Can anyone start a church, and call it the church founded by Jesus Christ?

[JohnnyReb]

Whereas, Prostestants - ALL Protestant sects - are related to the Church they are outside of it. This is not the fault of Christ’s only Church - the Catholic Church.

Hi Elvis. Obviously Protestants and non Catholics disagree that the Catholic church is Christ’s only Church.

It is because of their own

Not really that uncomfortable. I don’t accept Rome’s claim.

You and I are brothers in Christ, as we are both baptized Christians (I assume you are baptized). However, we are separated brothers - as in a divorce. That is what Protestantism is - a divorce from the Body of Christ

I agree that we are brothers in Christ. I have heard some Protestants sadly say less charitable of Catholics, to their own loss. The rest is sad. I accept you fully as a brother in Christ, no divorce, not a seperated brother.

**We are *still ***related, although not in full communion with each other.

What does it mean to be in full communion?

**When the Church speaks of there being no **salvation outside of it (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus), it does not mean to infer that ALL Protestants are doomed. It means that since the Church is the means of Salvation (not the cause) you must be a prt of the church to be saved. There is, of course, the doctrine of invincible ignorance, which says:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (CCC-847).

My hope - as is the hope of the Church is that you and every other Protestant will one day be in full communion with each other.

I am pretty aware of Rome’s teaching about all this and find it a very ecumenical position given what the Catholic Church believes. Again, what does it mean to be in full communion?

Peace.

Same to you

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I never said nor stated Arianism had no impact on the West. The point it is that Arianism was founded and commenced in the East and spread vastly.And I can say the West was a champion of orthodoxy as well as the East. However,to honestly believe the East was the only orthodox champion is just plain wrong. .

And I never said that the East was the only champion of orthodoxy.

The implication in your post was that this was an Eastern Church heresy and that the west was only lightly touched. You also implied Rome was the only bastion that upheld all of orthodoxy in all of Christendom.

It seems we don’t like implications not in our favor.

 

[elvisman]

Hi Elvis. Obviously Protestants and non Catholics disagree that the Catholic church is Christ’s only Church.

Yes, they do.

Not really that uncomfortable. I don’t accept Rome’s claim.

Nevertheless - it’s the truth. He only established ONE Church - not thousands.

I agree that we are brothers in Christ. I have heard some Protestants sadly say less charitable of Catholics, to their own loss. The rest is sad. I accept you fully as a brother in Christ, no divorce, not a seperated brother.

I have heard them, too. And I have heard Catholics claim that Protestants are not Christian. There is plenty of uncharitable sentiment to go around unfortunately.**

Whether or not you accept that Protestantism was born of ecclesial divorce - it is a fact of history.

What does it mean to be in full communion?
I am pretty aware of Rome’s teaching about all this and find it a very ecumenical position given what the Catholic Church believes. Again, what does it mean to be in full communion?

To fully accept the teachings of the Church or other ecclesial community. If you accepted all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and recognized the Pope as the earthly leader of the Church (Christ’s vicar), you would be in full communion. It is safe to say that you’re not.

I know some Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church and are Catholics in name only.

 

[John1]

“Nevertheless - it’s the truth. He only established ONE Church - not thousands.”

Hi Elvisman,

You are absolutely correct that Christ established only ONE church. The church that Jesus founded is made up entirelywith the believers of Jesus. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt, that all the people that attend the Catholic church are Christians, nor do I believe that all the people in the protestant denominations are Christians. I believe that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing that mingle with the children of God to destroy their faith in Jesus. The Bible makes it clear that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” without the Holy Spirit. The Bible also makes it clear that the Spirit brings us into unity with the Body of Christ, because we do not have a Spirit of divisionYou need to reflect on that, and consider what Spirit you have inside. The Reformers were separating or divorcing, themselves with what they considered to be a corrupted system, not from Christ. The Bible also makes clear that no one can separate a Christian from the love of Christ, so no matter where a Christian is, he or she is not separated from Christ. Now one believer may have a better understanding of church history than another, but it’s the Holy Spirit that indwells believers and teaches them the truths about Jesus. Jesus did establish One church, and believers are all baptized into that One Body and we have been given One Spirit drink. I anyone, including your relatives, has a hard time accepting some of the teachings of the church, that doesn’t mean that they are separating themselves from Christ, as long as Jesus is still the foundation of their faith. You need to be willing to forgive, especially your brothers and sisters in Christ, or you may find that you have willfully separated yourself from the love of Christ. Glory to God and may His peace be with you.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Yes, they do.

