RIGHT:
- Jesus built and established but one church (Mat. 16:18; cf. Eph. 4:4; 1:22-23).
- Denominations are not a part of the true church (Col. 1:18; 1 Cor. 1:10).
WRONG:
- The Catholic Church is the result of an apostasy from the that one church (1 Tim. 4:1-4).
- The Catholic Church is their own source of authority (2 Tim. 3:16-17; Col. 3:17).
- The Catholic Church worships through Mary, Peter, etc., (Mat. 4:10; Acts 10:26).
- The Catholic Church has a hierarchy system (Phi. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:1-5).
- The Catholic Church baptizes babies (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38).
- The Catholic Church teaches Adamic sin (Mat. 18:1-6; Eze. 18:4, 20).
- The Catholic preist recieves confession in place of God (1 Jho. 1:7-10; Jas. 5:16).
"Marking the word of God of none effect thorugh your traditions, which ye have delivered:and many such like things do ye" - Mark 7:13
20 comments:
Since the Roman Catholic Church is the apostasy foretold by the apostles it would follow that much of what passes for "Church History" is really the history of apostasy.
So too then the history Protestant Reformation Movement and all of its splinters is merely a history of the division of that apostasy.
Tracking pure NT Christianity is difficult at best and mostly impossible. It has been overshadowed if not deleted altogether.
PS.. My post above shows why only going back to scripture and not some "chain" of links back through history establishes a church's identity with Christ and the apostles.
This is the nature of the concept of restoration.
Actually history plainly teaches that Peter was the first Pope of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. He is buried beneath the church where many other of our heroes are lying in wait as well.
1 Tim 4:1-4 is completely twisted by many. Read it very closely again in context.
History cannot not teach what the Bible does not authorize.
rick
The NT of Christ recognizes only one Father...God. It also recognizes only one head of the church...Jesus.
Peter was one apostle of the 12. He could not have been the first pope for no such office exists in the church of Jesus Christ. He was also disqualified according to RCC tradition for he was married.
Historical traditioin may hold that Peter's body is buried somewhere but that proves nothing. The tomb of Jesus is empty and that is most important.
By many in the coc "tradition" like Foy Wallace believed a bishop did not have to be married. Your group is divided on that question.
Peter was the first Pope (Popejoy is not educated in history) and he WAS MARRIED. That changed with later tradition. Somethings have changed in the RCC just like they have in the c of c.
The Bible authorizes the RCC in the "universality" of the church itself.
What one man teaches does not become “church of Christ tradition”. Men can and often are wrong that is why we should not follow them but the New Testament itself.
One would certainly demonstrate his ignorance of history and sociology if he claimed that the Catholic Church is not divided. It would seem that many things of a doctrinal nature have changed in the Catholic Church over the years, once again suggesting that it is not the one true New Testament church.
A claim is just a claim until it is verified. Please educated me in biblical history – wherein in the New Testament is there any evidence that Peter was the Pope?
The Bible does not authorize the Roman Catholic Church in the "universality" of the church itself, anymore that it authorizes the Pentecostal Church in the “day” thereof.
rick
Neither Foy Wallace nor any other preacher becomes the standard for beliefs. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
Like the Bereans did to Paul all speakers must be examined in light of the text of scripture.
History is written by uninspired mere humans. As such it is liable to interpretation and labels of men.
Just because some man centuries later after the RCC came into existence and established the position of pope, does not mean that Peter was the first one.
Popejoy says that because many things of a doctrinal nature changed in the RCC ...that lends itself to suggest the RCC is not the true church.
You want to have it both ways Popejoy. The c o c has changed many of its doctrinal beliefs.
When someone corners you guys you dismiss it but you try and corner others the same way. The c o c quotes Wallace all day long. I bet you won't call him a false teacher on this website, but he taught error on the marriage and divorce question according to the position you guys now hold.
The leadership of the RCC... popes, bishops, etc. claim the authority to speak for God, that their traditions and interpretations are equal to the scriptures themselves. And yet their positions and interpretations have changed.
Foy Wallace never claimed to be pope. No one looks to him as such either.
Individual beliefs and individual congregational practices do not overturn what the scriptures explicitly teach.
Some things are mistakes. Some things are damnable error.
It does not lend itself – it outright demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church is without the authority to exist. It is founded upon and continues to exist because of false teachers.
The church of Christ, divinely speaking, has not changed one iota of doctrine in the last 2000 years. What men may teach will not alter her divine beauty in doctrine.
I have never known of anyone who quoted Wallace, McGarvey or Woods as if they were the authority in the church. Even Paul quoted the poets of the Cretans (Tit. 1:12) but then also added, “This witness is true” (v. 13).
rick
Rick,
How can you know for sure that the cofc has not changed one iota of doctrine in the last 2000 years? Have you been keeping a record of the activiy in every congregation for all those years?
