatly revere the Scriptures, they need no proof. Yet, I know from personal experience where this attitude leads: Thirty percent of my Protestant youth groups and churches were made up of ex-Catholics who could not defend their faith against our biblical onslaught. Eventually they not only became convinced that the Bible defended Protestantism, but that they had been saved from "the whore of Babylon." It is very important, especially in this day of high-tech Internet evangelization, that Catholics rediscover the biblical defense of their faith.
But there was a fourth difficulty. As in sports, there is no one simple defense against all attacks. For example, in football the defense changes with each play to address the changing offense. So with the defense of our faith, the challenges are as varied as Protestantism itself. The verses that might unlock a Presbyterian’s heart are radically different than those that might convince a Baptist or a Lutheran or a Pentecostal or Methodist or a Mormon. You get the idea.
So where does one begin? How does a Catholic use the Word of God to unlock the heart of a friend or family member outside the faith? My approach is what I call "The Verses I Never Saw." This is what sparked my own conversion, as well as those of hundreds of others we have worked with through the Coming Home Network International.
Scripture Says What?
Not unlike any average Evangelical Protestant minister, I loved my Lord Jesus Christ, I was committed to proclaiming and following His truth with abandon, and I believed in sola scriptura — that the Bible was the one inspired, infallible "firm foundation" of my life and faith. I also believed that I knew the Bible very well, from cover to cover, and that it held no surprises that could shatter my Protestant faith.
Then a long-lost seminary classmate introduced me to the first "verse I never saw." Scott Hahn pulled the same trick on me that someone had once pulled on him. He asked me, "What is the pillar and bulwark of your faith?"
|
Scott Hahn pulled the same trick on me that someone had once pulled on him. He asked me, "What is the pillar and bulwark of your faith?" |
My knee-jerk response — as had been his — was, "Why, the Bible, of course!"
"But what does the Bible specifically say is ‘the pillar and bulwark of faith’?"
I was puzzled. I could not remember any place where this specific phrase was found in Scripture.
"Let’s look at 1 Timothy 3:14-15, then," he said. Now, I had studied and taught through 1 Timothy many times and expected no surprises, so I read aloud without hesitation, "I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
For a second, I wondered whether someone had somehow secretly inserted that never-before-noticed text into my Bible! The apostle Paul tells Timothy that the pillar and bulwark of the truth is somehow the Church. I had no mental file folder for this idea. As a Calvinist, I believed that the Church was an invisible fellowship of all true believers, not identifiable with any one institutional communion. How could this invisible, universal hodgepodge of opinions be the "pillar and bulwark" of anything? And could my Presbyterian denomination qualify as this trustworthy foundation for truth? Hardly — nor in my opinion could any other denomination I knew. So, what did Paul mean by "church"? This verse left me weak in the knees, not yet leaning toward Catholicism, but shaken in my confidence in sola scriptura.
Traditions to Contend With
Then I discovered another "verse I never saw": 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
Oh, I had seen this verse before, but what I had not noticed before was that the traditions — or "teachings," as my Protestant Bible had translated this term — that Paul insisted the Thessalonian believers follow and adhere to were not merely the written documents that would one day make up the New Testament, but also oral traditions.
In fact, as I re-examined all of Paul’s letters, several things became very clear: First, Paul’s normal, preferred way of passing on the faith was through preaching and teaching; second, the only reason we have any letters at all was because he could not get to the people in person; and third, what he taught in his letters presumed upon the knowledge they had already received from him in person — much of which is never recorded in any New Testament document!
|
Whoa! Jesus abides in His followers and we abide in Him not just through our diligent obedience but through partaking of Him in the Eucharist! Again, as a Presbyterian, I had no mental file folder for this. |
Then a third "verse I never saw" raised its ugly head: 2 Timothy 3:14-17, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
I was certainly quite aware of this text, for it was upon the second half of this text that I taught and defended sola scripura. Whenever I quoted this text, I would hold up the Bible as the presumed equivalent of what Paul meant by "all Scripture." What I had not previously considered, however (already a bit wobbly from the first two surprise verses), was whether this was an accurate representation of what Paul understood as "Scripture." When he wrote this letter, the New Testament was not even entirely written, let alone collected into a book. The canon of Scripture would not be finalized for another 300-plus years by gatherings of Catholic bishops at the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo. This meant that Paul could only have been referring to the Old Testament! Did I believe that only the Old Testament was "inspired by God and profitable for teaching"? No, of course not. So this verse not only did not teach sola scriptura, but the first half again taught the importance of oral tradition.