Nevertheless - it’s the truth. He only established ONE Church - not thousands.

I agree, one, church, one body of believers. We disagree that it is the Catholic Church exclusively. We could go all day chasing our tail over this. It will do no good.

I have heard them, too. And I have heard Catholics claim that Protestants are not Christian. There is plenty** of uncharitable sentiment to go around unfortunately.

**Whether or not you accept **that Protestantism was born of ecclesial divorce - it is a fact of history.

Protestants have no issue claiming they seperated from Rome. This is not problematic to them because our idea of the church is different (and based on the scriptures). Its not tied to one institution. As for the original question, lets keep this on topic. The OP asked, can anyone found a church and call it THE church founded by Jesus? Well yes and no.

Jesus founded a church. That church now consists of all believers everywhere who put their faith in Christ, regardless of church affliation. No person could found another body of believers, in fact it would be redundant.

To fully accept the teachings of the Church or other ecclesial community. If you accepted all of the teachings of the Catholic Church and recognized the Pope as the earthly leader of the Church (Christ’s vicar), you would be in full communion. It is safe to say that you’re not.

I would be in full communion with Rome. In fact, if I accepted the claims that Rome makes about itself, I would go to confession tomorrow and do my act of penance and go to Mass again this Sunday.

I know some Catholics who are not in full communion with the Church and are Catholics in name only.

That is a shame, they do a disservice to the church. Cultural Christians are a problem in many Christian communities though, not just the Catholic Church.

 

[JohnnyReb]

“Nevertheless - it’s the truth. He only established ONE Church - not thousands.”

Hi Elvisman,

You are absolutely correct that Christ established only ONE church. The church that Jesus founded is made up entirelywith the believers of Jesus. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt, that all the people that attend the Catholic church are Christians, nor do I believe that all the people in the protestant denominations are Christians. I believe that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing that mingle with the children of God to destroy their faith in Jesus. The Bible makes it clear that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” without the Holy Spirit. The Bible also makes it clear that the Spirit brings us into unity with the Body of Christ, because we do not have a Spirit of divisionYou need to reflect on that, and consider what Spirit you have inside. The Reformers were separating or divorcing, themselves with what they considered to be a corrupted system, not from Christ. The Bible also makes clear that no one can separate a Christian from the love of Christ, so no matter where a Christian is, he or she is not separated from Christ. Now one believer may have a better understanding of church history than another, but it’s the Holy Spirit that indwells believers and teaches them the truths about Jesus. Jesus did establish One church, and believers are all baptized into that One Body and we have been given One Spirit drink. I anyone, including your relatives, has a hard time accepting some of the teachings of the church, that doesn’t mean that they are separating themselves from Christ, as long as Jesus is still the foundation of their faith. You need to be willing to forgive, especially your brothers and sisters in Christ, or you may find that you have willfully separated yourself from the love of Christ. Glory to God and may His peace be with you.

This^^^^^+1 Great Post

 

[elvisman]

“Nevertheless - it’s the truth. He only established ONE Church - not thousands.”

Hi Elvisman,

You are absolutely correct that Christ established only ONE church. The church that Jesus founded is made up entirelywith the believers of Jesus. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt, that all the people that attend the Catholic church are Christians, nor do I believe that all the people in the protestant denominations are Christians. I believe that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing that mingle with the children of God to destroy their faith in Jesus. The Bible makes it clear that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” without the Holy Spirit. The Bible also makes it clear that the Spirit brings us into unity with the Body of Christ, because we do not have a Spirit of divisionYou need to reflect on that, and consider what Spirit you have inside. The Reformers were separating or divorcing, themselves with what they considered to be a corrupted system, not from Christ. The Bible also makes clear that no one can separate a Christian from the love of Christ, so no matter where a Christian is, he or she is not separated from Christ. Now one believer may have a better understanding of church history than another, but it’s the Holy Spirit that indwells believers and teaches them the truths about Jesus. Jesus did establish One church, and believers are all baptized into that One Body and we have been given One Spirit drink. I anyone, including your relatives, has a hard time accepting some of the teachings of the church, that doesn’t mean that they are separating themselves from Christ, as long as Jesus is still the foundation of their faith. You need to be willing to forgive, especially your brothers and sisters in Christ, or you may find that you have willfully separated yourself from the love of Christ. Glory to God and may His peace be with you.

