"We are not justified through ourselves, or through our own wisdom, or piety, or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning." 1 Clement 32:4
Ch. 30 of the same epistle from Clement: "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words." Note that the quote you're using is in reference to initial grace through baptism and Clement's understanding that justification is a continuing process, and not a single point in time.
@@johnbecknell1 I'm not aware that he says anything resembling "initial grace thru baptism," that sounds like an anachronistic reading of later doctrinal developments back into the text. In fact, First Clement contains no clear allusion to baptism whatsoever, as far as I know. But you are certainly right that Clement didn't regard justification as some sort of single one-off event with no further effects. Justification by faith (apart from works) is ALWAYS followed by dramatic demonstrations of God's further grace in the life of the one He justified. Those whom He declares righteous, He also makes righteous. He creates us in Christ Jesus unto good works.
@@stephenwright4973yes but don’t confuse works of the jewish law vs good works. We are saved by faith in God through works as Jesus says time and time again
If leaders present heresies, the church is obligated to expose and reject the one in error. Leaders must be men of the paper (scriptures), not men of the cloth (particular dress). The body of believers are subject to God and his standards. When his standards are abused through erroneous doctrine, the church must not be part of the error. Therefore, all Roman Catholics are obligated to denounce their sin of following men and not God.
Proud? FYI, in Scripture, God says He "hates pride." You will do well to cease listening to well-meaning but spiritually blind teachers. Trust in the Holy Bible that is the only reliable source of God's truth. Friend, don't gamble your soul on the doctrine of fallible men. Jesus said that "There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death." He refers to the second death. At least read Mt.7:21-23
@@TheBinaryWolf "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18, KJV). Muslims are extremely proud of their false religion and they outnumber Israel 6 to 1; yet in all the wars they've started, they've never beaten Israel.
Finally a direct access to the fathers of the church and their doctrine, things that still are difficult to find and obtain in form of books , films, conferences etc A special thank for those exercising such an higly utile endaviour What I need sind die griechischen und lateinischen Ausgaben und keine zeitgenössische Übersetzungen
The epistles of all the early church leaders is available in 'The Apostolic Fathers,' translated by Lightfoot and Harmer. Catholics especially need to read it, wherein nobody deemed the church to be built on Peter, nobody prayed to the dead, no bishop was called father, and none of the heresies were known before Rome, the center of Babylonian religion, replaced tge traditions of the apostles with humanistic ones. The epistles are definitely not canonical, but they evidence how apostate papal Rome became.
@@christianchaidez The most authoritative translation of the catholic (not Roman Catholic) epistles of early church leaders is available in both English and Greek by textual critics Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Harmon, titled "The Apostolic Fathers." Amazon sells this historical jewel for a modest price. Although the letters by the first, post apostolic bishops thoughout Biblical lands clearly show that the Roman Catholic heresies had not yet developed, therein the seeds of apostasy are visible to any objective reader. Of course, if papists reject the Bible, they will surely reject what the very early church held as canonical, which is the NT and nothing but the NT. If your pastor rightly follows Christ, and you follow your pastor's example, you are on the path that leads to heaven. But if you follow a priest or Pope, who go in the opposite direction, you cannot expect to arrive where Jesus waits for His followers. The Holy Bible and the Catechism are like road maps, each pointing to a different destination. We know where Jesus went...and straight and narrow is the path. All other roads, no matter how well-intended--lead to Gehenna and the eternal lake of fire. You simply cannot follow Christ and papal Rome when they are diametrically opposed. May your intellectual curiosity be profitable. May the Holy Spirit open your heart and spare you from Mt. 7:21-23.
@@TheBinaryWolf .... you are wrong in what you wrote and you will not get to the TRUTH if you believe what you wrote.... if l know what you wrote is not a right TRUTH ... then there must be a right TRUTH... IT ALL DEPENDS WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION.... who are Lightfoot and Harmer from whom do they get their TRUTH ant AUTHORITY from. Becareful who you believe.
They made a HUGE ERROR in the video. At the 1:02 mark they say Clement lived between 69-155 AD, this is WRONG. Polycarp lived between 69-155 AD. Clement 1 lived between 35-99AD. Notice in the Bible that when there are lots of people who share the same name, then there is an identifier attached to them, example Simon of Cyrene, or Mary Magdalene. But for Clement in the letter to the Phillipians, there is no identifier as Paul assumes everyone knows there is only 1 major Clement in the Church I.e. the elder in Rome. Therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Clement in Rome is the same one referred to in Paul's letter to the Phillipians.
@@PursuingDreamss What do you mean, wha about St Evodius? We don't have any mention of any 'Evodius' in the Bible nor do we have any epistles written by St. Evodius. Furthermore what does the existence of St Evodius show? Apart from showing Apostolic Succession to argue against Protestants, nothing else (that I know of). You must understand how to make arguments from a skeptics point of view. The evidence (skeptic point of view) for the existence St Evodius is much more weaker compared to St. Ignatius. It is too much to copy paste here. Have a read of the entry of St. Evodius on New Advent and then come back and ask me any further questions.
@@alisterrebelo9013 thank you for your prompt response. The reason why I ask is because Saint Ignatius of Antioch himself mentioned Evodius as the successor of John the Apostle
@@PursuingDreamss interesting, I've never heard that before. Where does St. Ignatius mention St Evodius? Notice though, that you still need to make the case for St. Ignatius first to then get to St. Evodius.
@@alisterrebelo9013 what do you mean by make the case for St Ignatius? He is declared a saint in all denominations of Christianity? I have no agendas, I was born Orthodox Christian and would just love to know the truth regarding the spread of early Christianity.
Firstly there is not any mention of Peter to have been to Rome. In the acts Paul "travelled" alone to Rome and there he met jews to state his innocence. Secondly Paul wrote a letter to the Roman church that is such a community with an elder leading person without any mention of Peter did exist years before Paul went to Rome. Thirdly in those days there had not been any priestly ministers churches were led by olders - presbyters - and the idea of surpreme controllers - episkopoi - was only developing. Lastly it was Clement who for the first time asserted that Peter had been to Rome and was martyred there obviously to polster his authority.
Since your argument is based on argument from silence, I can make an argument from silence too. John live until approximately 95AD and did not once rebuke the elder/Bishop of the Roman Church. Since he did not rebuke the traditonally held Bishops of Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Ignatius, then their testimony stands true.
@@alisterrebelo9013The term "eposkopos" at that time only ment "elder" - no priesterly nor sacramental base. Orthodox hierarchies were developped from the second century on. The authors of all the gospels are anonymous, attribution to names did occur at the end of the first century.
@@alisterrebelo9013only ignatius was Bishop of Antioc (Syria) he was a disciple of Polycarp who was Bishop of Smyrna (Turkey), ordained Bishop by the Apostle John who Polycarp was also a disciple of as stated and affirmed by Turtulian. There was division in the church do to the arian heresy until the 3rd century CE., when Emperer constantine, who ordered the council of Nicene in "Turkey" the apostles creed was formed, the word catholic in the creed is generic for universal church, not for denominations, several centuries later was the great schism seperating the church into western and eastern orthodox.
They made a HUGE ERROR in the video. At the 1:02 mark they say Clement lived between 69-155 AD, this is WRONG. Polycarp lived between 69-155 AD. Clement 1 lived between 35-99AD. Notice in the Bible that when there are lots of people who share the same name, then there is an identifier attached to them, example Simon of Cyrene, or Mary Magdalene. But for Clement in the letter to the Phillipians, there is no identifier as Paul assumes everyone knows there is only 1 major Clement in the Church I.e. the elder in Rome. Therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Clement in Rome is the same one referred to in Paul's letter to the Phillipians.
Your video needs correction on the time frame at the very least. Both Peter and Paul were executed in the early to mid 60s AD. Meaning before you state Clement would have even been born. Also, it’s generally accepted and agreed upon that clement died in 99AD. So you need to ensure this video has correct information before you try to pass yourself off as a theological resource.
@@jollybucket669 He is the leader unless you want to argue Peter wasn’t the leader of the apostles. Which he clearly was. And Peter and Paul selected Peter sucessor which is Linus who guess what is mentioned in the Bible in Paul’s letters.
There is nothing striking or significant in the whole epistle, Clement is mostly repeating what the New Testament has already said before. But Clement makes a completely bizarre statement which he uses as proof of the resurrection: “Let us consider that wonderful sign (of the resurrection) which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird he shows us the mightiness of his power to fulfill his promise?” -Clement 1, Chapter 25 and 26 Every Bible student knows that both the Old and New Testaments have numerous references to the resurrection. With the apostle Paul, especially, it is a central theme. Now I ask if it’s at all probable that anyone who was familiar with the Bible would pass by its wealth of testimony on the subject of the resurrection, and produce as proof of it only a ridiculous fable concerning the mythological Phoenix? Seriously?? Whether this epistle was written by Clement, or by somebody who lived later and who forged his name, one thing is certain, and that is, that as a book of Christian doctrine it is not worth the paper on which it is written. I’m totally at a loss to understand the reverence with which so many people regard this epistle. But I would especially ask anyone reading this to form in their minds a picture of the condition of churches that took Clement’s epistle down week after week as inspired teaching. The inevitable result of feeding upon such vapid stuff, must have been mental degeneration, and an inability to distinguish real argument from fancy.
hmmm this is indeed strange and hard allegory to understand. But your view seems a bit.... harsh. This epistle though may use a strange metaphor, but it doesn't contradict to the Christian doctrine. As I understand it, this writer, Clement or not, incorporated a fairy tale which might have been traditionally familiar to certain group of local people back then, direct it to the work of Christ. Christ (phoenix), who sent by God (as phenix the special bird from heaven), death leads to new life (worm), who bear witness of Christ (the bone) as a wonderful work of God's exact plan. If one know by heart the true doctrine, one can firmly distinguish it from heresies, nonsense or blasphemy, and this epistle is not any of them, or rather I can say the writter used a strange imagination, that's all. Imagination is part of humanity ( which gives way to creativity) , from the stories of Christ we can create many tales directly reference Him, to teach people goodness, to make people wonder and entertained with their imagination of God's glory and power.
@@HanhTran-bg2wo You’re correct that we can use stories to point to Christ, but Clement clearly states that he believes the Phoenix to be literally real, that’s the problem here. He was writing to many Christians, and they presumably take his word that the phoenix is real. Just imagine if they were doing this, they’d be open to other myths and nonsense which we see spread about during the early and middle Christian era sadly. Clement, or whoever this writer was, could have used other examples in the Bible for proof of the resurrection, such as all the fulfillment of prophecies Christ did from the Old Testament. But him believing in a literal Phoenix says a lot about his mindset unfortunately
@@karleneturco9642 well in a sense it can be real😅 just like how dragons mentioned in the bible as a metaphor for something and everywhere really, or people perceived the phoenix as they are when they saw the dinosaur bones, who know^^. In Job God mentioned Leviathan as a fire breathing creature, it remains a mystery since it never technically appears, but it exists as the bible confirms. So it’s likely there are other creatures like leviathan, including dragons/phoenix exist somewhere unknown, not related to us. Anyway, I think whether someone think it is real or not, if the information doesn’t go against the true doctrine, I don’t think it’s that big of an issue, so the powerful creature whatever it is remains a creation of God. Clement used it to reference Christ, similar fashion as how Leviathan is mentioned as a reference to God’s power. There are great mysteries and wonders of God beyond human knowledge He doesn’t reveal to us yet, and people continue to live their life regardless of knowing its existence. But it’s nothing wrong for people spending time to fascinate about them just like with other living animals or dinosaurs. Plus people that time were so busy with their life with lots of work and uncertainty, they dont have time to dwell in a creature unrelated. Like there is nothing wrong for parents tell kids about Santa Claus for them to be good kids right? I love fantasy, I do think dragon-like creatures exists, I do wonder how dragons, cherubs and angels look like, or some unknown places, but it doesn’t impact on my faith in Christ and how much I want to live for Him realistically. Regarding to something is mentally degenerative, well everything can be mentally degenerating if you obsess with them really.
I guess you read that one thing and left. Clement quotes huge vasts portions of scripture and teaches what many need to hear. The Bible has reoccurring themes, what of it? What of it, if God's people also say what has been said from the beginning? Clement was quoting the story of the bird. Perhaps it was true, perhaps he thought it was true in that day and age. We believe we went to the moon and we probably did not. Think of this before slandering another.
While making these videos, I wonder how hard it was for them to dance around fundamental issues of doctrine from the early Church fathers that this channel clearly rejects, like for example, the Holy Eucharist. The writings of the Early Church Fathers make it clear what they believed and it sure wasn’t Protestantism.
But it's also not in Scripture....and I would think that if the Eucharist was the actual body/blood of Christ, then Peter, Paul, John, James (at least one of them) would have discussed this and made that clear. And just the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father seems to imply that Jesus is not here. Even the chapter 6 of John, which is prior to communion being established by our Lord, is actually about coming to faith (and not about communion).
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ. "And when Jesus had taken a cup and ***given thanks*** (Catholic transubstantiation happens here), He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for ***this is My blood*** (Orthodox transubstantiation happens here) of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. “But I say to you, I will not drink of this ***fruit of the vine*** (Jesus still called it juice) from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”" (Matthew 26:27-29) 1. Transubstantiation teaches the bread the juice for the Eucharist miraculously changes into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. 2. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches admit transubstantiation is NOT taught I the Bible, but is based upon human tradition which has its origin with the apostles themselves. 3. Orthodox say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the “prayer of thanksgiving” before the proclamation “this is my body”. 4. Catholics say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the proclamation "this is my body" after the prayer. ONE VERSE REFUTATION #1: If you carefully read Mt 26:27-29 above, you will notice that after Jesus “gave thanks” and proclaimed “this is my blood”, Jesus himself refutes both RC and Orthodox because he then afterwards called it “fruit of the vine” not blood. This utterly collapses and refutes, with no chance for rebuttal of any kind, the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. BONUS REFUTION #2: The fact that Orthodox and Catholic BOTH CLAIM their ritual is direct apostolic authority, example and tradition, BUT they practice TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, proves transubstantiation is a human false doctrine invented in the 4th century AD. A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons: No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice. In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh. In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood? In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol. The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century. Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14) The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice. The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion". We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!
@@spacecoastz4026 it is in scripture they just don’t call it the Eucharist by name because they aren’t Italian. The “Holy Eucharist” is merely the Thanksgiving offering in the Torah. In which you would eat bread and provide a drink offering of wine. This does not have a limit of how many times you are to do this. However this should not confused with the Pesach. Although there is a thanksgiving offering in the Pesach/Passover.
Notice that Clement, along with other early church leaders--Polycarp, Ignatius, Iranaeus, Barnabas, Papias (student of John)--gave no recognition to Rome as the headquarters of Christianity, Peter not reckoned as ever being Bishop of Rome, no Christian prayed to the dead or kept statues, no clergy were called father...in sum, the traditions of the apostles were not replaced with heretical ones until Rome hijacked the church and imposed apostasy on believers. By the fifth century, the Babylonian version of Christianity began to persecute anyone who followed Christ's teaching. The Bible was banned and the revived beast in Rev.13 burned alive almost a million saints (Rev.17). Neo-Catholicism is by no means Christian, and the end of its faithful is foretold in Mt. 7:21-23. How sad that Satan has deceived the largest church in the world, who, ignorant of apocalyptic literarture in Scripture, are convinced they are the one true church. How cunning is the Devil. What a great tragedy!
@@bible1st The term beast is used synonymously with ungodly in both the OT and NT. The apostle John and the early church routinely labeled Rome as Babylon, just as Egypt was used to describe any kingdom that oppressed Israel. Rev. 17 clearly describes Rome as that "great city." So, in Rev.13, if secular Rome did not receive a "mortal wound" in AD476, when Odoacer led the Barbarians (Germanic Christians) to end the Roman empire, Augustolus Romulus the last Caesar, and beastly Rome was not revived ("healed") as papal Rome, which continued to persecute, torture and execute Christians for not bowing to the pope then who else? What other "great city" that sits on seven continents, appointed kings, made them impose its heresy (Catechisma) on their subjects and committed spiritual adultary by no longer praying to Jesus but to a host of others? Indeed, prayer is tge most intimate form of worship. God deems Mariolatry as fornication, harlotry. The cardinal rule in hermeneutics is that an interpretation of one passage must harmonize with all related verses. This picture I present, much of it borrowed from Barnes, a gifted 19th century theologian, fits perfectly with all the apocalyptic literature: it is also concordant with the early church, before it was hijacked by Rome, sfter Constantine legalized Christianity. Rome, at the time still the center of Babylonian religion, inundated the church that led to papacy...Gregory being the first pope. Daniel related how Jesus (Rock not hewn by hand) will smash the feet of the beast, the iron age being the Roman empire, with the feet of clay not mixing with iron (clay = humanism, iron = two-edged sword of truth or Scripture). Roman Catholicism loathes Scripture because it condemns its praying repetitiously, praying to the dead, calling clergy father, salvation through works, infant baptism and a myriad of other heresies. The greatest Catholic insult to Jesus is the notion of purgatory, which implies that His work on the cross was insufficient. The majority of those addressed in Mt.7:21-23 are Catholics...not a good place to be found when our Lord returns, which might be sooner than later.
@@bible1st I have read the Yousef-Ali translation of the Qur'an and while conspicuously demonic, it does not fit Dan.2,7,9,11, and Rev.13,17. I am a Bible translator and professor of NT Greek. So I would be interested in the evidence you have that Islam is the beast that suffered a "mortal wound" but was healed, that appointed kings who made their subjects "drink from her cup of fornication." What muslim clerics appointed kings?
@@TheBinaryWolf Well in my view these things you listed, have not happened just yet, but they are still future. I do find it interesting though if you research. You will find that actually Muhammad has injured in a battle. Head wound. They thought he was dead but then he was not dead in the battle.
Dear Michael! Thank you for your comment. We will answer this question in a different video. It would be great if you could support our channel to keep us producing videos and legit content! Unfortunately, we are reaching a point where we cannot sustain the costs of producing these videos. Can you make a $5, $10, $20, $50, or $100 donation now or every month to keep this channel going? You can make a direct donation @ fundly.com/let-there-be-light-4 or a tax-deductible donation @ www.theology-academy.org/ (Under “SUPPORT US”). You can also become a patron @ www.patreon.com/user?u=28861271.
Paul mentions Clement in his scripture writings: Philippians 4:3. Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.
@Greg he’s probably a Protestant. Lol. Everyone knows that the 3 major apostolic fathers are clement of rome who was the first. Polycarp and ignatius of Antioch. This is the history of the church.
1:42 First Epistle of Clement predates the Didache and was written in the 60s AD. Please get your facts right - considerable scholarly work has been done on the Temple, on the "Clement" in Philippians 4:3 - for a Catholic channel, why do you parrot Bible Ref online and American ignoramuses who maul the otherwise brilliant ESV?
This sounds NOTHING like the false Catholic church of today... How they managed to piece together all these new pagan dogmas, rituals and traditions are beyond me.. That's why pure Biblical Christianity and aligning with the EARLY Church Fathers seems to be the purest form.
However, we cannot deny that there are teachings in Catholicism that adhere to the early church mindset. However, there are deviations Like in any other denomination.
So which protestant denomination do we follow, seeing there are over the 40,000 different denominations in the world? The word protestant means to protest, therefore they protest one another and open a church down the block and this continues because the spirit of protest is in them hence you have thousands. Martin Luther is the father and founder of all protestant denominations, Yet they rebelled against him also.
The root of Christianity lies with the Catholic Church. There were many loopholes in the Catholic Church as we learned from history, yet the leaders of the church are all human like us full of imperfection. Let's us acknowledge the Catholic Church because if it wasn't the Catholic Church, most of the us would be worshiping Allah. With the dawn of reformation, there are more than forty thousand Christian denominations that keeps on splitting because of differences in doctrines and beliefs. However, the Catholic church still stands firm for the last two thousand years and it will last till the ages to come. Kindly learn something from history before accusing the Church.
The history of Roman Catholicism is one of error, apostasy, persecution, and changing doctrine. The Roman Catholic faith has been an evolution over many centuries. Catholics teach their faith was handed down from the Apostles and they only formally established these doctrines as the need arose yet a careful study of the writings of the church show that most of these doctrines were not held by the early church and were later additions. TIMELINE DATE EVENT 250 BC OT canon is universally accepted 33-100 AD Apostolic age 60 AD Paul returns to Rome ~68 AD Paul dies; Peter dies around the same time 95 AD Clement of Rome mentions at least 8 NT books 100-325 AD Ante Nicene period (separation of Christianity from Judaism and growth) 108 AD Polycarp, acknowledged 15 books 115 AD Ignatius of Antioch acknowledges about seven NT books 170 AD Muratorian Canon[BV1] includes all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John 185 AD Irenaeus mentions 21 books 170-235 AD Hippolytus recognizes 22 books 200 AD Under Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, a basic version of Catholic structure was installed with Roman direction 300 AD Prayers for the dead began 313 AD Emperor Constantine legalizes Christianity and moves the Roman capital to Constantinople 325 AD The First Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, attempted to structure church leadership around a model similar to that of the Roman system and formalized some key articles 363 AD Council of Laodicea states that only the OT books (along with one book of the Apocrypha[BV2] ) and 26 books of the NT (everything but Revelation) were canonical 375 AD Veneration of angels and dead saints, and the use of images 393 AD Council of Hippo affirmed 27 books 394 AD The Mass as a daily celebration 397 AD Council of Carthage affirmed 27 books[BV3] 431 AD Start of the veneration of Mary and first use of the term “Mother of God” at the Council of Ephesus 500 AD Priests began to dress differently than layman 526 AD Extreme Unction 551 AD Council of Chalcedon declares the church in Constantinople to be the head of the eastern branch of the church and equal in authority to the Pope 590 AD Pope Gregory I becomes Pope and the church enters into a period of enormous political and military power. Some call this the beginning of the Catholic Church as it is known today 593 AD The doctrine of Purgatory established by Gregory I 600 AD The Latin language imposed by Gregory I 607 AD Title of pope, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas 632 AD Islamic prophet Mohammad dies beginning a long conflict between Christianity and Islam 709 AD Kissing of the pope’s foot began with pope Constantine 786 AD Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized 850 AD Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest 927 AD College of Cardinals established 995 AD Canonization of dead saints, first by John XV 998 AD Attendance at Mass made obligatory 1054 AD The great East-West schism marks the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Catholic Church 1079 AD Celibacy of the priesthood decreed by pope Gregory VII 1090 AD The Rosary invented by Peter the Hermit 1184 AD The Inquisition instituted by the Council of Verona 1190 AD The sale of indulgences begun 1215 AD Fourth Council of the Lateran - ratified the teaching of transubstantiation. Also the confession of sins to a priest 1439 AD Purgatory proclaimed as dogma by the Council of Florence 1517 AD Luther publishes the 95 Theses 1534 AD King Henry VIII of England declares himself to be the supreme head of the Church of England, severing the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic Church 1545-1563 AD Catholic reformation begins 1545 AD Tradition declared of equal authority by the Council of Trent 1546 AD Council of Trent official accepts 11 of the Apocryphal books as canonical[BV4] 1854 AD Immaculate Conception of Mary proclaimed by pope Pius IX 1870 AD The First Vatican Council declares the policy of Papal infallibility 1950 AD Assumption of Mary (bodily ascension into heaven) proclaimed by pope Pius XII 1960s AD Second Vatican Council 1965 AD Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by pope Paul VI
"We are not justified through ourselves, or through our own wisdom, or piety, or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning." 1 Clement 32:4
Ch. 30 of the same epistle from Clement:
"Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words."
Note that the quote you're using is in reference to initial grace through baptism and Clement's understanding that justification is a continuing process, and not a single point in time.
@@johnbecknell1 I'm not aware that he says anything resembling "initial grace thru baptism," that sounds like an anachronistic reading of later doctrinal developments back into the text. In fact, First Clement contains no clear allusion to baptism whatsoever, as far as I know. But you are certainly right that Clement didn't regard justification as some sort of single one-off event with no further effects.
Justification by faith (apart from works) is ALWAYS followed by dramatic demonstrations of God's further grace in the life of the one He justified. Those whom He declares righteous, He also makes righteous. He creates us in Christ Jesus unto good works.
@@stephenwright4973yes but don’t confuse works of the jewish law vs good works. We are saved by faith in God through works as Jesus says time and time again
amen proud Christian in Rome Church ✝️🇻🇦
If leaders present heresies, the church is obligated to expose and reject the one in error. Leaders must be men of the paper (scriptures), not men of the cloth (particular dress). The body of believers are subject to God and his standards. When his standards are abused through erroneous doctrine, the church must not be part of the error. Therefore, all Roman Catholics are obligated to denounce their sin of following men and not God.
@hesedken the heck you talking about? You must be a heredical Protestant. Lol
Are you ready for the Millennial Kingdom?
Proud? FYI, in Scripture, God says He "hates pride." You will do well to cease listening to well-meaning but spiritually blind teachers. Trust in the Holy Bible that is the only reliable source of God's truth. Friend, don't gamble your soul on the doctrine of fallible men. Jesus said that "There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death." He refers to the second death. At least read Mt.7:21-23
@@TheBinaryWolf "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" (Proverbs 16:18, KJV). Muslims are extremely proud of their false religion and they outnumber Israel 6 to 1; yet in all the wars they've started, they've never beaten Israel.
Very clear and professional! Nice voice to listen to too 🤲🏼🙏🏼
Finally a direct access to the fathers of the church and their doctrine, things that still are difficult to find and obtain in form of books , films, conferences etc
A special thank for those exercising such an higly utile endaviour
What I need sind die griechischen und lateinischen Ausgaben und keine zeitgenössische Übersetzungen
The epistles of all the early church leaders is available in 'The Apostolic Fathers,' translated by Lightfoot and Harmer. Catholics especially need to read it, wherein nobody deemed the church to be built on Peter, nobody prayed to the dead, no bishop was called father, and none of the heresies were known before Rome, the center of Babylonian religion, replaced tge traditions of the apostles with humanistic ones.
The epistles are definitely not canonical, but they evidence how apostate papal Rome became.
Amen
@@TheBinaryWolfwhere can i find this book? I knew something like this had to exist
@@christianchaidez The most authoritative translation of the catholic (not Roman Catholic) epistles of early church leaders is available in both English and Greek by textual critics Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Harmon, titled "The Apostolic Fathers." Amazon sells this historical jewel for a modest price.
Although the letters by the first, post apostolic bishops thoughout Biblical lands clearly show that the Roman Catholic heresies had not yet developed, therein the seeds of apostasy are visible to any objective reader. Of course, if papists reject the Bible, they will surely reject what the very early church held as canonical, which is the NT and nothing but the NT.
If your pastor rightly follows Christ, and you follow your pastor's example, you are on the path that leads to heaven. But if you follow a priest or Pope, who go in the opposite direction, you cannot expect to arrive where Jesus waits for His followers. The Holy Bible and the Catechism are like road maps, each pointing to a different destination. We know where Jesus went...and straight and narrow is the path. All other roads, no matter how well-intended--lead to Gehenna and the eternal lake of fire. You simply cannot follow Christ and papal Rome when they are diametrically opposed.
