Do We Follow The Early Church? | Highlight
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2024
- This is a highlight of our premiere webcast Apologia Radio. In this clip James White talks about the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics and their views on the Early Church.
Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios... :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get exclusive content like Collision, The Aftershow, Ask Me Anything w/ Jeff Durbin and The Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free account to receive access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: www.instagram....
Check out our online store here:
shop.apologias...
Want more content from Apologia Radio? Sign up for Apologia All Access and get that, plus much more! You won't regret it! Click the link for more info.
apologiastudios.com/all-access-sales/#signup
Our Lord and savior Jesus Christ established ONE church; and it’s the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I’ll be praying for Christian unity 🙏🏻
Not
Great. You pointed out some RCC inconsistencies. I want to see Jeff Durbin and Jay Dyer have a chat now.
He really didn’t though lol. He always says he can point out the facts where RCC is wrong but he never actually says what it is. Always super vague.
@@orangemanbadyes he’s going to point out where RCC is wrong in a 5 min video. If only he had decades of debates and hundreds of long videos on the topic. Aw shucks.
@@KnightFel yes and he has lost every single one.
AMEN
Dyer is a quack
What would be the argument against the Orthodox church which holds none of the things Dr. White listed @3:40? The EOC doesn't teach the bodily assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, and rejects the filioque way.
I'm Orthodox, and yes we believe in the bodily assumption of the Theotokos after her Dormition.
I was gonna say- I’m not EOC, but I’m pretty sure they *do* affirm the bodily assumption of Mary
@@ravikeller9626 the difference is we EO celebrate the Dormition of the Theotokos (she reposed) then she was assumed bodily into heaven.
I’m Melkite Greek Catholic, and the I would say that the Orthodox or at least the majority believe that Mary was always in communion with God and was sinless from her existence (immaculate conception)
Orthodoxy ❤
deep respect for this highlight as I do find the same things even in books, biases not void of impressing our systems on the past, rather than accepting things for what they were.
Thank you, very helpful! Can you make more in-depth analysis of Ortodox (Eastern Ortodox) position ?
He can’t. He’s tried. Orthodoxy remains triumphant
@@OrthodoxJoker You couldn't find salvation in the heterodox orthodox church with a pack of bloodhounds and a battalion of marines. Mary is not the mother of god. She is not most holy. She is not perpetually virgin. To call on her to save you is heresy. I speak from experience. Only Jesus Christ will save you. Not your church membership. Not your communion. Not your pedo-baptism. Only Jesus Christ and the blood he shed for the remission of your sins. You must be born again. Your gilded bibles you parade around and touch to your lips - you honor God with your mouth but your heart is far from him.
@@OrthodoxJokerIncorect, he has enough to discredit it as truly apostolic. He has also stated it is not his focus at this point in time.
@@tricord2939can you direct me to any place he’s addressed it like at all? I been looking for something from him for a WHILE. That’s the one thing I don’t see him talk about that I’ve been interested in here lately
@@tricord2939His video was basically a twenty minute documentary of James White saying he was clueless while trying not to admit he was clueless on the topic…
Satan has been attacking the Word of God since the beginning. I will tell you it is so FREEING to know that all special revelation God ever wanted you to know is contained in Scripture, and He gives us His Spirit freely to understand the Scriptures and guide us.
Wait until you find out you’ve been lied to about Satan
@@cc3775explain
Thank you, Dr White. A timely reminder for me.
I've been asking this question for sometime now and the simple answer is a resounding NO the modern day church doesn't follow it closely at all!!
That’s why the modern church has apostacized, leaving the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
@@IAmisMaster The Apostle Paul asked the question, "Is Christ divided?" According to modern-day standards, I believe Paul would be absolutely vexed and disappointed to learn that Christ has been so fragmented by the works of man.
Paul also said, "the traditions of men have made the word of God of no effect."
📚📖✨☜-🧐...👁 First Removing the Log out of One's Own Eye.... and All That:...
"Catholics Smath-olicks"
....So Rather, a more relevant question...Does the modern day 🎸"Rock'n Roll" Evangelical Church "follow IT (📖✨)" closely at all?
