Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?

[Jackson123]

Denial of Sola Scriptura. Acceptance of Sola ecclessia .
This is the heart of the matter. All the RCC distinctives are secondary. I have locked horns with many a RCC apologist in my time and they aren’t wrong to point to authority as the primary issue. As a confessional Protestant Anglican my sole infallible source of faith and practice are the God-breathed Scriptures. That’s what the word inspired means.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV): 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Rome elevates an unwritten tradition to the level of infallibility in addition to Scripture. And there is the problem. As an Anglican I don’t deny tradition. Rather I deny that tradition is God Breathed. θεόπνευστος. Rome then has the problem of determining what tradition is θεόπνευστος and what is not. Which makes the Church functionally the sole source of doctrine and faith. And that friend is the real problem. Everything else we find objectionable flows from this error. It is also the error that liberal Protestantism suffers from. Meaning they too deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but have no other means to anchor them in the Faith.

Yep,
I am not expert in law, but some time I read news paper about how Indonesian congress make law.

It seem they have constitution, as basic of law. That is the foundation of the law, and it is in writing, not just memory.

Let say congress want to rule new law about presidential election.

Say congressman A propose a new law :
Only man have the right to vote.

People will protest it because the constitution guaranty equality for every citizen.

Bible is our constitution,

Bible say not to believebother gospel, than catholic make a doctrine that not agree or not in the constitution, like pope infabillity, purgatory etc

How can we say catholic is Christian?
How we able to believe bible and catholic in the same time?

What my honest believe is, catholic try to make a doctrine in such way so she can enthrone pope as the law maker.
Replace bible, replace God, subtitute God or antichrist

 

[Athanasius377]

Yep,
I am not expert in law, but some time I read news paper about how Indonesian congress make law.

It seem they have constitution, as basic of law. That is the foundation of the law, and it is in writing, not just memory.

Let say congress want to rule new law about presidential election.

Say congressman A propose a new law :
Only man have the right to vote.

People will protest it because the constitution guaranty equality for every citizen.

Bible is our constitution,

Bible say not to believebother gospel, than catholic make a doctrine that not agree or not in the constitution, like pope infabillity, purgatory etc

How can we say catholic is Christian?
How we able to believe bible and catholic in the same time?

What my honest believe is, catholic try to make a doctrine in such way so she can enthrone pope as the law maker.
Replace bible, replace God, subtitute God or antichrist

You bring up great points. First Islam and government are the same in the orthodox versions of Islam. This is not so in Christian governments. The Bible forms our understanding of our worldview and legal system. Where as Islam IS the government and THE law. In fact in Islam the Sharia has a precedence that has no equal in Christian societies. Caesar-Papism was a great error universally recognized even by Rome today. Yet recall even in the height of the inquisition it wasn’t the church that executed heretics it was the state. They were connected but not the same as in Islam. The Bible is silent on the form of government Christians should adhere to. Only that God is the ultimate authority. Cf Romans 13.

 

[Athanasius377]

RCCs are Christians because they affirm the three ecumenical creeds, the apostles, the Nicaean and the Athanasian creeds. Their error lies in the Gospel as taught by the council of Trent. Meaning works have a role in Justification.

 

[Benadam]

Faith or moral declare by pope

Pope declare not to judge LGBT. Is he speak from the chairs.
LGBT is about moral

I think that is affirming an already held belief. God is judge.

 

[Jackson123]

RCCs are Christians because they affirm the three ecumenical creeds, the apostles, the Nicaean and the Athanasian creeds. Their error lies in the Gospel as taught by the council of Trent. Meaning works have a role in Justification.

Depend on what your definition of Christian

 

[Jackson123]

I think that is affirming an already held belief. God is judge.

So you think that teaching is infallible?

 

[Jackson123]

RCCs are Christians because they affirm the three ecumenical creeds, the apostles, the Nicaean and the Athanasian creeds. Their error lies in the Gospel as taught by the council of Trent. Meaning works have a role in Justification.

This is what I believe.

If I believe bible teaching than I am Christian. Apostle creed, etc is not violate bible teaching as a constitution.

But if I believe in the Bible + Quran, than I am not a Christian.

Catholic agree with apostle creed etc, but she also teach this
Ccc 841
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

To me it make her not Christian.
I believe she not promote Christian, all she does is build a foundation for one world government. She need support from big religion like Muslim that why she issue ccc 841.

 

[Lion222]

Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Faith?
No, not at all.
The Roman Catholic Church was the new kid on the block.
Jesus was a Jew, Judaism was the first Christian faith.
The first Christian faith is the faith of Abraham.
The father of all those who have faith.

 

[Benadam]

So you think that teaching is infallible?

Yes.

 

[Jackson123]

Yes.

Still, unless he teaches ex cathedra it doesn't carry that kind of weight. I don't think it's happened very often if at all during my lifetime.
His political opinion, theological opinion, stuff like that is just opinion
Grace and Peace

It seem you change
You was say when Pope Francis say not to judge LGBT you believe it is not speak from the chair so not infallible

Than you say yes it is infallible

 

[Jackson123]

Yes.