May your intellectual curiosity be profitable. May the Holy Spirit open your heart and spare you from Mt. 7:21-23.
@@TheBinaryWolf .... you are wrong in what you wrote and you will not get to the TRUTH if you believe what you wrote.... if l know what you wrote is not a right TRUTH ... then there must be a right TRUTH...
IT ALL DEPENDS WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION.... who are Lightfoot and Harmer from whom do they get their TRUTH ant AUTHORITY from. Becareful who you believe.
I appreciate this important historic information. Much obliged. God Bless
Awesome resource really glad I found this!
So basically clement acknowledges Paul's letter to the Corinthians were inspired
Yes, and perhaps an oversight, but please capitalize Clement. Thank you.
Paul mentions Clement also in the Bible in Phillipians.
2 Peter does this as well
Likely one of the reasons those tasked with deciding which letters to include in the New Testament (300 years later) chose to approve it. 🕊
I remembers once a friend called clement a teachet then came the song clementine
Saved to my playlist
They made a HUGE ERROR in the video. At the 1:02 mark they say Clement lived between 69-155 AD, this is WRONG. Polycarp lived between 69-155 AD.
Clement 1 lived between 35-99AD. Notice in the Bible that when there are lots of people who share the same name, then there is an identifier attached to them, example Simon of Cyrene, or Mary Magdalene. But for Clement in the letter to the Phillipians, there is no identifier as Paul assumes everyone knows there is only 1 major Clement in the Church I.e. the elder in Rome. Therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Clement in Rome is the same one referred to in Paul's letter to the Phillipians.
What about Evodius
@@PursuingDreamss What do you mean, wha about St Evodius?
We don't have any mention of any 'Evodius' in the Bible nor do we have any epistles written by St. Evodius. Furthermore what does the existence of St Evodius show? Apart from showing Apostolic Succession to argue against Protestants, nothing else (that I know of).
You must understand how to make arguments from a skeptics point of view. The evidence (skeptic point of view) for the existence St Evodius is much more weaker compared to St. Ignatius. It is too much to copy paste here. Have a read of the entry of St. Evodius on New Advent and then come back and ask me any further questions.
@@alisterrebelo9013 thank you for your prompt response. The reason why I ask is because Saint Ignatius of Antioch himself mentioned Evodius as the successor of John the Apostle
@@PursuingDreamss interesting, I've never heard that before. Where does St. Ignatius mention St Evodius?
Notice though, that you still need to make the case for St. Ignatius first to then get to St. Evodius.
@@alisterrebelo9013 what do you mean by make the case for St Ignatius? He is declared a saint in all denominations of Christianity? I have no agendas, I was born Orthodox Christian and would just love to know the truth regarding the spread of early Christianity.
I appreciate the history, thanks. ❤
ERRATA: At 2:00, it shows " Roman Chruch," FYI.
The Spirit of Christ is represented by the Life of Christ and the virtues He preached.
He also repeatedly stressed following commandments and ordinances but Christians don’t talk about Bruno (The Law).
How could Clement know Peter and Paul if he was born in 69 ad and they were martyred in 64 ad ?
Ok if this letter was lost how did it formed part of some eastern Bibles?
Sub Apostolic era? Would this make it the sub church era?
Also in Earl locust e l, isn't that the abbreviation for Angel
Firstly there is not any mention of Peter to have been to Rome. In the acts Paul "travelled" alone to Rome and there he met jews to state his innocence.
Secondly Paul wrote a letter to the Roman church that is such a community with an elder leading person without any mention of Peter did exist years before Paul went to Rome.
Thirdly in those days there had not been any priestly ministers churches were led by olders - presbyters - and the idea of surpreme controllers - episkopoi - was only developing.
Lastly it was Clement who for the first time asserted that Peter had been to Rome and was martyred there obviously to polster his authority.
Since your argument is based on argument from silence, I can make an argument from silence too.
John live until approximately 95AD and did not once rebuke the elder/Bishop of the Roman Church. Since he did not rebuke the traditonally held Bishops of Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Ignatius, then their testimony stands true.
@@alisterrebelo9013The term "eposkopos" at that time only ment "elder" - no priesterly nor sacramental base. Orthodox hierarchies were developped from the second century on. The authors of all the gospels are anonymous, attribution to names did occur at the end of the first century.
@@alisterrebelo9013only ignatius was Bishop of Antioc (Syria) he was a disciple of Polycarp who was Bishop of Smyrna (Turkey), ordained Bishop by the Apostle John who Polycarp was also a disciple of as stated and affirmed by Turtulian. There was division in the church do to the arian heresy until the 3rd century CE., when Emperer constantine, who ordered the council of Nicene in "Turkey" the apostles creed was formed, the word catholic in the creed is generic for universal church, not for denominations, several centuries later was the great schism seperating the church into western and eastern orthodox.
@@neilsoulman It would be great if you explain what your point is.
So given those dates, it’s safe to assume that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is not this Clement?
They made a HUGE ERROR in the video. At the 1:02 mark they say Clement lived between 69-155 AD, this is WRONG. Polycarp lived between 69-155 AD.
Clement 1 lived between 35-99AD. Notice in the Bible that when there are lots of people who share the same name, then there is an identifier attached to them, example Simon of Cyrene, or Mary Magdalene. But for Clement in the letter to the Phillipians, there is no identifier as Paul assumes everyone knows there is only 1 major Clement in the Church I.e. the elder in Rome. Therefore we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Clement in Rome is the same one referred to in Paul's letter to the Phillipians.
@@alisterrebelo9013 good point, thank you for the reply!
Failed to mention Clement was Jewish ✡️ Shalom Great Video
In locust the l the 90° angle
Didn't they adopt Jesus in the Christianity and CE, isn't my name Curtis Earl
Your video needs correction on the time frame at the very least. Both Peter and Paul were executed in the early to mid 60s AD. Meaning before you state Clement would have even been born. Also, it’s generally accepted and agreed upon that clement died in 99AD. So you need to ensure this video has correct information before you try to pass yourself off as a theological resource.
The apostolic fathers certainly didn't have the hangups with grace - works and faith - obedience that the Western church has today.
the 4th pope!
How? He wants in charge of the church.
@@jollybucket669Clement is listed as the 4th Bishop of Rome aka The Pope
@vman9347 retroactively making the bishop of Rome the leader of the church so you can claim tradition is very schetchy.
@@jollybucket669 He is the leader unless you want to argue Peter wasn’t the leader of the apostles.
Which he clearly was. And Peter and Paul selected Peter sucessor which is Linus who guess what is mentioned in the Bible in Paul’s letters.
Clement never claimed to be a disciple of Peter or Paul.
Soooo basically his epistle is everything that’s already written in the Holy Bible…got it
1:14 You can just say Pope
BUT SAINT PAUL DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE ST CLEMENTS EPISTLE as part of the Roman Catholic Bible:
BECAREFUL..
Agape
Agape
The hierarchy of the Church was in place at Pentecost as it was Jesus Himself, who established His Church in accordance with the Davidic Kingdom.
There is nothing striking or significant in the whole epistle, Clement is mostly repeating what the New Testament has already said before. But Clement makes a completely bizarre statement which he uses as proof of the resurrection:
“Let us consider that wonderful sign (of the resurrection) which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays, a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have piously served him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird he shows us the mightiness of his power to fulfill his promise?” -Clement 1, Chapter 25 and 26
Every Bible student knows that both the Old and New Testaments have numerous references to the resurrection. With the apostle Paul, especially, it is a central theme.
Now I ask if it’s at all probable that anyone who was familiar with the Bible would pass by its wealth of testimony on the subject of the resurrection, and produce as proof of it only a ridiculous fable concerning the mythological Phoenix? Seriously??
Whether this epistle was written by Clement, or by somebody who lived later and who forged his name, one thing is certain, and that is, that as a book of Christian doctrine it is not worth the paper on which it is written. I’m totally at a loss to understand the reverence with which so many people regard this epistle.
But I would especially ask anyone reading this to form in their minds a picture of the condition of churches that took Clement’s epistle down week after week as inspired teaching. The inevitable result of feeding upon such vapid stuff, must have been mental degeneration, and an inability to distinguish real argument from fancy.
hmmm this is indeed strange and hard allegory to understand. But your view seems a bit.... harsh. This epistle though may use a strange metaphor, but it doesn't contradict to the Christian doctrine.
As I understand it, this writer, Clement or not, incorporated a fairy tale which might have been traditionally familiar to certain group of local people back then, direct it to the work of Christ. Christ (phoenix), who sent by God (as phenix the special bird from heaven), death leads to new life (worm), who bear witness of Christ (the bone) as a wonderful work of God's exact plan.
If one know by heart the true doctrine, one can firmly distinguish it from heresies, nonsense or blasphemy, and this epistle is not any of them, or rather I can say the writter used a strange imagination, that's all.
Imagination is part of humanity ( which gives way to creativity) , from the stories of Christ we can create many tales directly reference Him, to teach people goodness, to make people wonder and entertained with their imagination of God's glory and power.
@@HanhTran-bg2wo You’re correct that we can use stories to point to Christ, but Clement clearly states that he believes the Phoenix to be literally real, that’s the problem here. He was writing to many Christians, and they presumably take his word that the phoenix is real. Just imagine if they were doing this, they’d be open to other myths and nonsense which we see spread about during the early and middle Christian era sadly. Clement, or whoever this writer was, could have used other examples in the Bible for proof of the resurrection, such as all the fulfillment of prophecies Christ did from the Old Testament. But him believing in a literal Phoenix says a lot about his mindset unfortunately
@@karleneturco9642 well in a sense it can be real😅 just like how dragons mentioned in the bible as a metaphor for something and everywhere really, or people perceived the phoenix as they are when they saw the dinosaur bones, who know^^. In Job God mentioned Leviathan as a fire breathing creature, it remains a mystery since it never technically appears, but it exists as the bible confirms. So it’s likely there are other creatures like leviathan, including dragons/phoenix exist somewhere unknown, not related to us. Anyway, I think whether someone think it is real or not, if the information doesn’t go against the true doctrine, I don’t think it’s that big of an issue, so the powerful creature whatever it is remains a creation of God. Clement used it to reference Christ, similar fashion as how Leviathan is mentioned as a reference to God’s power. There are great mysteries and wonders of God beyond human knowledge He doesn’t reveal to us yet, and people continue to live their life regardless of knowing its existence. But it’s nothing wrong for people spending time to fascinate about them just like with other living animals or dinosaurs. Plus people that time were so busy with their life with lots of work and uncertainty, they dont have time to dwell in a creature unrelated. Like there is nothing wrong for parents tell kids about Santa Claus for them to be good kids right?
I love fantasy, I do think dragon-like creatures exists, I do wonder how dragons, cherubs and angels look like, or some unknown places, but it doesn’t impact on my faith in Christ and how much I want to live for Him realistically. Regarding to something is mentally degenerative, well everything can be mentally degenerating if you obsess with them really.
I always see your arguments in these channel, and i like it. Are you by any chance a scholar?
I guess you read that one thing and left. Clement quotes huge vasts portions of scripture and teaches what many need to hear. The Bible has reoccurring themes, what of it? What of it, if God's people also say what has been said from the beginning?
Clement was quoting the story of the bird. Perhaps it was true, perhaps he thought it was true in that day and age. We believe we went to the moon and we probably did not. Think of this before slandering another.
Look out when they are wearing a Dagon hat. Wolves in sheep clothing.
While making these videos, I wonder how hard it was for them to dance around fundamental issues of doctrine from the early Church fathers that this channel clearly rejects, like for example, the Holy Eucharist. The writings of the Early Church Fathers make it clear what they believed and it sure wasn’t Protestantism.
But it's also not in Scripture....and I would think that if the Eucharist was the actual body/blood of Christ, then Peter, Paul, John, James (at least one of them) would have discussed this and made that clear. And just the fact that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father seems to imply that Jesus is not here. Even the chapter 6 of John, which is prior to communion being established by our Lord, is actually about coming to faith (and not about communion).
The Catholic and Greek Orthodox false doctrine of "transubstantiation" teaches that the bread and juice undergo a change to become the literal body and blood of Christ.
"And when Jesus had taken a cup and ***given thanks*** (Catholic transubstantiation happens here), He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for ***this is My blood*** (Orthodox transubstantiation happens here) of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. “But I say to you, I will not drink of this ***fruit of the vine*** (Jesus still called it juice) from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”" (Matthew 26:27-29)
1. Transubstantiation teaches the bread the juice for the Eucharist miraculously changes into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.
2. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches admit transubstantiation is NOT taught I the Bible, but is based upon human tradition which has its origin with the apostles themselves.
3. Orthodox say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the “prayer of thanksgiving” before the proclamation “this is my body”.
4. Catholics say the grape juice changes into literal blood at the proclamation "this is my body" after the prayer.
ONE VERSE REFUTATION #1: If you carefully read Mt 26:27-29 above, you will notice that after Jesus “gave thanks” and proclaimed “this is my blood”, Jesus himself refutes both RC and Orthodox because he then afterwards called it “fruit of the vine” not blood. This utterly collapses and refutes, with no chance for rebuttal of any kind, the false doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
BONUS REFUTION #2: The fact that Orthodox and Catholic BOTH CLAIM their ritual is direct apostolic authority, example and tradition, BUT they practice TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, proves transubstantiation is a human false doctrine invented in the 4th century AD.
A. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine for the following reasons:
No Bible verse teaches transubstantiation. Supposed proof texts put forward by Roman Catholic and Orthodox advocates are most naturally seen as proving that the bread and juice were symbols of the body and blood. To see transubstantiation in these texts requires one to strain the text as much as our mind.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus is not a liar: In Mt 26:29 after Jesus had said, "this is my blood" and prayed, he still referred to the contents as, "fruit of the vine". If transubstantiation of the juice into blood had occurred, as both Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches say it was at this time, then Jesus would never have referred to it as "fruit of the vine' but rather "blood". This proves that when Jesus said "take eat & drink" he LITERALLY gave them bread and juice.
In like manner, Paul also refers to the elements of the Lord's Supper as "eat this bread and drink the cup" in 1 Cor 11:26 after they should be transubstantiated. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus said literally that the "cup was the covenant". So which is it? Is the it the juice that is the covenant or the juice that is the blood? Is it the cup that is the covenant or is the cup the blood?
In 1 Cor 11:26-28, Paul instructs us to "drink the cup" instead of "drink the blood". The Holy Spirit would not use such a figure of speech as "synecdoche" (referring to a part for the whole) if such a literal transubstantiation was actually taking place. To use a symbol when such a literal change is taking place is unthinkable.
Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because Jesus instituted Lord's Supper before his blood was shed and body broken! He spoke of His blood being shed, which was still yet future. This proves it was a symbol.
The very record of historically, (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus) which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches love to quote as authority, proves that before 200 AD, the church viewed the bread and juice as symbols. Conversely, the earliest historical hint of transubstantiation was in the 4th century.
Obviously Jesus words, "this is my body" should be taken symbolically because it falls within a long list of symbolic statements Christ said: "I am the bread," (John 6:41), "I am the vine," (John 15:5), "I am the door," (John 10:7,9), "I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12), "You are the world the salt, (Matthew 5:13), "You are the light of the world the salt, (Matthew 5:14)
The apostasy of withholding the Cup: Roman Catholics, in the 1415 AD Council of Constance, decreed that the laity could no longer drink of the cup, but the bread alone. This is completely contrary to Scripture and the earliest church traditions. Jesus' own words are "drink from it, all of you" Matthew 26:26 and in Mark 14:22-23 it says "He gave it to them, and they all drank from it." The Greek Orthodox church does not withhold the juice.
The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using leavened bread, whereas Roman Catholics use unleavened bread, just as Jesus did, (Matthew 26:17) and the Bible records in 1 Cor 5:7-8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek orthodox churches violate the Bible pattern by using leavened wine, instead of unleavened grape juice.
The Greek orthodox church violates the Bible pattern by using a "communion spoon" to dip into the cup to retrieve some wine-soaked bread. The Bible pattern for the Lord's Supper is that the bread and juice are not combined, but are two separate steps of "Holy communion".
We wonder why Roman Catholics and Orthodox doubt God will grant his full grace and love in the symbolic elements of the bread and the juice? Why is it so hard for them to believe that He grants us the full grace of His Body and Blood via symbols? The water of baptism washes away sin: Acts 2:38; 22:16. You don't get your sins forgiven until you are immersed in water! Water is a symbol of the blood that literally removes sin. For Roman Catholics and Orthodox to believe in "real presence", is as logical as the idea that water of baptism turns into literal blood!
@@geordiewishart1683 You should post this on Catholic Truth channel.
@@spacecoastz4026 it is in scripture they just don’t call it the Eucharist by name because they aren’t Italian. The “Holy Eucharist” is merely the Thanksgiving offering in the Torah. In which you would eat bread and provide a drink offering of wine. This does not have a limit of how many times you are to do this. However this should not confused with the Pesach. Although there is a thanksgiving offering in the Pesach/Passover.
@@SymbolofPeeace Give me the book, chapter, and verse, and lets discuss.
Notice that Clement, along with other early church leaders--Polycarp, Ignatius, Iranaeus, Barnabas, Papias (student of John)--gave no recognition to Rome as the headquarters of Christianity, Peter not reckoned as ever being Bishop of Rome, no Christian prayed to the dead or kept statues, no clergy were called father...in sum, the traditions of the apostles were not replaced with heretical ones until Rome hijacked the church and imposed apostasy on believers. By the fifth century, the Babylonian version of Christianity began to persecute anyone who followed Christ's teaching. The Bible was banned and the revived beast in Rev.13 burned alive almost a million saints (Rev.17).
Neo-Catholicism is by no means Christian, and the end of its faithful is foretold in Mt. 7:21-23. How sad that Satan has deceived the largest church in the world, who, ignorant of apocalyptic literarture in Scripture, are convinced they are the one true church. How cunning is the Devil. What a great tragedy!
I see the revived beast as being linked to Islam not Catholic but i wish you could prove me otherwise.
@@bible1st The term beast is used synonymously with ungodly in both the OT and NT. The apostle John and the early church routinely labeled Rome as Babylon, just as Egypt was used to describe any kingdom that oppressed Israel.
Rev. 17 clearly describes Rome as that "great city." So, in Rev.13, if secular Rome did not receive a "mortal wound" in AD476, when Odoacer led the Barbarians (Germanic Christians) to end the Roman empire, Augustolus Romulus the last Caesar, and beastly Rome was not revived ("healed") as papal Rome, which continued to persecute, torture and execute Christians for not bowing to the pope then who else? What other "great city" that sits on seven continents, appointed kings, made them impose its heresy (Catechisma) on their subjects and committed spiritual adultary by no longer praying to Jesus but to a host of others? Indeed, prayer is tge most intimate form of worship. God deems Mariolatry as fornication, harlotry.
The cardinal rule in hermeneutics is that an interpretation of one passage must harmonize with all related verses. This picture I present, much of it borrowed from Barnes, a gifted 19th century theologian, fits perfectly with all the apocalyptic literature: it is also concordant with the early church, before it was hijacked by Rome, sfter Constantine legalized Christianity. Rome, at the time still the center of Babylonian religion, inundated the church that led to papacy...Gregory being the first pope. Daniel related how Jesus (Rock not hewn by hand) will smash the feet of the beast, the iron age being the Roman empire, with the feet of clay not mixing with iron (clay = humanism, iron = two-edged sword of truth or Scripture).
Roman Catholicism loathes Scripture because it condemns its praying repetitiously, praying to the dead, calling clergy father, salvation through works, infant baptism and a myriad of other heresies. The greatest Catholic insult to Jesus is the notion of purgatory, which implies that His work on the cross was insufficient.
The majority of those addressed in Mt.7:21-23 are Catholics...not a good place to be found when our Lord returns, which might be sooner than later.
@@TheBinaryWolf Yea and how much do you know about Islam? It fits better.
@@bible1st I have read the Yousef-Ali translation of the Qur'an and while conspicuously demonic, it does not fit Dan.2,7,9,11, and Rev.13,17.
I am a Bible translator and professor of NT Greek. So I would be interested in the evidence you have that Islam is the beast that suffered a "mortal wound" but was healed, that appointed kings who made their subjects "drink from her cup of fornication." What muslim clerics appointed kings?