@@richpeeps515that’s annoying. You know why? Because he wasn’t talking about Holy tradition. Look into Orthodoxy.
The first three centuries of Christians believed in free choice to choose the Father, to choose salvation. Im not even a Catholic but that’s pretty out there to believe they were unanimously wrong.
honestly, dr white...
your videos, speech, preaching, have opened my eyes so much to real biblical interpretation. God bless you.
I'm a relatively new Christian, but upon listening to you, alongside many Catholic apologists, I've come to know the real glory & grace of God through a reformed understanding of the Gospel.
I love & respect the early church fathers, but it is God alone who I put my faith & my salvation in, not them.
I pray that the Catholics can know the true love, grace, salvation & mercy of the one true living God.
*I love & respect the early church fathers, but it is God alone who I put my faith & my salvation in, not them.*
*I pray that the Catholics can know the true love, grace, salvation & mercy of the one true living God.*
It's through the Early Church, and the Church generally, you know anything about God at all. Moreover, if you have true love from White's god, that love is a joke. Grace and salvation only count if it comes from whence it is supposed to. Barring that, you have no Grace in any meaningful way.
@@thepalegalilean I respectfully disagree, I know God through His scriptures. Which He revealed to us & fulfilled to us through His Son, Jesus.
Whilst I love & respect the early Church fathers, they have nowhere near the level of authority to which the word of God does..
Man is corrupt & fallen as he has ever been, but it is not "whites god" who i worship, it is God. THE God, the one, true, eternal, living God who I worship.
Whilst that may be the same God who James worships, it is not God made in James' image, it is James & I made in His image, forever gratefully so.
@@regenerated4life
That really doesn't matter. They are excellent commentators of it. And when they are deriving beliefs from Scripture itself that you reject, that's a problem if you care about historical continuity with Christ.
@@regenerated4life
My dude that's called subjectivity.
@@regenerated4life
No misty. These are students of the apostles. They have a tacit historical connection to christ.
If you care about christianity as historically continuous with christ, and you care about christ as a historical figure, then what these people wrote about christianity should be of concern.
The fact that this isn't concerning to you is extremely telling on multiple levels.
I’d love to see a debate with you guys and an Orthodox theologian
But what is "frustrating" about the early church fathers, just goes to show the glory of our ascended King, spoken of in Isaiah 42:4. HE will not cease growing His kingdom and building His church, even though the church clearly has been in so many ways still growing into the fullness and maturity toward the stature of Christ.
The church is cumulatively and collectively refining her understanding of His word, and the battles those fathers had to fight, they fought. Gnosticism, Arianism, etc... they fought and won. And that's good enough.
With the passage of time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several times in council. These various Church councils confronted a variety of issues, among which was the canon of Scripture. It is important to note that the purpose of these councils was to discern and confirm what was already generally accepted within the Church at large. The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it already existed in the local churches represented. The councils provide us with specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four centuries, two are particularly important in this context:
(1) The Council of Laodicea met in Asia Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in the Eastern Church.
(2) The third Council of Carthage met in North Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical. The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as authoritative in the West.
When i read the Bible, I never face plant, mainly because I don't conform the Bible's writings into what I want or what the creed wants.
Just from the title....I would hope we're following Jesus Christ...
Brother White,
Isaiah 54:13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
John 6:45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Only the elect have ears to hear the Father. Matthew 11:27 , Luke 10:22
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Mid acts dispensational Pauline right division can solve the Christian denominational confusion!
Matthew 18:17, it says: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
Could james white or anyone give me sources of what the council believed at that meeting in 325 ad?
Thanks!
