mailmandan,
So because I wasn't alive in the 1st century to actually be taught by the Apostles personally, I can't possibly be right about the Gospel and because someone was taught by the Apostles personally means they must correctly believe everything the Apostles taught them? I find it mystifying how easily you have bought into this flawed human logic.
How could you be. You were never given the whole Gospel. why do you think you have such a difficult time trying to deduce from a mere text which is a witness to the Truth and is not the truth. You have put all your faith in yourself to attempt to figure it out and we all have 500 years of manifestly showing that man cannot figure it out.
What I have bought into is Christ. Faith that the Gospel he gave, the entire Gospel, not just what became a text eventually, has been preserved in HIS Body. NOt by individuals, not even by bishops, but the Body which is enlivened by the Holy spirit.
A far cry from a 21st man, who was never taught the Gospel will even attempt to try to figure out what the Gospel might have been let alone meant.
Whether the 1st century or the 21st century, the Gospel has not changed. It is and always has been the "good news" of the "death, burial and resurrection of Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.. (Romans 1:16). The Gospel is not salvation through water and works. That is a "different" gospel.
YOu are correct because the Holy Spirit has preserved it unchanged within Christ's Body.
However, very little of what you say can be aligned with how the Gospel has always been understood, believed, practiced without change. Your individual interpretation of a text can be listed with all the other hundreds of attempts to figure it out and none have yet been successful, considering that the Truth has been available.
Not according to RCC apologists. They believe that the RCC church has not changed and that the early Fathers historically believed as they believe. Should I believe the RCC? I was reading an article in "The Ex-Catholic Journal" that says some of the writings attributed to the church Fathers have been found to be forgeries, while others have been taken out of context. Doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the papacy, purgatory and transubstantiation are alleged to be supported in these early writings. I hear Roman Catholics quote the Church Fathers a lot to support their doctrines. The article went on to say that most of the copies of copies of copies of the church Fathers that we possess today were copied during the time that the Roman Catholic church controlled the flow of literature in Europe. We do not have any original copies of their writings, only copies of copies of copies. God promised to preserve His Word, but not the writings of fallible men. Should I believe the Ex-Catholic Journal? "He said, they said" does not settle the issue. The truth rests in "thus saith the Lord" not thus saith the writings of fallible men.
then you should be a Berean. Check out the RCC claims with that of the early Church. It is not difficult. If I can do it, anyone can, as everyone should.
And your fallible words surely would have less validity than those you are negating of the early Church. Those forgeries are well known and they were used to validate the Papacy before Rome split from the Church. YOu aught to read the history of the Church from the beginning, then also read the theology of the Orthodox vs the theology of the RCC and you will see vast differences between them. The RCC is nothing more that the first sola scripturist principle put into action. What the reformers thought was false tradition, went back to scripture supposedly which was the very source the Popes used to validate all the false teachings they developed in the 500 years after their split. And what developed is thousands of little popes proclaiming their infallible interpretations just like you. And amazing all are different, yet the same text.
Justification by faith is not justification by baptism. Faith is not baptism. The writings of the Fathers that I quoted are not in harmony with salvation by baptism. So which set of fallible writings should I believe?
Which is why I stated what I did. You cannot even understand the Fathers, much like you cannot understand scripture either. To understand either one you need to get rid of your presuppositions that are leading you astray.
Quoting citations that have nothing to do with baptism does not make them incongruent with baptism.
Your arguments make about as much sense as the arguments that the RCC makes in an effort to use the early Fathers to validate their doctrines and support their works based false gospel.
I don't use RCC arguements. You and they are in the same boat. The RCC uses scripture to develop new dogmas, new theories that have never been heard of before. The same is done by the sola scripturists. Establishing suppositions and then finding proof texts that might validate their premisees. It has not worked for the RCC and it won't work for the sola scripturist either.
Only the Gospel that Christ entrusted to His Body, guarded and preserved by the Holy Spirit within His Body is the True Gospel. All others are man derived interpretations and they all have changed the original Gospel.
It is time you become a Berean.
