Jump to content
Online Baptist

Hail Mary Prayer In The 1611 Kjv Bible ?


Adamski

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

As for what we read in Rev. 5, concerning the prayers being offered up to God, and really, in ALL of Revelation, what we have here is something unique to history-a great judgment is coming, the judgment of the entire world-not as the first in Genesis, but a final judgment. Who are the 24 elders? Lots of theories out there: I believe its possible they are either the 12 Apostles of the Lamb and the 12 Patriarchs of Israel, though again, not clear. Or, they may merely be representative of ALL Christians at ALL times, thus, bringing the prayers of the saints, of whom they represent, to the Lord. Since they are never spoken of anywhere but Revelation, their presence may be unique to this time, and this event.

 

In another passage in Revelation 8, we see an angel ofering the prayers of the saints to the lord with incensein a censer, which he then promptly casts down to earth, and immediately afterward, the seven trumpet judgments begin-I beleve this is representative of the prayers the saints have prayed for the lost of the world, which were rejected by the lost, and this is done as part of the reason the judgments are occurring: not only has esus died for the lost, who have thouroughly rejected Him, but the Christians on earth have continually prayed for their good and their salvation, yet they have been hated, killed and rejected also-thus, the prayers arehurled back at them at the beginning of judgment. Sort of like, "You didn't want their prayers for your good, then you have their prayers as your judgment"

 

Of course, feel free to disagree with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Bible does not tell us this happens. So if someone teaches that, they're not teaching Bible truths.

 

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

 

Ro 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

In order to pleas God we must abide & live by what is written in the Holy Bible. And as the verses states, we will be judge by what is written in the Holy Bible.

 

Now, with that said, the saved person has only one mediator between him & God, & that is Jesus Christ.

 

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

And the saved person is assured.

 

Joh 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

 

That whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

 

We are never instructed to pray to, through, those who have died in Christ, we are not told they will be our mediators, only Jesus will mediate between the save person & God.

 

Stick to the Bible, not teachings of man. 

 

Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

​Here in this verse it clearly states, they were teaching to doctrines of men, for the doctrine of God, & God was not accepting their worship. Stay safe, stick to Bible teachings, & be sure you use verses in proper context as well.

How can you be sure that your interpretation of Revelation 8:4 is correct? I'm reading that passage in a literal sense and it says prayers of the saints. And you know it's referring to saints in heaven by reading the earlier chapter because John is taken up to heaven (his vision).

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for what we read in Rev. 5, concerning the prayers being offered up to God, and really, in ALL of Revelation, what we have here is something unique to history-a great judgment is coming, the judgment of the entire world-not as the first in Genesis, but a final judgment. Who are the 24 elders? Lots of theories out there: I believe its possible they are either the 12 Apostles of the Lamb and the 12 Patriarchs of Israel, though again, not clear. Or, they may merely be representative of ALL Christians at ALL times, thus, bringing the prayers of the saints, of whom they represent, to the Lord. Since they are never spoken of anywhere but Revelation, their presence may be unique to this time, and this event.

 

In another passage in Revelation 8, we see an angel ofering the prayers of the saints to the lord with incensein a censer, which he then promptly casts down to earth, and immediately afterward, the seven trumpet judgments begin-I beleve this is representative of the prayers the saints have prayed for the lost of the world, which were rejected by the lost, and this is done as part of the reason the judgments are occurring: not only has esus died for the lost, who have thouroughly rejected Him, but the Christians on earth have continually prayed for their good and their salvation, yet they have been hated, killed and rejected also-thus, the prayers arehurled back at them at the beginning of judgment. Sort of like, "You didn't want their prayers for your good, then you have their prayers as your judgment"

 

Of course, feel free to disagree with me.

I agree with your theory on the 24 elders. Personally I think it would be a stretch to say that Revelation 8:4 hasn't taken place yet, that saints and angels aren't praying for us. Maybe I'm taking the passage too literal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bible isn't totally clear what the saints are doing in heaven. One thing we know is that they are not receiving prayers.

 

 

Who are the 24 elders?

 

You are groping in darkness. The bible is not very clear here. So to build a doctrine upon this these passages is going to lead to one big heretical mess. 

 

By the way, these saints are future saints that are killed during the tribulation by the beast. They are NOT part of the church seeing the church will be raptured off this planet by this time. These are saints that have come through great tribulation who have lost their lives and whose souls are kept under the altar until the Second Coming of Christ. NT Christians are not shut up under some altar. We are already united with Christ and seated in heavenly places in him (Eph. 2:6). And when we die we go automatically into his presence (II. Cor. 5:8).

 

Also, nowhere does it say that the angel received the prayers other than by offering them up to the Lord. The Lord is the one who received the prayers.

 

If you want to pray to some nameless angel go right ahead. Just hope he's the right one. I'll bypass it all and go right to the Lord himself since I have full access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16).

 

This is just another reason why the doctrine of the rapture and right divisions is important.

I have to disagree with you incorporating the rapture theory. The word rapture, tribulation, or anti-Christ is not found in Revelation. That is a doctrine of man not the Bible. To say these saints are future saints is also misleading because of the tense John uses in Revelation. It does not say the saints will be praying, future tense, it says the saints are praying, present tense. That is not a doctrine of man, that is literally what Revelation says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

 

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance for sounding condescening because I grew up IFB. I'm able to trace core Independent Baptist doctrines, teachings, and the Biblical interpretation IFB's use to the late 19th or early 20th century. Baptist doctrines and Biblical interpretations can be traced back to the 17th century. If anyone is able to recommend a document or book that was written prior to the 17th century that adheres to strict IFB theology please let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I apologize in advance for sounding condescening because I grew up IFB. I'm able to trace core Independent Baptist doctrines, teachings, and the Biblical interpretation IFB's use to the late 19th or early 20th century. Baptist doctrines and Biblical interpretations can be traced back to the 17th century. If anyone is able to recommend a document or book that was written prior to the 17th century that adheres to strict IFB theology please let me know.

 

That's difficult as the Popery wiped most all of them out and destroyed their writings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's difficult as the Popery wiped most all of them out and destroyed their writings.

There must be something. I have a difficult time believing that the Holy Spirit would allow anyone, even the RCC, to eliminate God's "true believers" if that were true. That sounds as true as Joseph Smith losing golden plates given by God. There's some things of value you never lose like writings of martyrs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

But I don't follow "Baptist doctrine" from history - I follow what the Bible says - funnily enough, it is.largely what Independent Baptists preach.

You won't find a document marked "IFB" across the top much older.than that because the name and term "Independent Baptist Church" was invited about then.

But the teachings that note such people are found throughout history - many of the documents outline only one or two of the doctrines - even today the vast majority of books do not deal with all doctrines, but only a section.

Furthermore, because the people we would count in our heritage were independent, there is far less chance that a comprehensive doctrinal statement would have survived a thousand years.
With a big organisation, it far more likely such a document survived, especially since those big organisations have often been in control of nations.
That doesn't make them right, just powerful.

You shouldn't be looking for historical evidence - you should be looking to understand what the Bible says, and finding the people who match it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't follow "Baptist doctrine" from history - I follow what the Bible says - funnily enough, it is.largely what Independent Baptists preach.

You won't find a document marked "IFB" across the top much older.than that because the name and term "Independent Baptist Church" was invited about then.

But the teachings that note such people are found throughout history - many of the documents outline only one or two of the doctrines - even today the vast majority of books do not deal with all doctrines, but only a section.

Furthermore, because the people we would count in our heritage were independent, there is far less chance that a comprehensive doctrinal statement would have survived a thousand years.
With a big organisation, it far more likely such a document survived, especially since those big organisations have often been in control of nations.
That doesn't make them right, just powerful.

You shouldn't be looking for historical evidence - you should be looking to understand what the Bible says, and finding the people who match it today.

I understand IFB's don't have a handbook. I'm just talking about what the doctrine's that IFB's teach and preach go back to the 17th century at best. The doctrine of an altar call and sinner's prayer can be traced back no further than the 17th-18th century. Faith alone and scripture alone doctrines go back no father than the 16th century. When I read Christian writings from the 2nd century, like Ignatius of Anioch or Polycarp (both true believers and disciples of the Apostle John) there is no mention of faith alone or scripture alone doctrines, nor is there any mention of a type of altar call or sinners prayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Altar call and "sinners prayer" are not doctrines, they are practices, and also are not specifically baptist.