They believed the One God is the Father: “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty…AND IN (kai eis) One Lord, Jesus Christ…AND IN (kai eis) the Holy Spirit.” Eusebius of Ceserea was the leading bishop. Phillip Schaff’s book on the Creeds admits the Nicene Creed was based on Eusebius’ Creed, and Eusebius wrote plainly in Ecclesiastical Theology what the Nicene Creed meant in Greek: that the Father is the One God, and Jesus is “theos” (divine) and of the same substance because He shares His Father’s nature like a human son shares his father’s human nature. No one at the Council believed Jesus is the same God/entity/living being as the Father. No ante-Nicene Christian believed that. St. Irenaeus’ Proof of Apostolic Preaching, the oldest summary of the faith, says the One God is the Father and Jesus is God because of His nature, not because He is the same God as the Father (Irenaeus Proof of Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7 and 47).
@@regenerated4life “ousia.” Dr. Beau Branson has good work on ousia “substance” meaning what we woudl call “nature” in ancient Greek.
@@IAmisMaster hmm yea, I meant more so on the ideas of faith and stuff like that. I believe the saw jesus as god. Aruis used colossians 1 15 to support jesus was created where they said "blasphmey!"
With changes there concluded with "of the same essence of the father" . I think I see where you are going with this though bc the history book I'm going off of says the Christians that worshipped jesus as god still had problems with this creed bc they felt it could mean that the son and father were somehow not distinct. Despite this only 2 overseers did not sign the creed.
@@regenerated4life
No one sais Jesus is not God, but He is not the One God, which Scripture says is the Father alone (1 Corinthians 8:5-6; Ephesians 4:4-6).
@@regenerated4life
Right, One God properly speaking, the Father Almighty. St. Irenaeus explains plainly the One God is the First Cause and Being with aseity, which is the Father alone (Proof of Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7). But there are other gods in different, lesser senses just as Jesus said plainly in John 10:33-36. Do you deny Jesus’ words?
Catholic church ❤❤❤❤
Yes you do
Protestants can achieve the apostolic witness by becoming Orthodox. It’s that simple.
I would submit that the Gospels(scripture) themselves are the apostolic witness.
@@LivingWateraidehow do you know your interpretation is accurate
@@shaunbailey6353how does anyone? Unless you use scripture to verify scripture. Cross references have been a thing for awhile now. Written word is always superior to the spoken. It’s the entire purpose of having the written word of God. It is much harder to deviate the written record than the spoken. This is an early principle. Hence why administrative affairs are done by written/typed correspondence. The telephone game we participated in as children is a prime example of this.
@@brianrich7828 Holy Tradition that has been carried on since the apostles
@@shaunbailey6353 Good thing we have the written record that demonstrates that’s not true. It would be different if they didn’t record over time their progression to where they are now. But they did. So, false.
Are there any good books on the teachings of the early church and the teaching of the church fatherss theology?
Read the letters of St Ignatius
Save you time- the answer is no. The Church is still an institution- guided by the Holy Spirit and Christ has kept his promise that the gates of Hell woll not prevail against the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Are you saved?
Zero point Calvinist
100% Orthodox 👍
This is just "I know more the church fathers"
Can someone tell me if I am misunderstanding the problem with immaculate conception in this? 4:05 is there a difference in doctrine or verbiage that I am missing between Catholic and reformed Protestants on Jesus being born of a virgin?
Immaculate conception is about Mary being free from sin. She didn’t have original sin and never sinned. This belief is derived from Jesus himself being the new covenant and Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary and Jesus is a direct parallel to the Ark of the Old Covenant. The ark was perfect and holy. This applies to Mary as she was the Ark of the New Covenant that is Jesus.
Jesus, as the ultimate mediator between God and man, needs to be fully divine and fully human. All have sinned, Romans says, and nowhere in Scripture does it clearly say that Mary never sinned, that I am aware of. That would have to be a theological presumption to fit a particular narrative, I am thinking. Would she still be fully human then for Jesus to be born fully human?
Jeff, the church fathers are frustrating to you because they were the leaders of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and they disagree with you. I'm orthodox and I love the fathers. They frustrate you because they have a different faith.
Jesus says call no man father
(Matthew 23:9)
@@simeon2bheardPaul called himself father to the Corinthians. Read the verse in the KJV. Entirely other meaning.
James says all the Bishop's at Niceean council werent Catholic in todays sense but gos completely against "one Baptism, for the remissions of their sins"
Which one is it James?? Were they true believer's or not??
