Category: Catholicism

Questions for 1, 2 & 3 John

2 comments

Before I left San Diego, I went through all the Johannine epistles (1, 2, 3 John). Here are the questions we devised:

1 John

72. Who wrote this letter?
The Early Church identified it as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. This would explain the preservation of the letter as well as the numerous parallels with John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation. In recent years some have suggested that it is a disciple known as “John the elder”, a character from the Early Church about whom we know relatively little.

73. When was this letter written?
It was probably written after the publication of John’s Gospel, sometime in the 90s.

74. To whom was it written?
Probably to the Christians around Ephesus where John is said to have settled.

75. Why was this letter written?
Primarily to respond to a heretical, schismatic group. These could have possibly been Docetists, Gnostics, Cerinthians or possibly even converts from Judaism. The issue seemed to surround the nature and identity of Christ. John spends most of the letter talking about the authentic fellowship with God.

76. What are some of the words which John uses a lot in his writings?
Life, death, light, dark, beginning, abide, …

2 John

77. To whom is this letter addressed?
It is addressed to “the elect lady and her children”. Although this could have possibly been an actual person, it is more likely that John is speaking of a neighbouring Church is sisterly, feminine terms.

78. What is the main content of this letter?
John is writing to a sister church. He encourages them and warns them of the antichrist

79. Who is the antichrist?
According to John, anyone who “will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh”.

3 John

80. To whom is this letter addressed?
It is addressed to “the beloved Gaius”. He is most likely in the leadership of the one of the local congregations.

81. What is the main content of the letter?
A man named “Diotrephes” is exalting himself, refusing to accept John’s authority, refusing welcome to those John sends and excommunicating anyone who does so.

1-16 | 17-27 | 27-42 | 43-52 | 53-57 | 58-67 | 68-71 | 72-81

History and the dog who never barked

One comment

A while ago, during a discussion in the comment section of this blog, I made the assertion that the historic Church of Christianity was the Catholic Church. A non-Catholic disputed this claim, asserting that the Catholic Church only came into existence with the reign of the Emperor Constantine.

In response to this claim, I shared with her my post entitled Before 300: Pre-Constantinian Christianity, where I provide evidence for twenty-one doctrines which were believed by Christians prior to AD 300 and the rise of Constantine.  The original purpose of that post was not only to show that the Catholic Church was in existence long before Constantine arrived on scene, but also to provide non-Catholics with a simple way to compare their own beliefs to that of the early Christians.

After reading that article, my internet friend appeared to concede that the Catholic Church did actually exist from the earliest of times. Wonderful! However, despite denying its existence only moments before, she now claimed that the Catholic Church had persecuted the “true” Christians in the early centuries! I’ve heard similar claims in the past made by other Protestants as well as Muslims, in an effort to explain why the belief system that we find in the Early Church is incompatible with their own.

Today I would like to examine the assertion that the Catholic Church suppressed “true” Christianity in the early centuries and I will attempt to dismantle it using an argument which may be referred to as “The dog who never barked”…

Sherlock3

Read more

Protestantism: Agreeing on essentials?

3 comments

Reformers

When Catholics critique the contradictory beliefs held in different parts of the Protestant world, we are often told that “Protestants agree on all the essentials”. A statement like this, of course, this begs two questions:

1. Which doctrines should be considered “essential” and which “non-essential”?

2. Who gets to make that categorization?

The second question is particularly important. Who gets the final say as to what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”? After all, what happens when two Protestants disagree on what is “essential”?

To pick an example from the dawn of the Reformation, Luther and Zwingli came into conflict concerning their respective understandings of the Eucharist, so much so that this ruptured their relationship. Could we still say that these two fathers of the Reformation agreed on “essentials”?
Read more

Explaining the mess up…

One comment

A little while ago, I was discussing with a Protestant the issue of baptism in the Early Church. The exchange was quite typical in that he rejected the beliefs of the Early Church, choosing instead to trump the witness of history with his own personal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Why did the Early Church “get it all so wrong”?

In response to this, I did something unusual, departing from my usual strategy. Rather than trying to demonstrate to him that the Early Church was correct, I asked him, in his opinion, why did the Early Church get it all so wrong? After all, the question of whether baptism washes away sin isn’t some trivial doctrine, but one which relates to the question of our very salvation!

Retable_Annonciation_Musée_de_Laon_70908_1

Read more

1 … 146 147 148 149 150 … 317