@@TheBinaryWolf Well in my view these things you listed, have not happened just yet, but they are still future. I do find it interesting though if you research. You will find that actually Muhammad has injured in a battle. Head wound. They thought he was dead but then he was not dead in the battle.
This is a new video. There older ones with greater depth and no innuendoes. If its new its not true...
where does Clement say that he was a disciple of Peter and Paul? exact quote please.
Dear Michael! Thank you for your comment. We will answer this question in a different video. It would be great if you could support our channel to keep us producing videos and legit content! Unfortunately, we are reaching a point where we cannot sustain the costs of producing these videos. Can you make a $5, $10, $20, $50, or $100 donation now or every month to keep this channel going? You can make a direct donation @ fundly.com/let-there-be-light-4 or a tax-deductible donation @ www.theology-academy.org/ (Under “SUPPORT US”). You can also become a patron @ www.patreon.com/user?u=28861271.
Let me guess u want a bible vers
Paul mentions Clement in his scripture writings:
Philippians 4:3. Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.
@Greg he’s probably a Protestant. Lol. Everyone knows that the 3 major apostolic fathers are clement of rome who was the first. Polycarp and ignatius of Antioch. This is the history of the church.
@@GR65330 : Can we be sure that it is the same Clement? It might be, but scholarly opinion is divided.
1:42 First Epistle of Clement predates the Didache and was written in the 60s AD. Please get your facts right - considerable scholarly work has been done on the Temple, on the "Clement" in Philippians 4:3 - for a Catholic channel, why do you parrot Bible Ref online and American ignoramuses who maul the otherwise brilliant ESV?
Didache is like either late first century or second century
There is no such thing in The Bible, is “might” be a letter ( not scriptural) written, but it is just a letter!
This sounds NOTHING like the false Catholic church of today... How they managed to piece together all these new pagan dogmas, rituals and traditions are beyond me.. That's why pure Biblical Christianity and aligning with the EARLY Church Fathers seems to be the purest form.
Exactly
However, we cannot deny that there are teachings in Catholicism that adhere to the early church mindset. However, there are deviations Like in any other denomination.
@@TheologyAcademy i agree. Well said.
@@TheologyAcademy BTW, your videos are great. Are you a Born Again Christian ?
Could you give an example from this video of how its contents sound nothing like Catholicism?
Catholic is false!! Lot of lied!! 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
Church Fathers> your opinion
So which protestant denomination do we follow, seeing there are over the 40,000 different denominations in the world? The word protestant means to protest, therefore they protest one another and open a church down the block and this continues because the spirit of protest is in them hence you have thousands. Martin Luther is the father and founder of all protestant denominations, Yet they rebelled against him also.
The root of Christianity lies with the Catholic Church. There were many loopholes in the Catholic Church as we learned from history, yet the leaders of the church are all human like us full of imperfection. Let's us acknowledge the Catholic Church because if it wasn't the Catholic Church, most of the us would be worshiping Allah. With the dawn of reformation, there are more than forty thousand Christian denominations that keeps on splitting because of differences in doctrines and beliefs. However, the Catholic church still stands firm for the last two thousand years and it will last till the ages to come. Kindly learn something from history before accusing the Church.
@@thecrusader89 I find the orthdox church to be more closer to the early church than the roman catholic
The history of Roman Catholicism is one of error, apostasy, persecution, and changing doctrine.
The Roman Catholic faith has been an evolution over many centuries. Catholics teach their faith was handed down from the Apostles and they only formally established these doctrines as the need arose yet a careful study of the writings of the church show that most of these doctrines were not held by the early church and were later additions.
TIMELINE
DATE EVENT
250 BC OT canon is universally accepted
33-100 AD Apostolic age
60 AD Paul returns to Rome
~68 AD Paul dies; Peter dies around the same time
95 AD Clement of Rome mentions at least 8 NT books
100-325 AD Ante Nicene period (separation of Christianity from Judaism and growth)
108 AD Polycarp, acknowledged 15 books
115 AD Ignatius of Antioch acknowledges about seven NT books
170 AD Muratorian Canon[BV1] includes all of the NT books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John
185 AD Irenaeus mentions 21 books
170-235 AD Hippolytus recognizes 22 books
200 AD Under Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, a basic version of Catholic structure was installed with Roman direction
300 AD Prayers for the dead began
313 AD Emperor Constantine legalizes Christianity and moves the Roman capital to Constantinople
325 AD The First Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, attempted to structure church leadership around a model similar to that of the Roman system and formalized some key articles
363 AD Council of Laodicea states that only the OT books (along with one book of the Apocrypha[BV2] ) and 26 books of the NT (everything but Revelation) were canonical
375 AD Veneration of angels and dead saints, and the use of images
393 AD Council of Hippo affirmed 27 books
394 AD The Mass as a daily celebration
397 AD Council of Carthage affirmed 27 books[BV3]
431 AD Start of the veneration of Mary and first use of the term “Mother of God” at the Council of Ephesus
500 AD Priests began to dress differently than layman
526 AD Extreme Unction
551 AD Council of Chalcedon declares the church in Constantinople to be the head of the eastern branch of the church and equal in authority to the Pope
590 AD Pope Gregory I becomes Pope and the church enters into a period of enormous political and military power. Some call this the beginning of the Catholic Church as it is known today
593 AD The doctrine of Purgatory established by Gregory I
600 AD The Latin language imposed by Gregory I
607 AD Title of pope, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas
632 AD Islamic prophet Mohammad dies beginning a long conflict between Christianity and Islam
709 AD Kissing of the pope’s foot began with pope Constantine
786 AD Worship of the cross, images, and relics authorized
850 AD Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest
927 AD College of Cardinals established
995 AD Canonization of dead saints, first by John XV
998 AD Attendance at Mass made obligatory
1054 AD The great East-West schism marks the formal separation of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox branches of the Catholic Church
1079 AD Celibacy of the priesthood decreed by pope Gregory VII
1090 AD The Rosary invented by Peter the Hermit
1184 AD The Inquisition instituted by the Council of Verona
1190 AD The sale of indulgences begun
1215 AD Fourth Council of the Lateran - ratified the teaching of transubstantiation. Also the confession of sins to a priest
1439 AD Purgatory proclaimed as dogma by the Council of Florence
1517 AD Luther publishes the 95 Theses
1534 AD King Henry VIII of England declares himself to be the supreme head of the Church of England, severing the Anglican Church from the Roman Catholic Church
1545-1563 AD Catholic reformation begins
1545 AD Tradition declared of equal authority by the Council of Trent
1546 AD Council of Trent official accepts 11 of the Apocryphal books as canonical[BV4]
1854 AD Immaculate Conception of Mary proclaimed by pope Pius IX
1870 AD The First Vatican Council declares the policy of Papal infallibility
1950 AD Assumption of Mary (bodily ascension into heaven) proclaimed by pope Pius XII
1960s AD Second Vatican Council
1965 AD Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by pope Paul VI