The Spirit of Unity
A fourth "verse I never saw" was John 14:26, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Coupled with John 16:13 — "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" — this verse made me painfully aware of a contradiction in my life and ministry.
These verses emphasize how the Holy Spirit will teach the followers of Christ so that they know and remember all that Jesus taught to be true. So what happened? Why was there so much confusion and contradiction between those who love Jesus, who have received the Holy Spirit, and who diligently study His inspired, infallible Bible? What I had not seen in these very familiar verses is that Jesus was not implying that every Christian throughout all time would have this guaranteed knowledge of the truth: He was speaking primarily to His hand-chosen Apostles! They would be the ones to receive this special gift of the Holy Spirit to give them a special infused knowledge and wisdom so that they could initiate and lead the Church in truth. All Christians would receive the Holy Spirit (through Baptism) at differing levels according to the gifting of God (cf. Eph. 4:7, 11–14).
In time, a fifth "verse I never saw" crept up on me: John 17:11, "And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."
So where was this unity, especially among faithful Christians who accepted the Bible as the Word of God yet could not agree on what it said? In this prayer, Jesus was praying specifically for His Apostles, upon whom He would build His Church, and Scripture teaches that "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). In other words, unity is something that therefore must already exist, but where and how?
"Catholic" Verses?
The sixth "verse I never saw" startled me in a familiar spot. My favorite, most-preached-upon portion of Scripture was the familiar metaphor of the vine and the branches. I especially emphasized to my congregations the truth of John 15:4, "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me."
|
Few conversions come about primarily through biblical proof texts and arguments, though these texts can be used by the Holy Spirit. All conversions come about by grace, and so the most important thing we can do to unlock the hearts of potential converts is to pray for them and love them. |
For years I had given my interpretation of what it meant to "abide in" Jesus and how He abides in us, but as far as I knew, there was no place where He specifically defines what this meant . . . until a friend drew my attention back to John 6:56, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." Whoa! Jesus abides in His followers and we abide in Him not just through our diligent obedience but through partaking of Him in the Eucharist! Again, as a Presbyterian, I had no mental file folder for this.
The seventh "verse I never saw" was another one that I preached on often and assumed I had an adequate response to for any Catholic apologist: Matthew 16:17–19, "And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’"
There’s much to discuss here, but in short I had always assumed that pointing to the original Greek undercut any Catholic proof for Petrine authority. The Greek word here for Peter is Petros, which can mean "pebble" whereas the word for rock is petra, which means "large boulder." Like so many other Protestant pastors, I explained that Jesus was obviously not building His Church on this "pebble" called Simon Peter but upon the faith he had been given from God the Father.
But then someone pointed out what was truly obvious: Jesus didn’t speak Greek; He spoke Aramaic, and in both cases He would have used the same word, Kepha: "Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church." The differences in the Greek arose from the translators changing a feminine noun into a masculine name.
Unlocking Our Hearts First
These are only seven of the many "verses I never saw" that opened this convert’s heart to the Catholic Church. Are these verses "silver bullets"? Are they the guaranteed keys to unlock the mind and heart of any non-Catholic friend or relative? No, I’m afraid not. I know many faithful non-Catholics who see these verses and others, who know all the Catholic answers to them, yet are far from ready to come home. Few conversions come about primarily through biblical proof texts and arguments, though these texts can be used by the Holy Spirit. All conversions come about by grace, and so the most important thing we can do to unlock the hearts of potential converts is to pray for them and love them.
So why learn these verses? For this we need to take some advice from the airlines. Whenever we fly, what does the flight attendant tell us to do in the event of a loss of air pressure? Are we to first put the air mask on our children or on ourselves? Ourselves. We cannot adequately help anyone unless we first take care of ourselves. We need to know our faith and why we believe what we do, and we especially need to know the wonderful truths of the Bible so we can pass them on to others. But in all cases, the first heart that always needs to be unlocked by the Bible is our own.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Marcus Grodi. "Unlocking the Convert's Heart: The Bible as a Key to Conversion." Lay Witness (July/August, 2007).
