Replies

“The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles “

The Church in the early to mid 4th century ( in Athanasius’s day ) believed:

1. one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
2. One Church that had AUTHORITY from Jesus to teach and must be obeyed
3. the Eucharist is the Body of Christ
4 infant baptism
all doctrines that are denied by the very person that admits the Church then was the same Church established by the Apostles!
you can’t make it up folks.

“The church, in his day, was very much STILL the church established by the Apostles“

And it was still very much the Catholic Church that survives to this day. His staunch defense of the Catholic Church, Apostolic Tradition, and the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching at a time before the Canon of the Bible was established. Here is a sample of it.

'We are proving that this view has been transmitted from father to father, but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, how many fathers can ye assign to your phrases? Not one of the understandings and wise; for all abhor you, but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning sowed you with the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy...' Athanasius, De Decretis 27 (c. A.D. 350).

Why don't you ever provide actual proof of what you contend? You know, the history of when a certain doctrine began to be taught as dogma and who approved of it? All you offer is your own opinion along with snotty remarks about other Christians. You come into a thread after nearly four hundred posts and bring up stuff that has already been discussed. Why don't you go back and get caught up? Nobody wants to repeat everything they have said because someone is too lazy to read the flow of the thread. I you really want to join the discussion, at least have a clue about what has already been hashed over. I know you bring up these same issues from thread to thread and, no matter how many people respond back with good, solid Scriptural points, you seem to act as if nobody CAN answer your questions. What's the point?

But, St. Athanasius and other Church fathers only count when it seems they sound like non Catholic Christians of undeclared or unknown denominations and can be used as proof that Catholicism is wrong and has been wrong since......well, they aren’t really sure of the exact date the Holy Spirit ceased to be her guide and protector, but anyway, yeah, at some point the Church went wrong.

Was it the Immaculate Conception declaration? Well, gee, there were already non Catholic Christians of undeclared or unknown denominations then, so before that what was the beef?

Was it the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Well, Paul sure seemed to believe in it, thought they can never admit that. No, that fallacy didn’t come about until after the reformation, right? No wait, there is evidence that it was believed before then. Hmmmmm.....oh it’s just too much to think about right now, when I am so tired and don’t really know what I believe and why I believe it. I just believe it because I’m like Catholic and what was I saying....?

Well, it happened anyway and thank God that He gave us the Bible so we would know that it happened, except for that one little thing.....the canon of Scripture came through a council of the Catholic Church.

Which all goes back to MY ORIGINAL point about the vast differences in Bible interpretation by the various Bible churches.