**Forgive? **
Forgive what, exactly? There is nothing to forgive because my separated brethren have not done this to me personally and I have no animosity towards them.

**Here is the problem with what you said. You said that the “Reformers” separated or divorced themselves from what they felt was a corrupt system. What they did was without Biblical precedent. **

**Nowhere in the NT did anybody ever look upon those who separated themselves from the Body of Christ as “believers”. On the contrary - they were always looked upon as people abandoning the faith to follow their own will (John 6:66). **

Nowhere in the Bible was anybody ever told to leave the Church and start their own when they disagreed. This didn’t even happen in the OT with Israel.

Sadly, you are mistaken if you believe that separation from the Body of Christ is the Biblical or historical prescription for cleaning house. All the Reformers did in their arrogance was to divorce themselves from Christ’s ONE Church.

You can try to rationalize this away all day long to try to justify your position - but the fact is that you are divorced from his Body by your own choice. My prayer is that all those who believe in him will one day return to his ONE Body.

Finally - you are right about one thing: Rom. 8 tells us that nobody CAN separate us from the love of Christ. Nobody, that is, except for ourselves - as we saw in John 6:66.

 

[elvisman]

I agree, one, church, one body of believers. We disagree that it is the Catholic Church exclusively. We could go all day chasing our tail over this. It will do no good.

And again, I would have to remind you that history proves you wrong.

Protestants have no issue claiming they seperated from Rome. This is not problematic to them because our idea of the church is different (and based on the scriptures). Its not tied to one institution. As for the original question, lets keep this on topic. The OP asked, can anyone found a church and call it THE church founded by Jesus? Well yes and no.

Jesus founded a church. That church now consists of all believers everywhere who put their faith in Christ, regardless of church affliation. No person could found another body of believers, in fact it would be redundant.

Can you show me where Scripture tells us that there is more than one Church or denomination? Can you show me where the Bible tells us to leave the Body when we disagree and to start our own version of the Body?
I would be curious to see where the Bible speaks of these things.

I would be in full communion with Rome. In fact, if I accepted the claims that Rome makes about itself, I would go to confession tomorrow and do my act of penance and go to Mass again this Sunday.

**I pray that someday you will be in full communion with the Church.

 

[Good_Fella]

I agree, one, church, one body of believers. We disagree that it is the Catholic Church exclusively.

This invisible church that has been conjured up by Protestants in the attempt to justify their corporate existence is at best one body of believers who believe in different things in matters of faith and morals. The apostle Paul describes the exclusively one universal Church of his time as having one faith (cf. Eph 4:5) which means much more than just believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Saviour.

Protestants have no issue claiming they seperated from Rome. This is not problematic to them because our idea of the church is different… Its not tied to one institution.

Your idea of the Church radically differs from how Paul understood the Bride of Christ to be. He belonged to a church that simply was “one institution” with a centralized hierarchical structure. The first private individuals to have formed their own Christian sects or “institutions” shortly after his death were the heretical Gnostics whom early Church Fathers denounced and soundly refuted in their apologetical works. These bishops of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, moreover, testify to the fact that by early on all of orthodox Christendom (The Patriarchates of the Catholic Church) had known that Peter and his valid successors in the episcopate at Rome held a place of primacy in the Church.

“You [the Holy See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 3:1 [c.A.D. 110]

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches of the Patriarchates of the one Catholic faith] must agree, that is all the faithful in the world.”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]

Jesus founded a church. That church now consists of all believers everywhere who put their faith in Christ…

For anyone to put his faith in Christ and desires to be true to him, he must submit to the teaching authority that has been conferred upon the apostles and their valid successors in the episcopacy of the Catholic Church. In other words, all true Christians must give their full assent to the teachings of the one visible Church which alone are sanctioned by Christ who founded his Church on the apostles. The doctrines of the Protestant denominations (i.e.,justification by faith alone) that contravene those of the Catholic Church are not approved by our Lord.