For someone brought up in IFB you have a very poor understanding of some things. Must have been a poor preacher where you were to have missed such basic understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Altar call and "sinners prayer" are not doctrines, they are practices, and also are not specifically baptist.

For someone brought up in IFB you have a very poor understanding of some things. Must have been a poor preacher where you were to have missed such basic understanding.

That is possible. So the practices of the altar call and sinners prayer aren't that old, around the 18th century. Sola scriptura and sola fide aren't much older, around the 16th century. For 1,500 years there is no mention of sola scriptura or sola fida, it must be a tradition of men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well I wouldn't agree on those points.
The Bereans were more noble because they "searched the scriptures whether these things were so" They tested Paul's preaching against the scriptures. It was their rule.

And when the Word of God was preached, the prophets of the Old Testament expected and often recieved a response.
It was not an altar call, but it was expected that there would be a response.

The prophets also said "thus saith the Lord" raising up the authority of Scripture as ultimate authority.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making commands of God void by their traditions.

So it seems.that you are wrong on all points so far - these things are recorded at least favourably in God's Word. That's not only well before the 1600's but also with the authority of God's Word.
You really need to stop looking to history and tradition to support doctrine and try looking only to God's Word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't agree on those points.
The Bereans were more noble because they "searched the scriptures whether these things were so" They tested Paul's preaching against the scriptures. It was their rule.

And when the Word of God was preached, the prophets of the Old Testament expected and often recieved a response.
It was not an altar call, but it was expected that there would be a response.

The prophets also said "thus saith the Lord" raising up the authority of Scripture as ultimate authority.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making commands of God void by their traditions.

So it seems.that you are wrong on all points so far - these things are recorded at least favourably in God's Word. That's not only well before the 1600's but also with the authority of God's Word.
You really need to stop looking to history and tradition to support doctrine and try looking only to God's Word.

That's why I'm using Church history. You believe God's Word is the sole authority known as sola scriptura (Bible alone). Christians did not believe the Bible ever taught Bible authority nor faith alone until the 16th century. Which brings me to my next point, what did Christians believe for 1,500 years? Never was it Bible alone. You can quote all the verses you would like but to believe in faith alone and Bible alone are traditions of men from the 16th century. Reading the Bible without knowing the history behind the Bible is like picking up a novel and reading the last chapter.

 

God does not condemn tradition, only traditions of men. 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Chor 11:2 are two examples of God's tradition. The Bible is the sacred and inerrant Word of God, but if you look at history since the 1st century, it was always the Bible and tradition. In the 16th century men decided they didn't need God's tradition just the Word of God. To exclude God's tradition and give sole authority to the Bible is a man made tradition since the 16th century and condemned by God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There must be something. I have a difficult time believing that the Holy Spirit would allow anyone, even the RCC, to eliminate God's "true believers" if that were true. That sounds as true as Joseph Smith losing golden plates given by God. There's some things of value you never lose like writings of martyrs.

 

Jesus said that the gates of hell (Catholic church for example), would not prevail against his church.  So while the RCC and protestants largely wiped out Christ's NT Churches, they never did completely wipe them out because Christ said they wouldn't.  

 

All of this is moot if one doesn't know Christ.

 

Melchizedek, if you came upon me in an alley bleeding to death and I asked you how could I get to heaven, what would you tell me? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus said that the gates of hell (Catholic church for example), would not prevail against his church.  So while the RCC and protestants largely wiped out Christ's NT Churches, they never did completely wipe them out because Christ said they wouldn't.  

 

All of this is moot if one doesn't know Christ.

 

Melchizedek, if you came upon me in an alley bleeding to death and I asked you how could I get to heaven, what would you tell me? 

Can you provide sources that says the RCC and protestants wiped out Christ's NT churches? That sounds like something fictious Loraine Boettner would make up. I know where you're going with this. I know it all too well "if you were to die tonight, are you absolutely sure you'd go to heaven?" If there were other Christians (true believers) besides the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthidox Church prior to the 16th century, why are there no writings or documents? It's neat speculation, maybe even wishful thinking, but there's no proof of other Christians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I understand IFB's don't have a handbook. I'm just talking about what the doctrine's that IFB's teach and preach go back to the 17th century at best. The doctrine of an altar call and sinner's prayer can be traced back no further than the 17th-18th century. Faith alone and scripture alone doctrines go back no father than the 16th century. When I read Christian writings from the 2nd century, like Ignatius of Anioch or Polycarp (both true believers and disciples of the Apostle John) there is no mention of faith alone or scripture alone doctrines, nor is there any mention of a type of altar call or sinners prayer.

 

Yes, we do, we do have a hand book, its called the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is our hand book, it is what we go by, we do not go by hand books written by man. As I've pointed out before, read the Bible & believe. The Holy Bible, KJB, is the only way for you to know God & Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do, we do have a hand book, its called the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is our hand book, it is what we go by, we do not go by hand books written by man. As I've pointed out before, read the Bible & believe. The Holy Bible, KJB, is the only way for you to know God & Jesus.

Do you believe in faith alone and the Bible alone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Bible believing Christian that has accepted Jesus as Lord. You tell me to read the Bible and believe (which I agree with). If I believe in something you do not believe you say I am wrong or my words come from men not the Bible. So essentially you're saying if my Biblical interpretation isn't the same as the IFB, which has only been around for 100 years, then my interpretation is wrong? I want to make sure I'm clear on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am new to this forum but have been in Christ for over three decades. I have been given unction from the Holy One..

There have been some statements in this post that are close to heresy if not outright blasphemy.

There have been enough admonitions unto the truth, to reject those that oppose themselves,

Biblical doctrines as now recorded in the A.V. have been around since the serpent in the garden of Eden

said 'Yea hath God said' and the result of those deceptive words resulted in the need of bloodshed.

And since that first sacrifice and covering God's truths have been BAPTIST in nature and baptist doctrine is biblical.

There has been error and false teachings and organizations formed in revolt toward the truth.

As Able offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, and God testifying of his gifts, and he being dead yet speaketh.

Grace....... Grace...... Grace..... 

Some of you need to read some history books not tainted by the RCC, principalities and the powers of darkness.

If we have to argue Doctrine on a Baptist forum where we should only be using the KJV, where is the edifying one another in Love.

Sorry Gentlemen, just some of my own ramblings after reading this obviously wasted post..

                                                                                                                                                      Bloodmarked 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum but have been in Christ for over three decades. I have been given unction from the Holy One..

There have been some statements in this post that are close to heresy if not outright blasphemy.

There have been enough admonitions unto the truth, to reject those that oppose themselves,

Biblical doctrines as now recorded in the A.V. have been around since the serpent in the garden of Eden

said 'Yea hath God said' and the result of those deceptive words resulted in the need of bloodshed.

And since that first sacrifice and covering God's truths have been BAPTIST in nature and baptist doctrine is biblical.

There has been error and false teachings and organizations formed in revolt toward the truth.

As Able offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, and God testifying of his gifts, and he being dead yet speaketh.

Grace....... Grace...... Grace..... 

Some of you need to read some history books not tainted by the RCC, principalities and the powers of darkness.

If we have to argue Doctrine on a Baptist forum where we should only be using the KJV, where is the edifying one another in Love.

Sorry Gentlemen, just some of my own ramblings after reading this obviously wasted post..

                                                                                                                                                      Bloodmarked 

Why do people speak so harsh about the RCC. Even as a a seasoned Bible Christian I'm a little shocked someone would talk bad about another Christian Church. Aren't we all supposed to love one another?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Are saints in heaven considered dead or alive?

They are more alive than you or I but, read revelation to find out what they're doing. It's not praying for anyone here on the earth.

 

I intend to get back to you about your creed for baptismal regeneration, I just don't have a great deal of time now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

That's why I'm using Church history. You believe God's Word is the sole authority known as sola scriptura (Bible alone). Christians did not believe the Bible ever taught Bible authority nor faith alone until the 16th century. Which brings me to my next point, what did Christians believe for 1,500 years? Never was it Bible alone. You can quote all the verses you would like but to believe in faith alone and Bible alone are traditions of men from the 16th century. Reading the Bible without knowing the history behind the Bible is like picking up a novel and reading the last chapter.

 

God does not condemn tradition, only traditions of men. 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Chor 11:2 are two examples of God's tradition. The Bible is the sacred and inerrant Word of God, but if you look at history since the 1st century, it was always the Bible and tradition. In the 16th century men decided they didn't need God's tradition just the Word of God. To exclude God's tradition and give sole authority to the Bible is a man made tradition since the 16th century and condemned by God.