This article is reprinted with permission from Lay Witness magazine.
Lay Witness is a publication of Catholic United for the Faith, Inc., an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.
and Alex Murphy also if he wishes to participate. Since DouglasKC is a Sabbatarian and our topic is authority of the church, my question is this: Who changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first and by what authority? Obviously Jesus was a Sabbatarian because He stood up and read scriptures on the Sabbath. Quote scriptures that directly explain this abrupt departure from a millennia old Law that was wrote by the Hand of God on stone tablets.
Somehow I don’t think that Jesus would consider His mother, who he revered above all women, or John, the youngest of his disciples, who he loved like a brother, and in whose care He left His mother when He died on the Cross, anything like what your selected bit of Old Testament scripture described.
Synonyms: revere, worship, venerate, adore, idolize
So, do you worship, venerate, adore, idolize Mary?
The Scripture actually says, Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Mary is still among women, she was not and is not divine. She didn't die for your sins to be intecessor to God. Jesus did.
anything like what your selected bit of Old Testament scripture described.
Is this "selected bit" part of the Bible that you don't believe?
Somehow I don’t think that Jesus would consider His mother, who he revered above all women, or John, the youngest of his disciples, who he loved like a brother, and in whose care He left His mother when He died on the Cross, anything like what your selected bit of Old Testament scripture described.
You're right...while they were alive,
BUT NOW THEY ARE DEAD!!!
I've asked the others, now I'll ask you...
I don't wish to continue dialog regarding this or any other false doctine. I do not wish to engage in this heresy any further. I will however respond to your err in Scripture.
In Christ...ALONE!
From the scriptures, it appears that the practice was established at the beginning of the church age. It's when they took communion and listened to the sermon:
Act 20:7 And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow. And he continued his speech until midnight.
And when they took up the collection:
1Co 16:1 - 2 Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints: as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.
I agree they met. I agree they took up collections. But show me something which invalidates the ten commandments declaration to keep the Sabbath day holy. The Sabbath was to do what? Commemorate creation? And keep mankind recognizant of the obligation that man owed his Creator? Can we change it again to Monday? Why or why not?
Calvin actually suggested Tuesday at one point, to emphasize that all days belong to the Lord, not just one day a week.
But the shift to Sunday was because that was the day of Resurrection and the fulfillment of the law.
Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. The practice of meeting together on the first day of the week for the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is indicated in Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10, it is called the Lord's day. In the Didache (xiv) the injunction is given: "On the Lord's Day come together and break bread. And give thanks (offer the Eucharist), after confessing your sins that your sacrifice may be pure". St. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. ix) speaks of Christians as "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also Our Life rose again". In the Epistle of Barnabas (xv) we read: "Wherefore, also, we keep the eight day (i.e. the first of the week) with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead".
St. Justin is the first Christian writer to call the day Sunday (I Apol., lxvii) in the celebrated passage in which he describes the worship offered by the early Christians on that day to God. The fact that they ment together and offered public worship on Sunday necessitated a certain rest from work on that day. However, Tertullian (202) is the first writer who expressly mentions the Sunday rest: "We, however (just as tradition has taught us), on the day of the Lord's Resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil" ("De orat.", xxiii; cf. "Ad nation.", I, xiii; "Apolog.", xvi).
These and similar indications show that during the first three centuries practice and tradition had consecrated the Sunday to the public worship of God by the hearing of the Mass and the resting from work. With the opening of the fourth century positive legislation, both ecclesiastical.
by what authority?
By Christ (Matt. 16:19)
See #10 & #14.
The attempt at humor in #2 and #8 is of the good natured kind, however, there is a clear agenda revealed.
The books of Didache,Ignatius,Barnabas,Justin and Tertullian are not in my Bible. Therefore they do not count as the Word of God. As far as Revelation 1:10 referring to The Lords Day, scripturally you are on sinking soil again because Mark 2:28 has Christ declaring the Sabbath as His day. I am looking for verses that emphatically declare that God is declaring the Sabbath is done and over with and let’s go with Sunday from now on with the same unmistakable clarity that the Sabbath observance was declared. And it would have helped if Christ, while He was here on earth, put this “new law” into practice since He is our example. Pretty careless of Him, don’t you think?