If one ask you: "is adultery sin?.

What is your answer?
Chose one.
A. Yes it is

B. I am not judge

 

[Athanasius377]

Depend on what your definition of Christian

According to the creeds. Outside that it’s up to The Lord to decide.

This is what I believe.

If I believe bible teaching than I am Christian. Apostle creed, etc is not violate bible teaching as a constitution.

But if I believe in the Bible + Quran, than I am not a Christian.

Catholic agree with apostle creed etc, but she also teach this
Ccc 841
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

To me it make her not Christian.
I believe she not promote Christian, all she does is build a foundation for one world government. She need support from big religion like Muslim that why she issue ccc 841.

Again it’s denial of Sola Scriptura. But is that teaching a denial of the definitional assertion of Christianity? I would answer no. Is Rome being inconsistent with her stated belief? Yes. I am unwilling to make definitional the side issues whilst important do not redefine the faith. We can say they are heterodox, or just say they are in serious error. As opposed to one denying the Trinity which seems to go unoticed or at least unchallenged. All the while folks are having a field day about Rome. There is something really off about priorities in this thread. Though to be fair a few people caught it.

 

[Jackson123]

According to the creeds. Outside that it’s up to The Lord to decide.


Again it’s denial of Sola Scriptura. But is that teaching a denial of the definitional assertion of Christianity? I would answer no. Is Rome being inconsistent with her stated belief? Yes. I am unwilling to make definitional the side issues whilst important do not redefine the faith. We can say they are heterodox, or just say they are in serious error. As opposed to one denying the Trinity which seems to go unoticed or at least unchallenged. All the while folks are having a field day about Rome. There is something really off about priorities in this thread. Though to be fair a few people caught it.

This Is my take on

1. The fact that Muslim god teach Jesus not god, mean Muslim god is not Christian god.
2. To say Muslim share the same god with catholic ( together with us honor the one merciful God) mean catholic honor Muslim god.
Christian not worship Muslim god, so catholic not christian

 

[Athanasius377]

This Is my take on

1. The fact that Muslim god teach Jesus not god, mean Muslim god is not Christian god.
2. To say Muslim share the same god with catholic ( together with us honor the one merciful God) mean catholic honor Muslim god.
Christian not worship Muslim god, so catholic not christian

That sounds an awful lot like the no true Scotsman fallacy. Is Rome wrong in her assertion. Yes. When I read that section of the CCC I think that is more wishful thinking than doctrine. It isn’t historical and many a RCC reject that teaching. You are going to find the RCC is a really big tent where folks hold contrary opinions and teach different things. Prior to Vatican II, Rome teaches what you and I believe. After, well that’s when it starts to get muddy. I would still assert Rome is Christian but not very consistent because her source of doctrine isn’t consistent.
Recall just about every pope since Pious XII (died 1958?). has been fairly liberal. Even Benedict XVI was known as a liberal theologian at the time of the second Vatican council. He’s just not nearly as liberal as Francis.

 

[Jackson123]

That sounds an awful lot like the no true Scotsman fallacy. Is Rome wrong in her assertion. Yes. When I read that section of the CCC I think that is more wishful thinking than doctrine. It isn’t historical and many a RCC reject that teaching. You are going to find the RCC is a really big tent where folks hold contrary opinions and teach different things. Prior to Vatican II, Rome teaches what you and I believe. After, well that’s when it starts to get muddy. I would still assert Rome is Christian but not very consistent because her source of doctrine isn’t consistent.
Recall just about every pope since Pious XII (died 1958?). has been fairly liberal. Even Benedict XVI was known as a liberal theologian at the time of the second Vatican council. He’s just not nearly as liberal as Francis.

Like I say, Christian or Christ follower require follow Christ teaching and Christ teaching is bible.
If one put another source than Christ teaching, than I am not consider it as Christian.

The diety of Jesus is first priority in Christianity.
It will serious violation For one to honor a god that deny the diety of Jesus.
Also after I read a lot of article where popes promote one world government I believe this religion work for lucifer.

One world government is satanic government as discribe in rev 13.

Ccc is official catholic belief. And I believe this ccc is a tool to embrace Islam.
I don't believe Christian promote lucifer government.

 

[Lion222]

According to the creeds. Outside that it’s up to The Lord to decide.


Again it’s denial of Sola Scriptura. But is that teaching a denial of the definitional assertion of Christianity? I would answer no. Is Rome being inconsistent with her stated belief? Yes. I am unwilling to make definition the side issues whilst important do not redefine the faith. We can say they are heterodox, or just say they are in serious error. As opposed to one denying the Trinity which seems to go unoticed or at least unchallenged. All the while folks are having a field day about Rome. There is something really off about priorities in this thread. Though to be fair a few people caught it.

I would say that creeds like the Trinity are in denial of Sola Scriptura.
Strangely enough Sola Scriptura is in denial of Sola Scriptura itself being an extra biblical creed held to rather then the written word of God.