“We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us.”
Origen, Commentary on Matthew [post A.D. 244]

No person could found another body of believers, in fact it would be redundant.

Many private individuals since long before Martin Luther and John Calvin entered the stage have in fact founded other bodies of believers who have “gone out from the first ecclesiastical tradition” handed down to us from the apostles and safeguarded by their valid successors in the episcopate of the Catholic Church in the face of heresy.

"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 26:2 [inter A.D. 180-199]

In the 2nd century, the Egyptian Valentine, who separated himself from the Catholic Church because he was denied a bishopric, formed a Christian sect known as the Valentinians who subscribed to the false doctrine of justification by faith alone and denied that Mary was the Mother of God - just as Protestants do. Do you believe that this “institution” either belonged to the (invisible) Church or was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ? This sect went so far as to deny human free will (a logical conclusion in the Calvinist doctrine of double-predestination) and the resurrection of the body.

PAX :heaven:

 

[steve_b]

Forgive?
Forgive what, exactly? There is nothing to forgive because my separated brethren have not done this to me personally and I have no animosity towards them.

True.

However, for the “seperated bretheren” there’s a huge problem. In their roots, they DO reject the Catholic Church. It’s in their corporate DNA.

• Corporately they have no charter from Jesus to exist. NOR from the apostles, NOR from the Church Jesus established personally.
• Neither Jesus NOR His apostles, NOR the Catholic Church, ever said, having just part of the faith apart from the Church Jesus personally established, is good enough.
• In fact, scripture says it was just the opposite. The consequences for division were dire for those who dissent and divide.

People who divide don’t serve Our Lord but themselves. And they compound their evil by convincing the naive to follow them into division [Rm 16:17…]

People who dissent and divide and remain that way won’t inherit heaven [Gal 5:20-21]

I’m thinking, who in their right mind would go against that warning, and divide or remain divided from the Catholic Church?
em:

Here is the problem with what you said. You said that the “Reformers” separated or divorced themselves from what they felt was a corrupt system. What they did was without Biblical precedent.

Nowhere in the NT did anybody ever look upon those who separated themselves from the Body of Christ as “believers”. On the contrary - they were always looked upon as people abandoning the faith to follow their own will (John 6:66).

Nowhere in the Bible was anybody ever told to leave the Church and start their own when they disagreed. This didn’t even happen in the OT with Israel.

Sadly, you are mistaken if you believe that separation from the Body of Christ is the Biblical or historical prescription for cleaning house. All the Reformers did in their arrogance was to divorce themselves from Christ’s ONE Church.

You can try to rationalize this away all day long to try to justify your position - but the fact is that you are divorced from his Body by your own choice. My prayer is that all those who believe in him will one day return to his ONE Body.

Finally - you are right about one thing: Rom. 8 tells us that nobody CAN separate us from the love of Christ. Nobody, that is, except for ourselves - as we saw in John 6:66.

I’ve found every decision boils down to the following

[Dt 30:]
This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.

As Paul said above, people have a choice to make. Those who choose dissent and division from the Church and remain that way, he says, they choose death and curses for themselves. Paul is obviously trying to tell them, do NOT choose dissent and division. The consequences are dire for the soul.

 

[John1]

Forgive?
Forgive what, exactly? There is nothing to forgive because my separated brethren have not done this to me personally and I have no animosity towards them.

Here is the problem with what you said. You said that the “Reformers” separated or divorced themselves from what they felt was a corrupt system. What they did was without Biblical precedent.

Nowhere in the NT did anybody ever look upon those who separated themselves from the Body of Christ as “believers”. On the contrary - they were always looked upon as people abandoning the faith to follow their own will (John 6:66).

Nowhere in the Bible was anybody ever told to leave the Church and start their own when they disagreed. This didn’t even happen in the OT with Israel.

Sadly, you are mistaken if you believe that separation from the Body of Christ is the Biblical or historical prescription for cleaning house. All the Reformers did in their arrogance was to divorce themselves from Christ’s ONE Church.

You can try to rationalize this away all day long to try to justify your position - but the fact is that you are divorced from his Body by your own choice. My prayer is that all those who believe in him will one day return to his ONE Body.

Finally - you are right about one thing: Rom. 8 tells us that nobody CAN separate us from the love of Christ. Nobody, that is, except for ourselves - as we saw in John 6:66.

