As usual, all such comments are answered in the video. Roman Catholics may not like to hear it, and they may pretend that my arguments aren't valid, but there's no need to repeat what's said on the video. It's plenty clear.
......all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world ; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” [4]- Irenaeus..
If the Superior Church, which Rome, to which all churches must agree was corrupted then it is like saying the gates of hell triumphed over the Church of Christ in Mathew 16:18
@topheronline Thank you for your opinion, but there's nothing to justify that opinion. Why in the world would we think that "the gates of hell won't prevail against the church" means that the church in Rome would never fall? That doesn't even make sense. Have you ever read Revelation 2 and 3? The fall of individual churches has nothing to do with Matt 16:18
The individual churches in Revelation are not "SUPERIOR churches"... Only Rome is the superior church, to which all churches, must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world...
to tell me that Rome fell into apostasy is like telling me ,the head was cut off and now we are left with a "dead body"... or shall I say "DEAD CHURCHES"...
@topheronline Wow. You don't think Rome fell into apostasy??? At one point they didn't even have a bishop! The "pope" lived in Avignon for about 70 years!!! I was raised Catholic my friend. Someone needs to tell you that you've been left with almost exclusively dead churches. You should have noticed that on your own.
Hopefully, being Evangelical means being Biblical, and Evangelicals will adapt to the PRE-NICENE fathers where they're all in agreement.
However, as I pointed out, there's nothing pre-Nicene about praying to saints, and I doubt any evangelical is going to be convinced by the couple vague Scripture references you gave.
As a fellow Evangelical, I have a few questions/points:
1) Concerning Apostolic Tradition and Succession, though you might have shown that there is no Papal Supremacy, I still think you somehow validated the Orthodox argument for succession.
2) Additionally, how do you reconcile Evangelical Christianity with certain beliefs of the Church Fathers, such as the real presence in communion and saint intercession?
1. Well, I don't think I validated the Orthodox argument for succession. 2,000 years is a long time to argue that truth has been preserved by being passed by voice from person to person.
2. I don't worry too much about reconciling Evangelical Christianity with anything. Mostly, it's a horrible failure. See, for example, Ronald Sider's _The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience_. More in next comment ...
I was trying to make the same point that the Church Fathers do seem to believe in it. Though I categorically reject some of the direct petitioning to saints to help out, the mere request for prayers might indeed be plausible to reason, considering that the Bible does A) seem to assert that the Triumphant Church in heaven hears us and is aware of what is happening, and B) seem to vaguely refer to it in Revelation 5:8.
But again, I was more concerned with finding how to reconcile the differences.
@Reazzurro90 Okay, to finish # 2, my hope is that Evangelical means they want to be Biblical. In which case they need to acknowledge real presence in communion. And why not? Luther and Calvin did.
As far as saint intercession, though, I don't think that Biblical or historical. I know the pre-Nicene church was prone to praying for the departed, though that's barely mentioned, but they sure didn't ask departed saints to pray for them. That belongs to 4th century hero worship.
Evangelicalism has been an odd sect to say the least, with the exception of Pentecostalism-Charismatics, which have been a blessing and have transcended all Christian denominations.
With regards to the real presence, it doesn't necessarily bother me, it was more to emphasize the point (because I thought you stated you were Evangelical) that Church Fathers seem to contradict modern Evangelical beliefs. Just a small correction - Calvin did not believe in the real presence. With intercession,....
Calvin wrote: "The symbol of the body assures us of the donation of the invisible substance, so that in receiving the sign we receive the thing itself."
So he at least considered the Lord's Supper more than symbolic.
It's impertinent, in my opinion, to just state things without offering any evidence for it, as you did.
I don't agree with you on the Pentecostal-Charismatics, by the way, but that's off topic.
Finally, hockeyrulesus, your comments all avoid the issues brought up in my video. The things I say in my video are accurate and undeniable. Your comments bring up new and different issues that are not difficult to answer, but they dodge the issue I address in my video, which is the RCC's incorrect understanding of apostolic succession.