The debate during the creation of the trinity was that is was not the word of God itself being used and that was wrong, they did not want to get away from the word. But they could not use scripture to condemn their enemies teachings with success so they did it anyway. Truth be said they should have just left them to God but Rome and the emperor was behind it all.
The orthodox got a concession their number to great to oppress and their own version of the trinity (bet most did not know that) and most everyone else ended up exiled or dead till it was reversed in the power struggle then the other side was exiled and killed and then reversed again. It is all just one shameful godless stain on the behavior of the so called Church that was nothing like Christ.

It all just says one things to me. When someone is arrogant enough to think the word of God is insufficient sin and shame, division and persecution soon follow. Those who want to teach the doctrines (Creeds) of men as the word of God (or greater then) their religion is worthless. At least that is what the BIBLE says.

 

[Athanasius377]

I would say that creeds like the Trinity are in denial of Sola Scriptura.
Strangely enough Sola Scriptura is in denial of Sola Scriptura itself being an extra biblical creed held to rather then the written word of God.

Creeds are not a violation of Sola Scriptura. Creeds summarize belief, but they depend Scripture, and they are not on the same level as scripture. Sola Scriptura is not the denial of other sources of the authority, rather it is the assertion that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. All legitimate sources of authority get their authority from Scripture. Most importantly, belief in the Trinity is not a violation of scripture either. In fact, it is the nothing less than the revelation of God from Genesis 1:1 to the book of maps. And it is not negotiable for Christians.

The debate during the creation of the trinity was that is was not the word of God itself being used and that was wrong, they did not want to get away from the word. But they could not use scripture to condemn their enemies teachings with success so they did it anyway. Truth be said they should have just left them to God but Rome and the emperor was behind it all.
The orthodox got a concession their number to great to oppress and their own version of the trinity (bet most did not know that) and most everyone else ended up exiled or dead till it was reversed in the power struggle then the other side was exiled and killed and then reversed again. It is all just one shameful godless stain on the behavior of the so called Church that was nothing like Christ.

What are you talking about, Nicaea I? If you are then you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me ask you outright, do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes or no.

It all just says one things to me. When someone is arrogant enough to think the word of God is insufficient sin and shame, division and persecution soon follow. Those who want to teach the doctrines (Creeds) of men as the word of God (or greater then) their religion is worthless. At least that is what the BIBLE says.

In my experience the most pious sounding bibliobabble comes from some of the most arrogant folks of all. Especially when they think they know more that the accumulated wisdom from 2000 years of church history.

 

[Jackson123]

Apostle creed.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

 

[Lion222]

Creeds are not a violation of Sola Scriptura. Creeds summarize belief, but they depend Scripture, and they are not on the same level as scripture. Sola Scriptura is not the denial of other sources of the authority, rather it is the assertion that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. All legitimate sources of authority get their authority from Scripture. Most importantly, belief in the Trinity is not a violation of scripture either. In fact, it is the nothing less than the revelation of God from Genesis 1:1 to the book of maps. And it is not negotiable for Christians.

I am partly joking, but then again no.
You do know what Sola Scriptura means right?
scripture alone.
Creeds are not scripture.
For example in scripture
jesus says "The father is greater then I"
Jesus directly refutes equality, yet because of the confusion of the trinity many people say they are equal.
While the bible is sufficient in its own right to convey the truth.

What are you talking about, Nicaea I? If you are then you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me ask you outright, do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes or no.

Which version of the trinity are you talking about?


I affirm the word of God, how about you?
It statement regarding the context of creation as the greater context for us to understand Gods nature and his word.
The trinity and other creeds are just men reject God chosen way to communicate His truth.
IN the case of the Trinity they could not refute their opposition just using scripture so they in their inability to handle the word of God took it on themselves to make up their own doctrine and teach it as if it was the word of God.
Now my bible says that those who do that, their religion is worthless.
So rather the questions someone do they believe the bible when it says xyz.
People say to you believe the trinity as a replacement for the above question as if it could replace the word of God.

IF you go by Gods word the relationship between the Father and Son and Holy Spirit goes like this:
A Father God being just like any other father because that is why God made fathers.
A Son of God being just like any other son because that is why God made sons.
The Spirit has what makes Fathers what they are and is where sons come from and what makes them like their fathers.
In the physical that would be sperm (which has a life of its own) which carries ones DNA basically ones physical nature.
now we as Children of God are brother and sisters of our brother and Lord and Gods first born Jesus the Christ.
We are conceived by the seed of God AKA the Holy Spirit.
How great a salvation.
Behold what manner of love the father has given unto us...

The real problem with the trinity is that is stops at three.
Where Fathers can have many sons and daughters
Still the lord over the house is always the first born, biblical speaking. which would be Christ Jesus.

I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one--as you are in me, Father,
and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe - john 17:21

 

[nancboo]

From my limited associating with Catholics, I have concluded that most are very good people that have been brained washed so as to believe a false doctrine and worship the pope.
Very sad indeed.

Catholics don't worship the pope. We honor him because we believe each pope is part of what we calls the apostolic succession, an unbroken line back to Peter.

Also, we don't worship Mary. We have a 'devotion' to her that is greater than our devotion to any of the other saints of the Church. we worship and give adoration only to God. Please do not tell me I have been brainwashed. That's a little judgmental. God bless.