Hi Elvisman,

I glad to hear that you have no anomosity toward the “separated bretheren”, but how do you suppose to win over anyone by being offensive, for the Bible says that an offended brother is unyielding and harder to win over than the gates of a barred citadel. I constantly notice an unfriendly theme in a lot of the posts sent by you and and some of the others. The Bible says an unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment and a fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions. Sadly, again you have chosen to make a false allegation against me, your brother in Christ, when you say or imply that I have ever said that it was “okay” to separate from the Body of Christ. On the contrary, no believer should ever separate himself from the Body of Christ, and I really don’t think that was what the Reformers, the Sedevacntist, the Conclavist, the SSPX, or the Traditionalist had, or have, in mind when they disagree with the leadership of the church. You have to remember that the Body of Christ is made up of the believers in Christ and that the believers are not perfect. The Holy Spirit is working in each of the believers to bring them to perfect unity. Everyone can recognize that even Peter was not perfect, for his brother in Christ, Paul, corrected him while he was in error and was causing others to err also.In the third letter of John, there’s mention of Diotrphes, who loved to be first, and who rejected some of the brothers, throwing them out of the church, but John said that he would deal with him personally. Also, you need to understand that we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink, so stop being so eager to divide what God has joined together through His Spirit, for what God has joined together no man should put asunder. I’m writing this ,not only to you, but to every brother and sister in Christ. If you truly love your brothers and sisters in Christ, don’t be offensive to them, but instead show your love through the fruits of the Spirit which among other things are love, patience, humility, and kindness. Boasting is not good, we should realize that a little yeast works through the whole batch od dough. Let us work for Christian unity, built on our common foundation, which is Jesus.
Working toward Chriatian unity, which is what all members of the Catholic church should be doing, is* “Taking Care of Business*”! To the glory of God and His Son, Jesus Christ!

 

[JohnnyReb]

And again, I would have to remind you that history proves you wrong.

Not so just because you say so. I am very well versed in Church history, not just a Cathoic interpretation of it. I am well aware that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the oldest recognizable Christian institutions that are still operating today. So what?

**Can you show me where **Scripture tells us that there is more than one Church or denomination?

False dilemma. I never said there was more than one church. In fact I said the exact opposite of that.

Can you show me where

the Bible tells us to leave the Body when we disagree and to start our own version of the Body?

By “Body” do you mean “Church”. See response above.

I would be curious to see where the Bible speaks of these things.

What things?

**I pray that someday you *will ***be in full communion with the Church.

I have been in full communion with the body of Christ since I accepted Christ at age 7. I don’t doubt your inclusion into the Body of Christ either.

 

[elvisman]

Hi Elvisman,
I glad to hear that you have no anomosity toward the “separated bretheren”, but how do you suppose to win over anyone by being offensive, for the Bible says that an offended brother is unyielding and harder to win over than the gates of a barred citadel. I constantly notice an unfriendly theme in a lot of the posts sent by you and and some of the others. The Bible says an unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment and a fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions. Sadly, again you have chosen to make a false allegation against me, your brother in Christ, when you say or imply that I have ever said that it was “okay” to separate from the Body of Christ. On the contrary, no believer should ever separate himself from the Body of Christ, and I really don’t think that was what the Reformers, the Sedevacntist, the Conclavist, the SSPX, or the Traditionalist had, or have, in mind when they disagree with the leadership of the church.

How is pointing out the truth, “unfriendly”. I insulted no one and have simply given you the Church’s position on the matter. If you find that unfriendly - then a discussion/debate forum may not be the best place for you to spend your time.

Tell me one unfriendly thing I have said.**

You have to remember that the Body of Christ is made up of the believers in Christ and that the believers are not perfect.

No - the Body of Christ is made up of his Church (Acts 9:4-5) - not simply of believers.

Remember - even the demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). Simply believing is not enough.

The Holy Spirit is working in each of the believers to bring them to perfect unity. Everyone can recognize that even Peter was not perfect, for his brother in Christ, Paul, corrected him while he was in error and was causing others to err also. In the third letter of John, there’s mention of Diotrphes, who loved to be first, and who rejected some of the brothers, throwing them out of the church, but John said that he would deal with him personally.

