The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid

Good and very true.

These would be considered the same thing. So the author errs in that Handed down has the same connotation as signifying all his instructions even ones not writing in the Epistles

That's not true as can be seen in comparisions between writings of Irenaus and Eusibius and modern lists.

Also not true. There are distinct referrences to "tradition beliefs and practices" long before 300 AD. Ignatius shows the distinctiveness of the Eucharistic celebration early in 100's. Justin Martyr describes such practice 50 years later. Catacomb drawings in Rome date Marian veneration back to 230 AD. And other Catholic type beliefs. Which is why I contend that the Christian church evolved and is currently nothing like it was back during the time of the Apostles nor the ECF.

 

Absolutely, I own a bible and read it daily. I also study history advidly. We have the Same scriptures but our cultural context and understanding of those same scriptures have changed overtime in small respects.

Here is evidence of Eucharistic believe. Ignatius the martyred bishop of Antioch wrote to the Smyrneans indicating for them not participate with people who deny that the eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Note Justin Martyr also explains in detail the "process" by which the Eucharist becomes the body and blood. These documents show what some believers believed at that time.

As far as my thought with the evolved church consider this. Paul never address the Trinity specifically. Why. People believed in Jesus, they Believed in the Father, they believed in the Holy Spirit but they didn't have a clear consept as to how that worked. They equally believed there was just one God. Paul never addresses it because it wasn't necissary because people just accpeted that God was God and Jesus was God. How was a later development and now if you ask about the trinity you get a pretty detailed explination. Just like Hypostatic Union. These are developed over time. You may believe in "Soul Liberty" but that was also not spoken to in the writings of the Apostles because they would have no consept of that in their cultural context. They may have said things to suggest it but it wasn't until recently that consept became clear using those same scriptures. Scriptures are a living thing and becomes a deep well of insight.

Not all insight was given by the apostles. The apostles themselves did not imagine a Christianity as we have it today. They were Jews and believed they were fulfilling Judaism and grafting in the gentiles as God had promised. This is why all early churches started in Synagogues and where that was imposible wealthy people's homes. Many consepts of Jesus teachings can only be understood from a Jewish context like the Gospel of Matthew.

 

Ok I'll split it up for you. The referrence is Ignatius letter to the Smyrneans. And Justin's first Apology.

As far as Trinity and Hypostatic union you will not find it in scripture. Nor will you find "Soul Liberty" in scripture.

I was able to break it up a little bit.

 

Yes I see what you are saying and when you study what transubstantiation means it agrees with the above. (not that I agree with it but this is the principle of it). Note the Orthodox don't define Transubstantiation. What is common is the believe in the Real presence during the communion which as you're making the point of generality so it seems are these writers. In otherword Christ presence is there during communion. Not specific as in elements possibly.
Note Catholics don't understand their own doctrine save the educated clergy. Note Transubstance is a consept put forward by Aquinas. Who used Greek philosophy to make their point. Note Substance is the spiritual truth behind matter not matter itself. This is a platonic idea. You can see this in the writings of CS Lewis and George Macdonald. This view of Spirit and matter. The substance is not matter but what matter is based on. Catholics split the Eucharist into two aspects Substance and Accidents. Accidents are the Matter of the elements. So Transsubstance is a Changing that goes on behind the scenes spiritually. Accidents remain the same. So in reality its a figurative point that spiritually we believe this happens but not physically. Most catholics seem to believe its a physical thing but that not what the doctrine teaches. However, the importance of the eucharist is noted in all the quotes you made which is Catholic. Thus as you see this development of Doctrine is stictly based on Greek Thought as are the Majority of Early Christian doctrine. So in the sence you mean Justin believed in the real presence (generally) Catholic believe the same with the exception that it is directly connected to the elements though the elements themselves do not change.
However, as baptist we say Christ is in communion in a general way as he is always with us. We differ from Catholics and Justin in this matter. What I find out about the Catholic Church is that they give a lot of fancy latin names to very simple consepts but somehow make it seem more than it is. Like with Transubstantiation.

 

Reformed Baptist said: "Furthermore, the differences among most Protestant and Evangelical churches are minute."

The majority of mainline protestant churches, the Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, Ev. Lutheran Church, Episcopal, etc., are having a big struggle with liberal theology. In most of these churches liberals are in the majority now. They have lost their theological moorings.

Denying the virgin birth, referring to the atonement as 'Divine child abuse, no physical resurrection, ordaining practicing homosexuals, on and on is more than 'minute' differences wouldn't you say?

 

...and all these Churches at one time were very conservative and what will stop RB's Church from becoming a 'liberal' staple as well? NOTHING...just another victim of schism is all and a Church re-name all in the name of sola scriptura.

In XC
-

 

don't I get some assistance on the curve? LOL. No I don't I use the writings of these People and see the context which Transubstantiation is in.

Transubstantiation has to do with Substance. A Greek consept of the reality behind Matter. Matter is what this world is made of. Substance is the spiritual world. Accidents are matter. Trans-substance is a change of the spiritual rather than the matterial. So Transsubstantiation is as spiritual change that is not observed. In otherwords its a spiritual truth believed that Jesus Christ is present in the communion. All Early church Doctrine was viewed from Greek prespectives. Aquinas first coining the phrase was a student of Greek philosophy and so the term hail back to that.

It is sufficient to say that the early Christians believed in the real pressence during communion either figuratively, generally, or connected to the communion itself but they believed it. That's not reading back into it but understanding the consept from their perspective rather than ours.

Even lay catholics get this wrong because they believe the Accidents change as well. But its a change never observed because its spiritual just like when we say The spirit of God resides in us. You can't really see it save in our behavior but its a spiritual truth. My body hasn't changed but I have faith that the HS is with me. This is how The Catholics are supposed to view the eucharist but most don't understand.

Is this helping your eyeballs? Note How in your quote Justin connects the presence with the Eucharist at a particular time. Thats not reading modern though back into it.

 

As a "reformed" Baptist whose theology is committed to Covenant theology, does your particular church practice infant baptism?

Just wondering, back where I lived in Indianapolis, I had a neighbor who was a Presbyterian preacher and would hold bible studies...this was during the time I started to re-think what I believed as a Baptist. As an Independent Fundamental Baptist I told him I was thinking of checking out the Reformed Baptist Church...it was then did he tell me, the Reformed Baptist wasn't truly "Reformed" and that worldwide there were over 700 "Reformed" denominations and good luck finding the authentic Reformed Church.

That would be correct...

In XC
-

 

When it comes to St. Ignatius of Antioch, I suspect this is what he did. He sat at Johns feet. He wrote seven letters that were considered for inclusion in the canon because of this. I put a lot more weight to his writings than some of the other ECF's because of that. I would have expected him to ask John 'just what did you mean when you wrote John 6?"

 

Reformed Baptist are Creedal, right? Would you say that the Apostles, Athanasian, and Nicene creeds are summarys of the faith? Just not on the same level as scripture?