 

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

You do know that St. Polycarp is considered a Church Father in the Catholic Church right? As you said he was the Bishop of Smyrna. I agree he was a master of scripture much like the other Church Fathers were. By the 2nd century the Catholic Church had solidified through apostolic succession that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were both important. You can read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters about Sacred Tradition. Never did Polycarp say Bible only. He emphesized the importance of the scripture but Apostolic Tradition is used many times in early Church Father writings. Catholics never denied people from reading the Bible ever. Anyone who could read (which was few) could read the Bible at any time. Sola scriptura came about from the Reformation. I appreciate your stab at it. We can respectfully agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

I just wanted to thank you for putting your trust in our Catholic bishops (Church Fathers in general) like St. Polycarp. The Catholic Church thanks you too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am a Bible believing Christian that has accepted Jesus as Lord. You tell me to read the Bible and believe (which I agree with). If I believe in something you do not believe you say I am wrong or my words come from men not the Bible. So essentially you're saying if my Biblical interpretation isn't the same as the IFB, which has only been around for 100 years, then my interpretation is wrong? I want to make sure I'm clear on that.

 

If what you believe does not match what's in the Bible, them your wrong.

 

The Holy Scriptures is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

 

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

That is if you don't believe the Bible them your not perfectly & throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

The bible did not come ot us by the private interpretation of men.

 

 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

It came to us because of the will of God of which the Holy Ghost led holy men to write down so that we would have the Word of God.

 

If you want to know if you have eternal life.

 

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

It is the Holy Scriptures that testify of our Lord, not the word of man which you bring to this forum, so if what you believe that gives you eternal life does not match up wit the Bible, them your a lost sinner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you believe does not match what's in the Bible, them your wrong.

 

The Holy Scriptures is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

 

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

That is if you don't believe the Bible them your not perfectly & throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

The bible did not come ot us by the private interpretation of men.

 

 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

It came to us because of the will of God of which the Holy Ghost led holy men to write down so that we would have the Word of God.

 

If you want to know if you have eternal life.

 

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

It is the Holy Scriptures that testify of our Lord, not the word of man which you bring to this forum, so if what you believe that gives you eternal life does not match up wit the Bible, them your a lost sinner.

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.



Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.

I never lied. I do belong to a Bible believing Christian church. It just so happens it's the Catholic Church. I don't always announce that I'm Catholic, sometimes I just say I'm a Christian. I mean, Catholics are the first true Christians. I am seeking truth. Aren't we all seeking truth? I love sharing my faith with other Christians. You must be confusing Catholics with some cult you read about  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.

 

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than  repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.

Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

 

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I grew up IFB and now I go to a Bible Church. I'm here to learn as much as I can. I thank everyone for their input. I'm learning that our Christian faith is so rich and deep going back 2,000 years to Jesus. I've found if you don't ask questions you'll never learn. I want to do whatever the earliest Christians did. That's why I'm reading the "Didache" because it's one of the oldest surviving books written by the apostles outside of the Bible. Not inspired by the Holy Spirit like the Bible sure, but it's fascinating to know how things were done in the infant stages of Christianity. If anyone can recommend other early Christian documents please do.

The above quote is from the pope thread.
You will notice that he says "Bible church" with capital letter, indicating the kind of church.

He is clearly trying to indicate that he is something other than catholic.
This was in direct answer to my question in that thread.

He deliberately set out to deceive, trying to make people think he was seeking answers when it clearly is not the case.
You will see from my answers to many of his questions that I treated him with respect until he revealed his true motives.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.
Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Why don't you check out his most recent posts........everywhere, where he is espousing false doctrines all over the place.

Then check out what I actually said against the facts. He is a deceiver, and he is trying influence and corrupt readers of this site with false doctrines.

Then you might just want to not be so judgemental of me.pointing out a wolf, and instead get on board with defending the truth.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Why don't you check out his most recent posts........everywhere, where he is espousing false doctrines all over the place.

Then check out what I actually said against the facts. He is a deceiver, and he is trying influence and corrupt readers of this site with false doctrines.