Nobody ever said Peter - or any other Cathoic was perfect. I don’t know where you’re getting that.

As for “throwing people out of the Church” - who is doing that? Protestants are voluntarily divorced from the Church. Nobody has "thrown them out."

Also, you need to understand that we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink, so stop being so eager to divide what God has joined together through His Spirit, for what God has joined together no man should put asunder. I’m writing this ,not only to you, but to every brother and sister in Christ. If you truly love your brothers and sisters in Christ, don’t be offensive to them, but instead show your love through the fruits of the Spirit which among other things are love, patience, humility, and kindness.

John - get this straight: Protestantism has done more to splinter the Body of Christ than any other force in history. I am not the one causing division.

Boasting is not good, we should realize that a little yeast works through the whole batch od dough. Let us work for Christian unity, built on our common foundation, which is Jesus.

Working toward Chriatian unity, which is what all members of the Catholic church should be doing, is* “Taking Care of Business*”! To the glory of God and His Son, Jesus Christ!
**John - who is boasting? You’re taking this conversation to places that I have not. ****If you feel that in revealing the truth to you that I am boasting, then you are sadly mistaken. **

Don’t get so defensive. Study your faith instead of working against it. KNOW what you are supposed to believe as a Catholic instead of just taking on the name “Catholic”.

You appear to be a sincere person who is searching for the truth but have fallen prey to a LOT of bad information about the Catholic Church.

 

[elvisman]

Not so just because you say so. I am very well versed in Church history, not just a Cathoic interpretation of it. I am well aware that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the oldest recognizable Christian institutions that are still operating today. So what?

Johnny - history is what it is. You can’t change it simply because you disagree with the Catholic Church.

Can you prove to me that there were other Christian denominations (other than the Orthodox) prior to the Reformation?**

False dilemma. I never said there was more than one church. In fact I said the exact opposite of that.

By “Body” do you mean “Church”. See response above.

In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus appears to Saul in a vision. Saul had been persecuting the Church. Jesus asks him bluntly, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?" He told him, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting".

Who was Saul persecuting? He was persecuting the Church. In verses 4-5, Jesus equates the Church with his very self - his Body.
The Church is his Body. There was not other “church” or “denomination” at this time. There was only one Church that HE (God) established.

All other “churches” have been established by flawed human beings.**

What things?

I asked you the following:
**Can you show me where Scripture tells us that there is more than one Church or denomination? Can you show me where the Bible tells us to leave the Body when we disagree and to start our own version of the Body?
*I would be curious to see where the Bible speaks of these things.
*

I have been in full communion with the body of Christ since I accepted Christ at age 7. I don’t doubt your inclusion into the Body of Christ either.

"Accepting Christ" means to be part of his Church (Luke 10:16), which you are not. You are not in full communion with the Church or you would be a practicing Catholic.

We seem to be going in circles here . . .

 

[John1]

"We seem to be going in circles here . . . "

On this point, I agree completely!

 

[John1]

Forgive?
Forgive what, exactly? There is nothing to forgive because my separated brethren have not done this to me personally and I have no animosity towards them.

Well it sure looks that way when I read your posts.

Here is the problem with what you said. You said that the “Reformers” separated or divorced themselves from what they felt was a corrupt system. What they did was without Biblical precedent.

Well actually there is. Jesus sais that if a part of the body was offensive, then it would be better to remove that part, than to let the rest of the body go to hell. From what I’ve read about church history, the Reformers were separating themselves from what they saw as a politically corrupted system and not from the Body of Christ. From what the history books say, the Reformers viewed themselves as leaving a a portion of the Body that was corrupt and sending the rest of the Body to hell. I’m not, however, saying that I agree with their decision, or that I fully understand what the church leadership was doing at that time in history. I believe the precedent that they felt justified their action, was the Schism between the Eastern and Western branches that happened about five hundred years earlier.

Nowhere in the NT did anybody ever look upon those who separated themselves from the Body of Christ as “believers”. On the contrary - they were always looked upon as people abandoning the faith to follow their own will (John 6:66).

Nowhere do I read in history that the Reformers were separating themselves from Jesus Christ. You are correct that the people talked about in John 6:66 as they were people that had stopped believing in Jesus. They had abandonded their faith in Jesus and because they had stopped believing in Jesus, they were not part of His church anymore.