I don't think I avoided your view, I just stated the Catholic / Orthodox veiw. My question to you is, every Christian Schism has been recorded by history from the gnostics to the Protestant reforms, Where is the Schism from , so called, True Christianity to Roman Catholicism? Someone must've held on to the True Beliefs of the Apostles and recorded it. When and where can we find these writings? You say 313, right? Would love to read of it. Talk to you soon.
I think St Clement, Bishop of Rome is clear "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate(bishop). For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when they should die, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." 1Clement of Rome96AD. These orders come from Christ.
@hockeyrulesus Not sure what this has to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
It would be great if the church at Rome had continued to this day like it was in the first century, the bishops and elders appointing "approved men" as their successors.
St Justin Martyr 150AD on the Eucharist " We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teachings to be true.....for not as common bread nor common drink do we recieve these,......the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus." What Church still follows this teaching of Christ?
So, since we (the Catholic Church), had no authority, by what authority did we decide the Cannon of the Bible? Yes, there have been sinful Popes, but that does not negate the Church founded by Christ, nor does the fact that Jesus choose a sinful Apostle, Judas, negate the authority of preciding Apostles.
The "canon" should never have been set, and it is tied to all sorts of false beliefs about the Bible. Even the RCC left the issue of the Apocrypha undecided until the council of Trent in the 16th century. Your canon is different from the Orthodox canon, or do you reject their authority, too, which is better founded than the pope's?
The early churches had no set canon, and the setting of the canon in the 16th century by the RCC is meaningless.
The Biblical text used by the Orthodox includes the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament. It includes the seven Deuterocanonical Books, which are generally rejected by Protestants. This comment is from Wikipedia the free online Encyclopedia. Where did you get your info? The Orthodox broke from Rome in 1054AD, well after the council of Hippo 393AD. They beleive the same doctrine handed down from the Apostles as the Catholic Church.
@hockeyrulesus I got my info on the Orthodox canon from lots of places. The Greek LXX does indeed include the 7 "apocryphal" books that are in the RC Bible. It also includes 3rd and 4th Maccabees, 2nd Esdras, and it may include others. Their canon does not match yours.
Those 7 apocryphal books weren't officially approved by the RCC till the Council of Trent in 1540-something.
Wikipedia states it like this; "The council of Trent issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies and defined Church teachings in the areas of Scripture and Tradition."
The Council of Trent was ordered, because of the Protestant Reform, it confirmed what was already Bible Canon and reaffirmed the Nicean Creed. The canon of the Bible never changed since the Council of Hippo393AD, but was reaffirmed many times.
Okay, that's the last message of yours I'm approving because it's a waste of time to talk to someone like you.
I told you that Augustine of Hippo doesn't seem to know about the council of Hippo affirming the canon, even though he became bishop of Hippo just 2 years after 393.
You, being a person careless about truth, have no comment on that nor did you research it. You are a waste of time.
I was trying to have a logical debate and it seems you're getting heated. I'm getting my info from public, non denominational sources, so as to be open minded. If you're going to sway me to your opinion, just show me where to find the proof. I see the points you're making, I'm just not finding the documentation when I try to look it up.
For example, I read your point about Augustine and looked it up on Wikipedia, and got this; [ The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.]
As usual, all such comments are answered in the video. Roman Catholics may not like to hear it, and they may pretend that my arguments aren't valid, but there's no need to repeat what's said on the video. It's plenty clear.
shammahbn 1 year ago
Irenaeus tells us to agree and be in harmony with Rome...
Shammahbn tells us that Rome is corrupted and we should not anymore follow Rome..
Irenaeus vs. Shammahbn... ??
I would rather side with Irenaeus... :)
topheronline 1 year ago
......all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world ; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” [4]- Irenaeus..