Pick n mix protestant!!! Least Roman Catholics try to be consistent
Can you speak a little about the early first and second century church "fathers" and the notion that they all believed that it was through the waters of baptism that one was saved. This is not the baptism of infants but baptism that was preceded by faith, etc. I get the impression that they were not all in accord on this.
My understanding is that certain doctrines arose over time as we grow in faith and understanding. Take for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. That word does not appear in the bible and wasn't used apparently until 160AD at the earliest. So odd how you accept that doctrine but not others.
The word maybe didn't appear until then but most assuredly, the idea is very real and present in scripture. I'm reading through John right now and you can't read that book without the idea of the trinity being in your face.
Jude 3 says the faith was once for all deliverded.
You can’t even read 1 page of Genesis without being confronted by the Trinity.
Bad example because the trinity is everywhere in the Bible but Mary being without sin and purgatory not so much…. :/
This was an echo chamber episode.. You just talked bad about another church for 5 minutes without being specific about anything.. Why would you do that
This is a highlight… not the full video
@@kimberlyr5858 so? All the more responsibility on whoever is putting out these videos. Christians needs to come together, this is horrible stuff.
It’s okay for Christians to disagree with other Christians on matters of doctrine. If you can’t hear a critique without getting your feelings hurt you need to grow up.
I never said it wasn't@@Concetta20
im not even christian@@Concetta20
Which early church? Paul wrote to several. Jesus addressed 7 churches in Revelation.
Those would be local churches in the one whole Church. You forget that Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, Colossae, Thessaloniki, Rome, etc. were local churches in the one Church. Orthodoxy still has all but Rome from my list.
Most people don't even HAVE let alone understand Saving Faith... that the Early Church Father's weren't infallible and maybe not even genuinely converted is not surprising or controversial if you understand saving faith.
Wow. What a world you live in that you think that because the most ancient group of Christians disagreed with your theology in extremely significant ways, IT MUST BE because they were actually heretics. The mental gymnastics here are absolutely Olympian.
@@thepalegalilean The fact that you address "my theology" means you don't understand my point of what Saving Faith is... and that's profoundly disconcerting.
@@mr3817
Saving faith is being in conformity to the will of Christ. That's not you.
You and your theology embody chaos, not anything capable of saving.
@@thepalegalilean wow you are one messed up religious person... also you yourself don't understand saving faith because you stated a False "theological" definition...
@@thepalegalilean The fact that you attack, with Zero understanding and zero logical basis, means you have a mental disorder. You gaslight my comment, create a strawman and then attack. You have a serious problem.
The Apostolic Canons were transmitted under the name of Clement, and Eusebius says this Clement is the same as in Philippians 4:3. How is that not Apostolic?
Wrong Clement, lol.
@@misse8787 How do you know Eusebius was wrong?
🧂&💡
Guy just threw out 1700 of Eastern monasticism. ☦
Yo why did you block Boylan?
For every Catholic who leaves the Church a hundred Evangelicals comes back home thanks to the work of Fr. Mike Schmitz and his Bible in a Year podcast.
Stop spamming this. Catholicism is apostasy
@@Isaiah-ft5nxnice cope
Here's your daily reminder Rome teaches a false gospel.
What an uneducated take. If Rome has a false gospel, Then rome is a litmus test to determine you deftly don't have that correct one.
Daily reminder that Luther and Calvin’s false gospel of the 16th century also has nothing to do with the gospel John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles preached.
@thepalegalilean the Papacy is illegitimate, Papal Infallibility is a heresy. The bodily assumption of Mary is not Biblical, Mary's sinlessness is not Biblical, Catholics claim to not worship her, but I worked at a Catholic School and sat through Mass and it was straight idolatry of Mary. Purgatory is not in Scripture, the Alter Christus Priesthood is blasphemous, Paul teaches that it was Abraham's faith that justified him, Paul makes it clear that we can bring no work to the table that saves they are only evidence of salvation, Rome teaches you can't even know you're saved....in short: False gospel and Rome is anathema until she corrects her errors which Vatican II showed isn't happening. I don't know how any RC can take Francis seriously at this point.