The book of Calvin is not in my Bible therefore it does not qualify as The Word of God. I feel Calvin would agree this too was predestined.
Bob. Is the Bible the sole "teaching from God?" No. The Bible Itself states that there are "oral" teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers "Sacred Apostolic Tradition." This type of "Tradition" never changes because it was passed down by the Apostles themselves.
And it would have helped if Christ, while He was here on earth, put this “new law” into practice since He is our example. Pretty careless of Him, don’t you think?
The Bible is not to be taken literally - "word for word". The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook." Jesus Christ did not write down any part of the New Testament with His own hand. As you just noted, if the Bible was to be the sole authority of the Church, shouldn't Jesus have written down His Own teachings? Shouldn't He have at least stated something similar to the following: "the written works of My disciples will be the authority upon which My Church is based?" Did Jesus Christ with His own mouth instruct His disciples to "write down" His teachings? No - with the possible exception of the Book of Revelations. Does the Bible state It is the sole or final authority of Christianity? No. Neither this statement nor anything even close to it appears anywhere in the New Testament. In fact, Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture (Matthew 18:17).
This is the problem with Sola Scriptura. To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church. There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible. Theoretically, anyone who owns a Bible can create their own denomination based on their own interpretation of Scripture. Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied. And Christ stated "A tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33) and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura produces "bad fruit" (disunity, confusion and separation).
The Bible Itself never states that It is the sole and only authority of Christianity. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in Scripture. However, I totally agree that It is one of the authorities in Christianity, but where does It state that It alone is the only authority?
Fine let's go to your quote of Mathew 16:19. This vague text could easily be symbolic instead of literal but it is one your church uses to claim validity. Christ was contrasting Peter (Cephas the stone) with Himself the cornerStone of the church. Christ is the Foundation of the church not Peter. Peter denied his Lord three times but Christ stood the test and fulfilled His promise of redemption.
His Open Arms Welcomed Me [ Paul Thigpen}
Why I'm Catholic (Sola Scriptura leads atheist to Catholic Church)
From Calvinist to Catholic (another powerful conversion story) Rodney Beason
Good-bye To All That (Another Episcopalian gets ready to swim the Tiber)
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steenson’s Statement to the House [of Bishops: Episcopal (TEC) to Catholic]
Bp. Steenson's Letter to his clergy on his conversion to the Catholic Church
Bishop Steenson Will Become a Roman Catholic
Married man considers turn as Catholic priest
Pavarotti returns to the Catholic faith before dying
Searching For Authority (A Methodist minister finds himself surprised by Truth!)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope(Al Kresta)
The Hail Mary of a Protestant (A true story)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar(Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts (Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Rusty Tisdale (former Pentecostal)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness(Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Matt Enloe (former Baptist) [prepare to be amazed!]
THE ORTHODOX REVIVAL IN RUSSIA
Conversion Story - David Finkelstein (former Jew)
Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)
12 Reasons I Joined the Catholic Church
Conversion Story - Tom Hunt
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism: The Converts
John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
From Calvinist to Catholic
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
FORMER PENTECOSTAL RELATES MIRACLE THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
Interview with Roy Schoeman - A Jewish Convert
Let us call an end to this, shall we? I have lobbed you a softball - The change from Saturday to Sunday. It should have been easy one for an experienced person as yourself. I could have just as easily went a different route such as different popes positions on Galileo, torture, slavery, the inquisition and other such unpleasantries. I did not because I like you. I know you are sincere person. In return you did not call upon your ping list to flay me. We are even, are we not? Let us return to our corners and praise God because He is worthy of praise and worship. Amen.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As you can see, Bob, this also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is mentioned elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.
Peter denied his Lord three times but Christ stood the test and fulfilled His promise of redemption.
Still reflecting on Matthew 16:19, Peter alone was promised something else: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven". You are correct in recognizing the important symbolism of these words. In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Now, immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
More fancy footwork with words to explain and clarify away what should be abundantly clear. Christ alone is The Foundation and nothing can change that. Galatians 2:11-14 shows that Peter is still the fallible person that we all are. You can dress him up in a fancy pointy chefs hat and give him a decoder ring and he still will be a fallible sinner such as you and me. Christ alone is perfect and He alone is fit to be the Head of the church. The Gospel is simple - submission to God and repentance for our sins through the Blood of Jesus Christ. But your church has made it all complicated with rites, ceremonies ,rules and hierarchies. I do not feel the Carpenter of Nazareth would feel at home in a statuary filled cathedral.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone. Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.