If the Superior Church, which Rome, to which all churches must agree was corrupted then it is like saying the gates of hell triumphed over the Church of Christ in Mathew 16:18
topheronline 1 year ago
@topheronline Thank you for your opinion, but there's nothing to justify that opinion. Why in the world would we think that "the gates of hell won't prevail against the church" means that the church in Rome would never fall? That doesn't even make sense. Have you ever read Revelation 2 and 3? The fall of individual churches has nothing to do with Matt 16:18
shammahbn 1 year ago
@shammahbn
The individual churches in Revelation are not "SUPERIOR churches"... Only Rome is the superior church, to which all churches, must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world...
to tell me that Rome fell into apostasy is like telling me ,the head was cut off and now we are left with a "dead body"... or shall I say "DEAD CHURCHES"...
topheronline 1 year ago
@topheronline Wow. You don't think Rome fell into apostasy??? At one point they didn't even have a bishop! The "pope" lived in Avignon for about 70 years!!! I was raised Catholic my friend. Someone needs to tell you that you've been left with almost exclusively dead churches. You should have noticed that on your own.
shammahbn 1 year ago
Between what the Fathers seem to clearly teach, and what Protestantism seems to state.
Reazzurro90 2 years ago
Hopefully, being Evangelical means being Biblical, and Evangelicals will adapt to the PRE-NICENE fathers where they're all in agreement.
However, as I pointed out, there's nothing pre-Nicene about praying to saints, and I doubt any evangelical is going to be convinced by the couple vague Scripture references you gave.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Dear Shammahbn,
As a fellow Evangelical, I have a few questions/points:
1) Concerning Apostolic Tradition and Succession, though you might have shown that there is no Papal Supremacy, I still think you somehow validated the Orthodox argument for succession.
2) Additionally, how do you reconcile Evangelical Christianity with certain beliefs of the Church Fathers, such as the real presence in communion and saint intercession?
Thank you.
Reazzurro90 2 years ago
@Reazzurro90 Hi, reazzurro.
1. Well, I don't think I validated the Orthodox argument for succession. 2,000 years is a long time to argue that truth has been preserved by being passed by voice from person to person.
2. I don't worry too much about reconciling Evangelical Christianity with anything. Mostly, it's a horrible failure. See, for example, Ronald Sider's _The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience_. More in next comment ...
shammahbn 2 years ago
I was trying to make the same point that the Church Fathers do seem to believe in it. Though I categorically reject some of the direct petitioning to saints to help out, the mere request for prayers might indeed be plausible to reason, considering that the Bible does A) seem to assert that the Triumphant Church in heaven hears us and is aware of what is happening, and B) seem to vaguely refer to it in Revelation 5:8.
But again, I was more concerned with finding how to reconcile the differences.
Reazzurro90 2 years ago
@Reazzurro90 Okay, to finish # 2, my hope is that Evangelical means they want to be Biblical. In which case they need to acknowledge real presence in communion. And why not? Luther and Calvin did.
As far as saint intercession, though, I don't think that Biblical or historical. I know the pre-Nicene church was prone to praying for the departed, though that's barely mentioned, but they sure didn't ask departed saints to pray for them. That belongs to 4th century hero worship.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Evangelicalism has been an odd sect to say the least, with the exception of Pentecostalism-Charismatics, which have been a blessing and have transcended all Christian denominations.
With regards to the real presence, it doesn't necessarily bother me, it was more to emphasize the point (because I thought you stated you were Evangelical) that Church Fathers seem to contradict modern Evangelical beliefs. Just a small correction - Calvin did not believe in the real presence. With intercession,....
Reazzurro90 2 years ago
Calvin wrote: "The symbol of the body assures us of the donation of the invisible substance, so that in receiving the sign we receive the thing itself."
So he at least considered the Lord's Supper more than symbolic.
It's impertinent, in my opinion, to just state things without offering any evidence for it, as you did.