@@firingallcylinders2949
*the Papacy is illegitimate,*
Completely irrelevant.
*Papal Infallibility is a heresy.*
Completely irrelevant.
*The bodily assumption of Mary is not Biblical, Mary's sinlessness is not Biblical, Catholics claim to not worship her, but I worked at a Catholic School and sat through Mass and it was straight idolatry of Mary.*
At least we both now know you have no idea what constitutes idolatry, but again, completely irrelevant.
*Purgatory is not in Scripture, the Alter Christus Priesthood is blasphemous, Paul teaches that it was Abraham's faith that justified him, Paul makes it clear that we can bring no work to the table that saves they are only evidence of salvation, Rome teaches you can't even know you're saved*
At least we both now know you don't actually know, care about, or even understand the basics of Rome's soteriology, but gain, completely and utterly irrelevant.
I'm beginning to sense a tend here, are you?
*in short: False gospel and Rome is anathema until she corrects her errors which Vatican II showed isn't happening. I don't know how any RC can take Francis seriously at this point.*
It's easy to take Francis seriously when you don't assume the rebellion of a 16th century heretical priest with severe afflictions dealt by childhood neglect and trauma.
As to your claims of 'false gospel', WHAT IS THAT? This is the only portion of your comment that actually somewhat, sort of, but not really addresses the issue, and you're still abysmally short of actually defining it.
So, I'll ask again. What is THE GOSPEL? And I'll give you a hint out of charity. If Rome has a false Gospel, there's no way you have the correct one.
You are borrowing from the scripture we gave you. Pope Damasus codified the canon at the Council of Rome.
This is like a presupposition echo chamber. Whether or not the church is correct or incorrect, it does not prove Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
Here is absolute Biblical proof that God does NOT cause or determine everything; In Jeremiah 19:5 God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” 2nd Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is…not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.” and yet, it also has Jesus saying, "Broad is the road that leads to destruction (hell) and many are on it, but straight and narrow is the road that leads to life (Heaven) and few ever find it.
You miss the point of total depravity and that man is the under bondage of sin.
If we are merely quoting verses out of context then I'll use this:
Proverbs 16:4 (KJV)
The LORD hath made all things for himself:
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Proverbs 16:9 (KJV)
A man's heart deviseth his way:
but the LORD directeth his steps.
The consequence of what you process to believe about God leaves him _reacting_ to man and not as _sovereign_ over his own creation. In other words, man shapes the world and not God, which is ancient Greek philosophy regarding the demiurge and later Kantian philosophy.
Just because we sinners do not do what God commands does not mean it's not his purpose. He is the potter, is he not? I've yet to see any clay form itself.
Calvinism makes God sound like a mad man, like a crazy man in an insane asylum creating humans with the purpose of saving some and burning some forever for fun. Calvinist Jeff Durbin is on record saying babies that died are now burning in Hell.
Calvinism is garbage, the early church fathers never believed in faith alone, once saved always saved, total depravity or any of the other man-made doctrines John that Martin Luther and John Calvin invented.
Salvation is by having the faith of Jesus and keeping the commandments
of God, read Rev 14:12.
This is not the case of orthodox
James White can't ask the same question of the Orthodox Church being inline with the fathers of the council of Niceae. This is a tired old shict of Protestantism milking the papal institution for as long as it can.
You would have been excommunicated from the early church.
James White claims Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas, two of the oldest verified Chrsitian documents, are “Galatian” based on White’s own heretical misinterpretation of the Epistle of Galatians. Yet Epistle of Barnabas has the same theme as Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, saying Christians do not have to obey the circumcision, sabbaths, etc. of the Law of Moses, and are therefore not justified by those “works of the Law.”
Maybe Galatians simply doesn’t say what James White thinks it says? Maybe we didn’t have to wait for Calvin to invent novel heresies 1500 years after Christ contrary to what all Christians understood for thousands of years, since Paul actually says we only reap eternal life by doing works of the law of Christ in Galatians 6:1-10.
