Debate with a Protestant : Continuing vs Restored Apostolic Church

Luke Lefebvre

[in his status had cited lots of early Church Fathers and writers in support of the Blessed Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, and only marred it by one detail, which started our little dialogue:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What do you mean "LONG BEFORE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"? I didn't see anything previous to 33 AD!

Kim All

The Catholic Church began in the 4th Century.

The first three centuries produced many divergent myths about Jesus. The Catholics selected the texts to consider orthodox when they produced the Bible at the end of the 4th C CE (AD).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[It seems an answer was deleted, it said : I believe what the Catholic Church says about its origin - also possible I missed the "post" button]

Luke Lefebvre

Catholic churches fourth century my friend. There was no Catholic Church in the second century it's a post Constantine invention

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew 28:20 - where did the original Apostolic Church go, if you are right?

Luke Lefebvre

It existed for the first 300 years and it was taken over by the Catholic Church in the fourth century that's what happened.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

According to Matthew 28:20, if it was "taken over by the Catholic Church", how can the Catholic Church NOT be it?

Luke Lefebvre

Clement of Rome was not the first pole but he was the pastor of that church in Rome. It was not called the Roman Catholic Church because he was not the first Bishop there. He clearly says both Peter and Paul establish that church and at that time there were multiple pastors Clement being a subordinate pastor there

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If that were true, where is a continuing Church today which says so?

All I see are Protestants concluding so.

Luke Lefebvre

Irenaeus is probably the greatest historian of the second century. He's a convert of Polycarp of which Polycarp was converted by John the apostle. Clearly Irenaeus was not a Roman Catholic LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I have a friend who read him and who says he was, I know others who say he was an Orthodox, I know no one who honestly claims he was a Protestant after looking at the evidence.

Luke Lefebvre

We have to look to the Protestant Reformation to see them bringing the church back to first century theology. That's what they believed a lot of them within the first 300 years

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem with this is that "bringing the Church back to first century theology" means admitting the Church lost it - contrary to Matthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre

How Irenaeus interpret the Scriptures is no different than people interpreting the Scriptures today. If he was wrong about certain doctrines he had an overall perspective of good doctrine

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As have the Catholics today too.

As you said he was "wrong about certain doctrines", you are perhaps admitting he was no Protestant?

Luke Lefebvre

But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible. They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God. The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God

Hans-Georg Lundahl, well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Luke Lefebvre, I'll have to pick this apart a bit.

"But the difference is they have traditions outside the Bible"

Do you mean traditions outside the text of the Bible or do you mean traditions without connexion to Biblical doctrine?

"these early Christians did not have traditions outside the Bible."

If you mean without connection to Biblical doctrine, neither have we today.

If you mean outside the text, they had, like sign of the cross, like fasting on wednesdays and fridays.

"They didn't worship the virgin Mary is the mother of God."

They at least honoured her as actually being that.

"The esteemed her highly favored but in no way saw her as the mother of God"

That would mean they did not regard Christ as God, I don't believe that for a second!

"well I know the church of Christ believe in water baptism for salvation and they're definitely protestants but they're just wrong about that doctrine but they're right another doctrine."

How, according to Matthew 28:20 can the Church which Christ founded be wrong about any doctrine? Just previous to that promise, He had told the disciples to teach the nations ALL he had told them to do.

This means He was promising inerrant assistance!

Luke Lefebvre

What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church. That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible. These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information

There's three periods to Christianity as a whole. The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement. It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years. I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What I'm saying is that these men did not believe Mary to be the mother of God"

Did they not believe Jesus Christ was God, or did they not believe Mary was His Mother?

"as you find today Todd in the Catholic Church."

If not as, then differently? How differently?

"That's later traditions outside the Bible by Miss using the Bible."

If that were the Catholic Church's action, where is the Church who every century used it right?

"These Christians within the first 300 years of the Christian faith bring this valuable information"

Not doubting that a moment, but they were Catholics, and so is the Catholic Church doing now.

"There's three periods to Christianity as a whole."

I don't think so.

"The beginning then the Catholic Church the end being the Protestant movement."

If the Catholic Church "went astray" as your scenario presupposes, you ruin Matthew 28:20.

"It was a return to what was originally talk within the first 300 years."

A "return" means all of the Church had "left" what was originally there : contrary to Matthew 28:20.

"I believe that's the woman mentioned in Matthew 13 hiding leaven Three meals of leaven"

Why would the leaven in three meals of flour mean that? What if it is a normal recipy for leavened bread?

Luke Lefebvre

We know The Catholic Church went astray. But they had general beliefs of the Christian faith. The Protestant movement restored that faith

For the first 300 years Christians there did not have perfect interpretation of the scripture no different than people today. My point being is God's word was always there the church was always there and today we have been restored to the faith once delivered to the saints.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

When you say "you know the Catholic Church went astray", either you show where the faith once delivered to the saints was PRESERVED or you contradict Mattthew 28:20.

Luke Lefebvre

Matthew 2820 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL it doesn't teach that at all it just says go make disciples and we know the church got corrupted.

Sorry for the laughing

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Matthew 28:20 does not save the church will preserve the doctrine LOL"

Matthew 28:20 has two parts.

In the first part He tells the disciples to preserve His doctrine, in the second He says He will assist them all days.

So, Matthew 28:20 very well tells He will preserve His doctrine in the Church.

You should be sorry for laughing like a fool, instead of understanding!