I don't agree with you on the Pentecostal-Charismatics, by the way, but that's off topic.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Finally, hockeyrulesus, your comments all avoid the issues brought up in my video. The things I say in my video are accurate and undeniable. Your comments bring up new and different issues that are not difficult to answer, but they dodge the issue I address in my video, which is the RCC's incorrect understanding of apostolic succession.
shammahbn 2 years ago
I don't think I avoided your view, I just stated the Catholic / Orthodox veiw. My question to you is, every Christian Schism has been recorded by history from the gnostics to the Protestant reforms, Where is the Schism from , so called, True Christianity to Roman Catholicism? Someone must've held on to the True Beliefs of the Apostles and recorded it. When and where can we find these writings? You say 313, right? Would love to read of it. Talk to you soon.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
I think St Clement, Bishop of Rome is clear "Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate(bishop). For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when they should die, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." 1Clement of Rome96AD. These orders come from Christ.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
@hockeyrulesus Not sure what this has to do with the Roman Catholic Church.
It would be great if the church at Rome had continued to this day like it was in the first century, the bishops and elders appointing "approved men" as their successors.
It didn't happen.
shammahbn 2 years ago
St Justin Martyr 150AD on the Eucharist " We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teachings to be true.....for not as common bread nor common drink do we recieve these,......the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus." What Church still follows this teaching of Christ?
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
So, since we (the Catholic Church), had no authority, by what authority did we decide the Cannon of the Bible? Yes, there have been sinful Popes, but that does not negate the Church founded by Christ, nor does the fact that Jesus choose a sinful Apostle, Judas, negate the authority of preciding Apostles.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
The "canon" should never have been set, and it is tied to all sorts of false beliefs about the Bible. Even the RCC left the issue of the Apocrypha undecided until the council of Trent in the 16th century. Your canon is different from the Orthodox canon, or do you reject their authority, too, which is better founded than the pope's?
The early churches had no set canon, and the setting of the canon in the 16th century by the RCC is meaningless.
shammahbn 2 years ago
The Biblical text used by the Orthodox includes the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament. It includes the seven Deuterocanonical Books, which are generally rejected by Protestants. This comment is from Wikipedia the free online Encyclopedia. Where did you get your info? The Orthodox broke from Rome in 1054AD, well after the council of Hippo 393AD. They beleive the same doctrine handed down from the Apostles as the Catholic Church.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
@hockeyrulesus I got my info on the Orthodox canon from lots of places. The Greek LXX does indeed include the 7 "apocryphal" books that are in the RC Bible. It also includes 3rd and 4th Maccabees, 2nd Esdras, and it may include others. Their canon does not match yours.
Those 7 apocryphal books weren't officially approved by the RCC till the Council of Trent in 1540-something.
shammahbn 2 years ago
Wikipedia states it like this; "The council of Trent issued condemnations on what it defined as Protestant heresies and defined Church teachings in the areas of Scripture and Tradition."
The Council of Trent was ordered, because of the Protestant Reform, it confirmed what was already Bible Canon and reaffirmed the Nicean Creed. The canon of the Bible never changed since the Council of Hippo393AD, but was reaffirmed many times.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
Okay, that's the last message of yours I'm approving because it's a waste of time to talk to someone like you.
I told you that Augustine of Hippo doesn't seem to know about the council of Hippo affirming the canon, even though he became bishop of Hippo just 2 years after 393.
You, being a person careless about truth, have no comment on that nor did you research it. You are a waste of time.
shammahbn 2 years ago
I was trying to have a logical debate and it seems you're getting heated. I'm getting my info from public, non denominational sources, so as to be open minded. If you're going to sway me to your opinion, just show me where to find the proof. I see the points you're making, I'm just not finding the documentation when I try to look it up.
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago
For example, I read your point about Augustine and looked it up on Wikipedia, and got this; [ The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.]
hockeyrulesus 2 years ago