Here's another gem found in Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Bob, this is the same as Matt. 15:3. There is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept).
I do not know how else to say it but that the Bible has to be the standard, and not any church made up of people who are by our very nature sinful.
Bob, look at Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally. There were no printed Bibles in the first centuries. Please bear with me on the following description of life in the early Church.
Consider that in 50AD, Imperial Rome was at the peak of its political, economic and military might - a "superpower". Romans of the 1st century were surprisingly modern - they had running water and flushing toilets in their homes. They also had social ills - crime, unemployment, slums, high taxes, political corruption, class and race divisions, pornography and prostitution. Religion for the Romans was predominantly pagan. Cults began to emerge. The old-fashioned harvest gods once worshipped with sheaves of wheat and jugs of wine degenerated steadily into fashionable sex gods to be worshipped with acts of perversion and infant sacrifice.
Between 50 and 60AD, the Apostles came. Word spread that there had arisen in distant Judea a group of Jewish wise men preaching in the name of a mysterious new deity called Christus. They were the very first "Christians" in Rome, Jewish expatriates returning to their adopted city after being converted by Peter's Spirit filled preaching at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. The Bible explicity mentions that present in the crowd that day were "visitors from Rome" (Acts 2:10). But these early Roman converts would truly have been sheep without a shepherd, returning to face the prospect of life as the only believers in a pagan metropolis of half a million souls. They probably met together in their homes for prayer - two or three gathered in Christ's name - but entirely without leadership. Several years later, however, when Paul addressed his most profound epistle to "all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints", we find a much different situation.
Written about 57AD, the Epistle to the Romans speaks to a church large and well organized, consisting of several house congregations knit together in complete unity under the oversight of seasoned elders (presbyters). Who accomplished this work? It was Peter who preached orally.
Elsewhere in Rome, another person had also been working tirelessly among God's lost sheep. Like Peter, his given name was Simon. To most Roman minds, he was much like Peter. Both men refered to themselves as "apostles". Both had been associated with miracles. Both had come to Rome preaching in the name of Jesus the Nazarene. Though Simon of Gitto is technically a Samaritan rather than a Jew, the majority of the pagans regard him as simply another Semitic prophet from the same part of the world. Simon of Gitto was Simon Magus, founder of the ancient heresy called Gnosticism. Former disciple of Philip the evangelist, Simon apostatized to become the first person in recorded history to teach falsehood in the holy name of Jesus. He was the original fulfillment of Matthew 7:15.
The Gnostics passed themselves off as Christians and the average Roman could not tell the difference. Right from the start of Christianity, Satan was already muddying the waters. If the shepherds look like angels, how were the sheep to choose between them? How on earth could the common Roman in 50AD - only just hearing of Jesus for the first time - suppose to know which are His true disciples and which the false?
From our position in time, we might casually imagine that these early believers had only to pull out their pocket New Testaments. In reality, this was completely impossible because the New Testament did not yet exist. It is a neglected fact and often forgotten that the Church had been preaching the gospel, saving souls and founding congregations all over the Near East for at least 10 years before a single line of the NT was written. Back then, a new believer might possibly have been introduced to Matthew's Gospel and perhaps one or two letters from Paul - but even these would have been circulating loose as individual works. Over 300 years would have to pass before they ever came to be bound together in one authoritative canon.
The Holy Spirit was present in the early Church to guide genuine believers into all truth. Yet no Orthodox Christian today believes that the Spirit does this guiding independently of the Bible. We rightly insist that individuals must test their private spiritual insights against the written Word of God. Who or what filled this crucial role in the first century Church, where the Word of God for Christians would not be fully known for literally centuries? What kept the Body of Christ from collapsing into doctrinal chaos in a world where most believers lived their entire lives without even knowing what the New Testament was?