Regarding the "heresies" of Calvin, please explain John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His Name: who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. Eph 1:4-5 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, (5) having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, ACCORDING TO HIS GOOD PLEASURE AND WILL. I don't believe any man, of there own will or works could put their own name in the Book of Life. Phil 4:3, Rev 3:5, Rev 13:18 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in The Book of Life of The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev 17:8 and all those who dwell on the earth will marvel, who's names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. Eph has many similar passages.
John 6:37 [37] All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
John 6:40 [40] For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:44
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:45 [45] It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-
In short, no. Calvinists are cultists. You may hate a lot of things in Catholicism history. I do too. But it’s true so you have to deal with it.
No it isn’t lmao imagine believing in papal infallibility, utter lunacy. The original church still stands strong and it’s not Roman Catholic, an actual Pagan cult.
@@MikeMarlowe-ym3zy then why do you believe the Catholic Bible? Yes you guys cut out 7 books 1300 years later to start your new religion but the entire book is based on “Roman Catholic paganism”. You’re in opposition to Christ please repent and meet our savior.
Most churches do NOT follow the early church. The apostle Paul warned that "after is passing" wicked men would come into the flock, and he warned of a GREAT APOSTASY, and when Rome took over in the 3rd century the apostasy really took hold with lots of pagan customs and tradition, such as the Trinity, the use of the cross in worship and much more. So TRUE Christians today reject all the pagan stuff and look to getting back to the grass roots of Christianity !
The Trinity is entirely Biblical
The grass roots as in orthodoxy, the original church
Protestant damage control videos...
Just as Jesus came in human body over 2000 years ago, to rescue the Jews from myths and fallacies, so has Jesus returned through the medium of his original teachings (the Christ Letters, A Course In Miracles, A Course Of Love, etc) distributed worldwide, to make it abundantly clear that the "Bible" in no way reflects his true CHRIST message either as he taught it in Jerusalem - or at this present time when his original teachings (the Christ Letters, A Course In Miracles, A Course Of Love, etc) will arouse the fury and condemnation of traditional Christians. The church, as it stands at this time, is only a hodgepodge of the muddled thinking of the disciples' selective recollections and Paul's worthy homilies and other early writings. Much later, when the impact of the church lacked the visual effect of the gods and goddesses of the Romans, the church was adorned with "theatrical" but "expedient" nonsense to impress those whom the Ecclesiastical Empire of Rome desired to draw into their fold. This empire later imposed monetary burdens on the gullible people even more iniquitous than the taxes demanded by the secular Roman Empire on conquered nations. Even Caesar did not demand payment for souls to gain entrance to heaven!
You may wonder why Jesus is so explicit in his rejection of the "Bible." It is vital to the success of the distribution of his CHRIST MESSAGE that people should fully understand the true nature of the church. Until believers do realize the mythical foundations on which they have placed all their convictions, believers will find it difficult to get rid of cherished beliefs. Please understand that when Jesus makes such statements, he is referring to the "tenets of faith," to the "dogma and theology." Jesus is not referring to those great spiritual souls who have sought - and continue to seek God and Truth beyond the dogma and beliefs. Jesus knows the church have received the inspiration of God into their minds and hearts but most believers are afraid to get rid of cherished beliefs. Most believers are hampered by myths and fallacies. But the time has come for them to get rid of them and grow in spiritual wisdom.
To strict adherence to the "early Church" is to ignore all of the fantastic things that have occurred during the past 2000 years. The Church evolved under the guidance of the Magisterium.
It didn't evolve to good places. Jesus said love God and love your neighbor. Nowadays people are just doing rituals.
What are you a Mormon? You don’t alter the gospel. It doesn’t “evolve.” Heresy
Simple answer is no, not the church in Acts. God is not triune and anyone believing that believes in a false god.
This confusion has such an EASY fix.
The fact that it still exists and will continue to exist is VERY STRONG evidence that Holy Trinity God (HTG) is NOT real.
All HTG has to do is give an indestructible book detailing exactly what It wants us to believe and how It expects us to behave.
This book can miraculously appear in an instant as an indestructible monument (made of material our best scientist will never be able to identify) in every major city in all continents.
