X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:19:44 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Scriptures versus Rome

Excerpts from christia: 1-Oct-92 Scriptures versus Rome Jesse Irwin
Carnes@LSUVM (1086)

> But the issue of highest importance is the Gospel as I have said SO
> many times and it is ROME's Gospel which differs from what Scripture
> asserts.

> Truthfully, blurring this Prime Directive is a serious blunder on Rome's
> part, as well as adding "Supra-Scriptural" things.

> I ask ... I humbly recommend to Catholics to prayerfully read the books
> of Romans and Hebrews and compare them with what Rome OFFICIALLY teaches.


Jesse,

I have thoroughly examined Scripture.  I have read Hebrews and Romans
over and over, plus the rest of the New Testament.  I have studied
common arguments against Catholicism and their refutations.  I have
studied the writings of early Church Fathers.  I basically lived as a
evangelical Protestant for several years.  What I discovered is this.

There is fundamentally no contradiction between Scripture and Catholic
doctrine.  This is to say that I have found no basis for an assertion
that true Catholic teaching (as opposed to what many Protestants think
we teach) is in direct contradiction to Scripture.  In fact, Catholic
doctrine is largely based on Scripture, as we hold Scripture to inerrant
and inspired.  However, one cannot expect our doctrines to agree with
your interpretation.  Once you interpret Scripture properly, there are
no conflicts with Catholic doctrine.  None.  I searched for them.  I
rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church and believed it was
unscriptural.  However, I came to see that I was wrong.  Not only that,
I found that the fundamentals of the Protestant faith are inherently
contrary to Scripture.

This is not to say that all Catholic doctrine can be found in Scripture.
 It can't, because Scripture tells us that we are to look to both
Scripture and Tradition for our doctrine.  (That is to say, Sola
Scriptura is a doctrine contrary to the teaching of Scripture.  2 Thess
2:15 is a start there.)

I also examined the teaching of the early church, that is, the first
three centuries of the church -- the time before the supposed corruption
of Catholic doctrine in 325 with the legalization of Christianity.  This
is what I found.

The Christianity of the first three centuries is totally and completely
contrary to evangelical Protestantism.  In fact, Catholic teaching has
remained constant since that time.  Off the top of my head, let me
relate what I have found that was taught in the early church that
contradicts nearly all evangelical Protestant teaching.  The dates I
give are the dates of earliest sound evidence I have found.  This does
not mean that that idea did not exist before then, it means that I have
so far found no writings on that topic before that point.  Usually, the
doctrines are much older than the texts in which they appear.  I mention
just a few texts -- not exhaustive -- where I remember these appear.

First Century
- The Eucharist is a sacrifice.  This is categorically rejected by
Protestants (not including Catholic Anglicans), yet it is crystal clear
in the first century extrabiblical writings of the church. (St. Clement
of Rome to the Corinthians, ch. 40; the Didache)
- A hierarchical priesthood, including a sharp division between clergy
and laity.  (Clement to the Corinthians, ch. 40)
- The church is a VISIBLE organization, with authority and both
doctrinal and ecclesiastical unity.  (St. Ignatius)
- Exohomologesis -- the requirement that serious sins be confessed to
the ministers of the church in order to be forgiven (Didache).
- Liturgical worship.
- Apostolic succession.  (St. Clement to the Corinthians)

Second Century
- Baptism effects regeneration and forgiveness of sins.  Baptism is
identified with being born again of water and the spirit.  (St. Justin
Martyr, Apology; Shepherd of Hermas)
- Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist; the Eucharist
becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, and ceases to be bread and wine,
at the Consecration.  (St. Justin Martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch)
- The church alone has the authority to forgive serious sin.
- Tradition is a rule of faith.
- Bishops must be obeyed as Christ himself.  (St. Ignatius)
- Saints in heaven can hear our prayers and intercede for us.
- The Church of Rome cannot err in doctrine.  (St. Ignatius; also St.
Irenaeus, St. Cyprian in the 3rd century.)
- Penance is required for sins.  (During the 2nd century, penance for
sin was severe; often sinners were barred from the Eucharist and even
participation in weekly worship, and required to do such things as stand
at the door of the church and ask each person who entered to pray for
them for mercy.)
- Salvation is not by faith alone.
- Salvation can be lost.
- The church is called Catholic. (St. Ignatius)

Third Century
- The existence of purgatory.
- The Roman Church is infallible and the source of Christian unity. (St.
Irenaeus, St. Cyprian).

There is much, much more I don't have time to produce here.  But
basically, after examining these writings, I determined that it was
impossible to be Protestant.  Nearly all objections of the Protestants
against Catholics were wholly refuted by the teachings of the church
long before Constantine in the 4th century.  Indeed I cannot even in
conscience be Anglican or Orthodox, for it is clear from even these
early writings that the Church of Rome is infallible, cannot err, and is
the source of all Christian unity.  I can find no existence of
Protestant doctrine at all during this time.  Sola Scriptura was never
believed. Sola Fide was never believed.  Predestination, once-saved;
always-saved, a non-organized church, confessional baptism, "born again"
phraseology -- all of these things were entirely foreign to the early
church and cannot be found anywhere in history.

Protestants normally hold up the Nicene Creed as an example of a
standard of orthodoxy; normally they believe that the Church was OK up
until after the Council of Nicea in 325.  Most church decisions up until
that time, even up to the 5th century, they accept -- the Trinity, the
dual nature of Christ, consubstantiality, the dual will of Christ, and
so forth.  Including the New Testament canon, which was not closed until
425.  Yet they fail to realize that what they believe today would have
been recognized as heresy at that time.  They do not accept the church's
position at that time on baptism, the Eucharist, salvation,
ecclesiology, divine revelation, the place of Mary, and many other
things.

When I read the writings of the early church, I saw that modern
Protestantism is entirely foreign to Apostolic teaching.   There are
only three churches which are even remotely close to the teachings of
the early church:  Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism.  Only
Catholicism truly meets the doctrinal and ecclesiasical criteria of the
early church.

So Jesse, I challege YOU to base your doctrine not on shifting sands of
personal interpretation, but on what the historical church has taught
throughout the centuries.  You believe that the Catholic Church got
corrupted somewhere.  Ok, read the writings of the early Christian
Fathers and tell me where it conclusively teaches what Protestants say
the Church has wrong.  You cannot base yourself solely on Scripture
because everyone has a different idea of how Scripture should be
interpreted.  See how the early Christians interpreted Scripture.  I
guarantee it will open your eyes.

In Christ,
Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU