Sola Scriptura

As I said, I dont deny the etymology of the term. The question is in what sense or application is something "universal."

When it was applied to a specific geographical congregation it cannot honestly mean that this particular congregation was univerally distributed geographically because it is contextually located "AT" specific given locality.

When it was applied to the "epistles" it cannot honestly mean they were universal in regard to their essense because they were confined to the print on a page. They may be designed for univesal distribution but that speaks to their intended application instead of their essential nature.

When other dissenting congregations outside the pale of Roman congregations claimed to be the true "catholic" congregation of Christ it cannot mean they were equally universal in geographical distribution as that is not factually true of either.

The true applied meaning of "catholic" in its earliest use was in response to the Jewish congregations or synonogues who restricted their membership of one ethnic people whereas the congregations of Christ were "catholic" in that regards or inclusive of all ethnic people, all classes of people and all genders in keeping with a catholic commission "all nations."

When it was used in contrast to another competing type of congregation it is a claim of "universal" recognition as the true apostolic church in origin.

Rome finally claimed it as a denominational title.

 

Ignatious of Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch was the first to coin the word Catholic. In a Letter to the Symaians on his way to Rome to be executed he wrote: ".... even as , where Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church A.D. 50-110

Your Protestant King Henry the Eighth was the first to coin the Church as the "Roman" Catholic Church.

 

Christ was in heaven when he said that. He probably was referring to Christ's promise in Matthew 18:20 and that text speaks of the minimum size of a local congregation that administers the keys of the kingdom as previously described in verses 15-18.

One AF writer applied it directly to a particular geographical located congregation. No local congregation is universal as that is an oxymoron.

First, I am not a Protestant but Anabaptist in regard to historical origin. Hence, I have no historical affinity in regard to origin or doctrine with King Henry the Eighth.

Second, Augustine formulated the doctine of the catholic church and Rome embraced it. The Donatists (anabaptists) repudiated Augustine's definition of the church and rightly accused him of teaching two different kinds of ekklesia - one local visible and geographically located and another universal and visible.

 

Since when were Donatists Anabaptists?

 

It doesn't demonstrate it any more than the words written on the sign put on the cross were written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. There was a definite purpose whey Daniel wrote that passage in Aramaic. God inspired him to do so. The rest of the Bible, and the rest of the book of Daniel is written in Hebrew. The "Hebrews" would not accept any other language, or book written in any other language into their canon. If that is your argument it is pretty flimsy.

 

The word "catholic" has a meaning which means "universal."
Nowadays that is a secondary meaning, not a primary meaning. The primary meaning is always in reference to the Catholic Church, specifically the RCC. Try it out. Go to my unsaved relatives and ask if they are "catholic"? Will they think "universal"? No, not at all? They will tell you the Catholic Church they attend. The meaning "universal" is rather out-dated and secondary in importance. It is not used that way very much anymore.

The RCC was never Christ's Church; it was never a Christian church to begin with, is not and never will be. It was built on a false foundation. It began in the fourth century with Constantine, and had nothing to do with Peter. In fact there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.

The RCC is not universal. A church cannot be universal. The word church, as used in the Bible, is ekklesia, and by definition is "assembly." It is impossible for an assembly to be universal. Assemblies are always local.

 

The Reformation Anabaptists were consistently accused by Rome to be the "Donatists" of old. Have you ever read "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduen?

Have you read Augustine's debate with the Donatists? They were accused of rebaptizing all who came from the Roman congregations. The term "anabaptist" simply means "re-baptizers."

Cardinal Hosius, the ambassador of the Pope to the council of Trent claimed the Reformation Anabaptists had been causing problems to Rome for the past 1200 years and he said this in about 1563 AD.

Have you read the Mennonite historian Rolland Bainton's book "The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century" where he says,

"To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as infant baptism was no baptism at all. They simply called themselves Baptists" - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Boston, Beacon Press, 1956, p. 99.

The charge of being Anabaptists originates with Rome against the Donatists.

 

These authors sound like Landmarkists in one form or another so are thus discreditable. In any event, the Donatists were both sacramental and episcopal, which makes them rather odd bedfellows for 16th century Anabaptists.

Not flimsy at all since it proves your contention that Hebrew is the only inspired OT language is wrong.

 

This statement seems to based upon Catholic traditions (ECF) and is thus discreditable.

 

...and...er...historical fact. Awkward things, facts, aren't they?

 

....and...er....historical WHAT? You presume that Rome's traditions are "fact"? If the Bible is accepted as the INSPIRED authority to determine the validity of truth then such traditions are full of errors not facts and cannot be trusted at all, except perhaps where they confess error, but certainly not where they attribute to others error.

 

Who said anything about 'Rome'? It wasn't me....

 

Great! Then lets dump all Catholic traditions (Antenicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene) and now please give me the basis for your "facts"?

 

Because the issue of whether or not Donatists were Anabaptist or not is not a matter of traditions but of facts.

 

The fact is what we know of the Donatist (and its a lot) they would have been horrified by the Laziez fare attitude of Protestants with regard to Liturgy, church attendance, church hoping, difference of beliefs, etc....

Yes dontatist were very stict and they were very liturgical.

 

Pardon me, but did not this discussion begin with you questioning that "fact"?

Still, what source materials do you depend upon to defend what you call "facts"?

 

I was questioning your assertion, which is easily debunked by the facts.

 

The Biblicist,sacred Tradition is a direct expression of the authority Jesus gave to the apostle Peter and his successors.Luke 10;16 -"He who hears you , hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me;and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me". For over a century there was no New Testament. What was taught was oral Tradition. The faithful, like us today, had to rely on the authority Jesus gave to the leaders of the Church and their successors. It was that authority that eventually compiled the New Testament, discerning which books to include and which not. Whatever the Church teaches, it is bound to fidelity to sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. This is why it cannot sanction anything it chooses but only that which is in accord with what it has been given: e.g., prohibiting the use of anything but grape wine and wheat bread for the Eucharist.

Tradition is the understanding of God's word as passed on to us by the Apostles in their preaching and by their successors in the Church to the present day. " So, then, brethren stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, rather by word or by letter of ours" [ 2 Thess 2:15 ]

 

Again, "facts" based upon what authority?

 

Seeing as how you like Anabaptists, here is an Anabaptist site which confirms they were schismatics rather than what Catholics would label 'heretics' and were sacramentalist.