Any person with sufficient IQ will be able to read it in Its preferred language.
Additionally, when somebody tries to corrupt the doctrine, the indestructible original will be there for fact checking.
This solution doesn't get rid of "free will," because any person will be free to follow or not follow the instructions.
But this solution allows the faithful to have faith in the demonstrably correct doctrine.
This solution doesn't put HTG to the "test," because HTG (according to you believers) has performed grander miracles than this e.g. creating something out of nothing.
The fact that HTG isn't capable of such easy solutions to the human problem of consistently corrupting his doctrine is very strong evidence that It is NOT real.
So God has to do exactly what you want him to do under your own understanding and expectations in order to show he is real. Ok.
@@Dan_Capone
"So God has to do exactly what you want him to do"
No.
And that is the point.
God (as you describe It) can do much better than what I can, and yet It doesn't.
So, how can my eternal soul be so harshly judged by a God who can do better but doesn't?
@@francmittelo6731 According to who he can do better? according to you. You're the arbiter of this situation. He has performed below your expectations so apparently he has failed all of humanity. I never thought I would be talking to such an important human being on RUclips of all places.
@@Dan_Capone
"According to who he can do better? according to you."
Don't you believe in a god who is omniscient and omnipotent?
If your god is not maximally powerful and all knowing, then my comments are not directed at you.
@@francmittelo6731 That's not the issue. You're saying that God should jump through your hoop like a trained puppy or otherwise he fails as God. That's illogical and faulty reasoning.
Catholic means universal and are worldly. Rev_17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
"Do We Follow The Early Church?" No, you don't.
True. We admit where they departed from scripture and why, though. Rome also laughably doesn't even come close to following the early church.
@@Michael_Chandler_Keaton correct. Return to Orthodoxy.
Neither do you. The early church were pacifists.
There was no Early Church. There was diversity from the very beginning.
Not in everything. That's the fundamental strawman of the Reformation. Because you and your groups embody absolute theological chaos, you HAVE to assume that the Church Jesus created was also total anarchy.
But that's not the case. You may have diversity of thought in the Early Church, but there are many things they held in kind. Such as meriting further salvation, baptismal regeneration, True Presence of the Eucharist, the Eucharist as a sacrifice, Jesus being the object of Faith, among others. These were accepted universally in the Early Church and there's very few Protestants that accept all or even one of these.
Irenaeus said otherwise:
“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father to gather all things in one, Ephesians 1:10 and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess Philippians 2:10-11 to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send spiritual wickednesses, Ephesians 6:12 and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.”
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, ch. 10 (circa AD 180).
Heretics love to claim diversity from the beginjing, because it is easier to pass on their heresy. Calvinists love it so they can crown Calvin as their doctrina measiah, even though he changed Christian doctrine with novel twistings of Scripture not one Christian believed for thousands of years.
@@regenerated4life
Literally every Church Father, and Christian authority since, and even Luther. Only from Calvin onwards did this change.
Diversity still exists with literally thousands of Protestant denominations.
@@thepalegalileanCan you tell the truth if you want to?
The early church were one God monotheistic Jews and not trinitarian. God stated that he is an absolute numerical one. Nothing else.
Who coined the word trinitas or trinity and who formulated the doctrine of the trinity?
Is Jesus the mystery and revelation and glory of God the Father or is it the trinity?
@@regenerated4life answer my questions
@@regenerated4life I'll answer your question after you answer mine. 😉
@@regenerated4life it does matter who created and formulated the doctrine of the trinity. I'm waiting for an answer.
At least you say that Jesus is the revelation of God and not the false doctrine of the trinity
@@regenerated4life that's a lie. God never stated that his doctrine is a trinity. He said that he's an absolute numerical one.
That doesn't answer the 1st question either.
Jesus is the manifestation and personification of God the Father.
@@regenerated4life Jesus is our example in all things. As a man, he prayed, got hungry and thirsty. As God, he walked on water, healed the sick and cast out demons.
Jesus denied the trinity and said that he is one with the Father and never a 3rd person