Many cofc's have changed their doctrine in the last 3,5,10 and 20 years. I've seen it with my own eyes. Some have changed their doctrine on giving to children's homes & kitchens in the building, on musical instruments, divorce and remarriage, etc. It goes on and on.
j. dean said:
History is written by uninspired mere humans. As such it is liable to interpretation and labels of men.
Every english version of the scripture is uninspired. It was translated by uninspired men. To know without a doubt the true meaning of scripture. We would each need to become a Hebrew and Greek scholar. How can we trust these shcolars who translated? They are uninspired. If we do not become Hebrew and Greek scholars oursleves then we cannot truly know God's will.
There are at least 3 primary approaches to translation theory. When one uses formal equivalence and matches the original language word with a receptor language word and keeps the syntax of the parts of speech in agreement you can have an exacting translation. It is still the Word of God.
It appears that the Apostles and possible the Lord himself used the Septuagint. This is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT. They did not have a problem with it still being the Word of God.
Translation work and uninspired history are not even close to being parallel.
j. dean said
Translation work and uninspired history are not even close to being parallel.
Are you saying that there is no possibility of error in the translations of the scripture?
History as well as bible translations are written by uninspired mere humans. Both are liable to interpretation and labels of men.
Anonymous wrote:
"History as well as bible translations are written by uninspired mere humans. Both are liable to interpretation and labels of men."
===================================
The integrity of the translators as well as the integrity of the translation theory is extremely important here.
When a theory of translation involves thought for thought it is wide open for interpretation.
But a theory of translation which is word for word it is much less likely to be abused.
Multiple member teams also bring checks and balances to the work.
If one respects the vocabulary and the syntax he can render an exacting translation.
casa blanca = white house
casa = house
blanca = white
casa/house are nouns
blanca/white are adjectives
The word order is different because of language syntax; when adjusted between the original language to the receptor language you get an exact translation.
I don't know who J. Dean is but he is whippin' the snot (logically speaking) out of the liberals. If I couldn't do any better than that I would stay away from J. Dean !
I am a moderate. I would not classify myself on either side or with either person at the present time.
As someone somewhat versed in both translation theory and history, I suggest that everyone weigh j. dean's comment carefully, because they are in line with truth.
A simple historical instance will suffice. In the New Testament, congregations had a plurality of bishops, which were the same as elders (Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5-9; Acts 20:17ff). Now, what we find historically is that in the early 2nd century Ignatius began arguing in favor of having one bishop in order to preserve unity. There are two important things to note about this: first, the fact that Ignatius had to argue in favor of one bishop shows that it was not the case at that time, and second, this is completely in keeping with what would naturally happen once the last apostle died and access to truth was no longer available miraculously but was only available in written form in the Bible, which had for the most part already been recognized by this time, with a short list of exceptions.
Historically, the practices that characterize the Roman Catholic Church were condemned by the apostles and the Bible. The fact that the apostasy ended up in great numbers does not give it spiritual validation before God, nor does that provide it with any historical validation.
On the second point, while complete word for word translation is indeed impossible, it is not as hard as some people apparently believe to check the meaning of a word in its original language. The problem often comes when people who are unfamiliar with the nature of lexicons fail to recognize the difference between unaffected meaning (the word as it stands alone) and affected meaning (the word in its context). This basic principle is true: an affected meaning cannot contradict the unaffected meaning. It can only be an application of it. (I provide more extensive argumentation in my book on bible study.) Functional (dynamic) equivalence translation tends to play loose with affected meaning (and syntax, for that matter).
However, the ultimate point is this: The Roman Catholic Church must appeal to its own authority for its existence and doctrine. The church of Christ appeals to the Bible and Christ's authority for its existence and doctrine. From there, it is pretty simple to consider Matthew 16:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9; Ephesians 4:4-6; and (dare I say it?) 1 Timothy 4:1-4 in its context. Of course, we might also recommend 2 Thessalonians 2 where Paul provided prophecy of the apostasy in a fairly precise, though principled, manner.
And, let's get one thing straight, some Christians may go into apostasy today just as well as people did in the 2nd century. That really does not prove a thing. And some Christians may change their views and accept something as right that they previously thought was wrong. But they do not argue that both were right and had God's approval. That would be the realm of the Pharisees, the Roman Catholic Church, and other proponents of error.
By the way, if you do not know Kevin Rhodes you might want to - he is a fine gospel preacher and author.
He is an associate editor of Sounds Words (a monthly publication). Also check out soundwordsonline.com
He has authored three books:
(1) A Consequence of Legitimacy (Domitian’s Conflict with the Senate and the Imperial Cult’s Conflict with Christianity)
(2) How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide to Biblical Hermeneutics (A Practical Guide to Biblical Hermeneutics)
(3) Shadows of Good Things to Come (A Devotional Survey of the Pentateuch)
Check them out at xlibris.com
rick
Post a Comment