The answer is deceptively simple but for those in the first century, it would have been the plainest fact about the matter:
"This man was with Jesus of Nazareth." (Matthew 26:71)
In short, Jesus' public ministry had been just that - public. And though He was much more than a mere rabbi, the "Rabbi" Jesus did follow the established rabbinical practice of the day by publicly committing His teaching to disciples. Just as Paul of Tarsus had been personally discipled by the great Pharisee Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), so Peter of Galilee, along with the rest of the 12 had been personally discipled by Christ.
Back in the 1st century, the first question the public asked about any workman - butcher, baker or Hebrew theologian - was the same: Who had been his master? If the founder had gone on, people wanted to know which men were carrying on his traditions. A pagan Roman had simply to pose the traditional question: Which men had been with Jesus? That fact alone, once established, banished all doubts. Summarizing this understanding in the early Church, Tertullian wrote the following simple but penetrating words:
"If the Lord Jesus Christ sent the Apstles to preach, no others ought to be received except those appointed by Christ: For no one knows the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son gives a revelation (Mt 11:27). Nor does it seem that the Son has given revelation to any others than the Apostles, whom He sent forth to preach what He had revealed to them"
This claim could not be made by Simon and his Gnostics. To counterract this fact, we know from Irenaeus that Simon and his followers referred to represent themselves as "improvers of the apostles". After all, were these simple fishermen not plain, unlettered peasants? Would it be so surprising if such men had been unable to grasp fully the subtleties of their Teacher's message? Accordingly, the Gnostics maintained that the Galileans had "preached before they possessed perfect knowledge" and "intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Savior". They themselves, on the other had, were "purer and more intelligent" and had "discovered more than the apostles", rescuing "the unadulterated truth" that had eluded these ignorant and carnal Jews.
Bob, this posting has run longer than I would have preferred but I hope it helps you to envision what life was like during the early years of the Church. You commented:
When we eliminate the scriptures as our litmus test we have given the devil an opportunity to entice us to partake of the forbidden fruit.
How does that apply to these first century christians who, according to Mark 3:14; 16:15, following the command of our Lord to preach the Gospel. Jesus gave no commandment to the apostles to write, and gave them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?
Thank you for taking the time and patience to read through this very abbreviated account of the early Church. The first converts were brutally persecuted for their faith - a faith orally communicated - by being covered with tar and turned into human torches to light the Coliseum. They went to their deaths chanting hymns - all based on oral Tradition.
This wasn't communion. "Breaking bread" was and is a common term in King James time for eating a meal together.
In addition, this occurred on a Saturday night, not a Sunday. The phrase translated "first day of the week" is literally the "first of the sabbaths" or perhaps the "first sabbath". It could indicate the first of the sabbaths counted toward Pentecost between the days of unleavened bread or simply denote that they met on the sabbath. At any rate, when the sun went down on Saturday, a new "day" began. This was a meal, a potluck if you will, that they were eating together.
1Co 16:1 - 2 Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints: as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week, let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him: that when I come, the collections be not then to be made.
This is a one time occurrence. A special collection take up probably for the saints in Jerusalem as referenced here:
Rom 15:26 For Macedonia and Achaia thought it good to make certain gifts to the poor of the saints in Jerusalem.
It doesn't say that they gathered together, only that they individually were supposed to gather together foodstuffs, supplies and whatnot so it would be ready when Paul arrived.
If you want to use scripture as an example of believers gathering together, then the overwhelming NT evidence is that they gathered on the sabbath day:
(Act 13:14) But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
(Act 13:27) For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
(Act 13:42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
(Act 13:44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
(Act 15:21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
(Act 16:13) And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
(Act 17:2) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,
(Act 18:4) And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Not to mention the example set by our Lord himself. "Christians" are those who follow Christ, imitate him. Paul said:
1Co 11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.(NASB)
Paul kept the sabbath, Christ kept the sabbath. It's a commandment of the Lord, one of the ten commandments.
The Bereans listened with open minds to Paul. The Bereans then used scripture to check to see if the teachings they heard matched up with scripture. If it did THEN they believed. They confirmed the teachings of Paul using scripture. That's honorable and correct.
I know somebody else mentioned it, but Christ was wrathful against the Jews of his day because they instituted non scriptural ORAL traditions and elevated them to the place of scripture:
Mar 7:7 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
Mar 7:8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
This applied perfectly to Christ's situation then and can be equally applied today, especially to the sabbath commandment.
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.