Then you might just want to not be so judgemental of me.pointing out a wolf, and instead get on board with defending the truth.

Dave, I only read this thread and pointed out that in this thread he had not lied nor mislead. Other posts/threads I can not comment on as I have not read them.

 

He may be a deciever, a troll or any number of things yet that does not give us the right to categorically state that he is not a believer nor part of a bible believing church, EVEN if it is a RCC church!!

 

My apologies if you feel I was being judgmental towards you and calling you a wolf, that was not my intention. You just happened to reply in a manner that befits the attitude of IFB's world round these days and does not do much to mirror the image of Christ. And don't tell me about how he treated the pharasees etc- That was HIS right and is not ours.

 

There are many non IFB's that come to this sight looking for that attitude to prevail and they always find it - thus justifying there belief that we are bigoted, legalistic bible bashing bullies and then off they go having learnt nothing when with a little humilty on our side they could have learnt much and left or stayed without being called things like decievers, liers, false teachers etc. Jesus never expected us to come up to His level, but rather he made Himself a servant and came down to ours- maybe we should practice what we preach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And look at my replies to his questions - I could see his leanings, and was trying to answer respectfully.
But when he revealed his true colours, I called him for what he is.
His latest replies shows his true motives.

By the way, I didn't think you were calling me a wolf - I was calling him a wolf - as he is. The phone sometimes is less than accurate and I got the stop instead of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You do know that St. Polycarp is considered a Church Father in the Catholic Church right? As you said he was the Bishop of Smyrna. I agree he was a master of scripture much like the other Church Fathers were. By the 2nd century the Catholic Church had solidified through apostolic succession that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were both important. You can read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters about Sacred Tradition. Never did Polycarp say Bible only. He emphesized the importance of the scripture but Apostolic Tradition is used many times in early Church Father writings. Catholics never denied people from reading the Bible ever. Anyone who could read (which was few) could read the Bible at any time. Sola scriptura came about from the Reformation. I appreciate your stab at it. We can respectfully agree to disagree.


I know that you'd like to think of him as Catholic, but again you don't know your history. The Roman church didn't even begin to assert its influence until late in the 2nd century. It exerted nothing over outlying churches in Polycarp's day (Polycarp died 155 AD - middle of the 2nd century). Polycarp's own authority in the church did not extend past the church in Smyrna. In that day, the churches still followed the bishop-presbyters-deacons model which more closely resembles the senior pastor-associate pastors-deacons model that most IFB (and other) churches use today. The Roman church did indeed begin claiming authority based on apostolic succession in the late-2nd century and eary-3rd century as people like Origen and Irenaeus were combating gnosticism, but this can hardly be claimed as the beginning of the Catholic church. The Roman Catholic church exerted no official influence or authority until very late in the 3rd century and really well into the 4th-century under Constantine. No less than a century after Polycarp. So unless you want to say that the Catholic church actually began in Smyrna, then Polycarp is no more Catholic than the Apostle Thomas and the Apostle John or even Timothy and Titus. Despite what Catholics like to think, the Roman church was just one of many for the first 2-3 centuries at least until the Roman Empire began exerting control over all churches through Rome.

Regarding the lack of Polycarp explicitly saying "Bible only", please carefully re-read my post. There is no reason you would find such a reference in the first- and second-centuries because it wasn't the issue of the day. They had a littany of other heresies to deal with and you'll find they is the subject of their writings. Furthermore, most people/places did not have the completed canon of Scripture at that time anyway, so yes, they certainly did rely on apostolic tradition. The difference between then and now is that they learned directly from the Apostles who had the authority of revelation because they received it directly from Jesus. The Catholic church and popes do not. We also today have the completed canon of Scripture and since there will be no more revelation that's all we need.

If you think the Catholic church never denied people the right to read and interpret the Bible on their own, you really need to study the Middle Ages and Renaissance again.

You did not engage with the entire point of the post which was that there necessarily would not have been discussions on sola scriptura in the sub-apostolic and ante-Nicene eras because it was not an issue in those days and you're asking for evidence that won't exist. It's like asking for 1st century arguments against Darwinism. Instead you presented a straw-man argument about Polycarp being Catholic. Again, I would ask you to please study more history before using it as the basis of your argument.

**edits: spelling errors again...I type to fast...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 45 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...