Nowhere in the Bible was anybody ever told to leave the Church and start their own when they disagreed. This didn’t even happen in the OT with Israel.

Nowhere in the Bible was anybody ever told to start their own church, but there are examples of separation when people people didn’t hold on to faith and a good conscience, like Alexander and Hymenaeus. I know that the Jews in the OT had different sects, like the Sadduces and the Pharisees.

Sadly, you are mistaken if you believe that separation from the Body of Christ is the Biblical or historical prescription for cleaning house. All the Reformers did in their arrogance was to divorce themselves from Christ’s ONE Church.

Well it was Jesus that said it’s better to remove a part of the body that is offensive, than to let the rest of the body go to hell. Again the Reformers were not separating themselves from Christs Body. Today, the vast majority of Christains that are in the Protestant denominations are there to worship Jesus and have little regard for what happened in the Reformation. I personally know of very few Protestants that are anti-Catholic and very few Catholics that are anti-Protestant. Most of the people that I know feel that were on the same team.

You can try to rationalize this away all day long to try to justify your position - but the fact is that you are divorced from his Body by your own choice. My prayer is that all those who believe in him will one day return to his ONE Body.

See, there you go again, making the assertion that I’m not a member of the Catholic Church, which I can assure you that I am. Our difference is that you don’t believe that all the believers in Jesus are part of the Body of Christ, and I do.

Finally - you are right about one thing: Rom. 8 tells us that nobody CAN separate us from the love of Christ. Nobody, that is, except for ourselves - as we saw in John 6:66.

Exactly, and by the way, I don’t agree with OSAS. If you quit having faith in Jesus, then you have no salvation.

 

[JohnnyReb]

This invisible church that has been conjured up by Protestants in the attempt to justify their corporate existence is at best one body of believers who believe in different things in matters of faith and morals.

First off, I want to thank you for the time you put into this post. It looks like you put a lot of effort. So if I sound confrontational in my response, its not meant to be. However, this would be like me saying “The reason Catholics have Papal infallibility is to impose their beliefs on the entire church.” Wouldn’t by that, would you?

The Church is not invisible. Christ said “Where ever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them”

The apostle Paul describes the exclusively one universal Church of his time as having one faith (cf. Eph 4:5) which means much more than just believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Saviour

That sounds like eisegesis to me. Where do you get that from Ephesians 4:5? As far as believing: Romans 10:9-10 and John 3:16 make it clear what is necessary.

Your idea of the Church radically differs from how Paul understood the Bride of Christ to be. He belonged to a church that simply was “one institution” with a centralized hierarchical structure.

Sigh. Do you honestly believe I haven’t read the New Testament many, many times? Guess what, your idea of the “Church” being one institution, is not there either. I find it interesting that you must immediately go to tradition as a justification for your position. While tradition is beneficial, it is secondary to scripture in the Anglican view of things. Therefore, you will find your own line of reasoning more convincing then I would. We think differently.

These bishops of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, moreover, testify to the fact that by early on all of orthodox Christendom (The Patriarchates of the Catholic Church) had known that Peter and his valid successors in the episcopate at Rome held a place of primacy in the Church.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches of the Patriarchates of the one Catholic faith] must agree, that is all the faithful in the world.”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]

Here is what one Roman Catholic Scholar has to say about all that:

The continuity between Pope and Apostle rests on traditions which stretch back almost to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity. It was already well established by the year AD 180, when the early Christian writer Irenaeus of Lyons invoked it in defence of orthodox Christianity. The Church of Rome was for him the ‘great and illustrious Church’ to which, ‘on account of its commanding position, every church, that is the faithful everywhere, must resort’. Irenaeus thought that the Church had been ‘founded and organised at Rome by the two glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul,’ and that its faith had been reliably passed down to posterity by an unbroken succession of bishops, the first of them chosen and consecrated by the Apostles themselves. He named the bishops who had succeeded the Apostles, in the process providing us with the earliest surviving list of the popes–Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, and so on down to Irenaeus’ contemporary and friend Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from AD 174 to 189.

All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs, or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatican Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast.** Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. **Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome…Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve…

Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter’s death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single ‘successor’. There is, therefore, nothing approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament

 

[JohnnyReb]

Continued below…

Many private individuals since long before Martin Luther and John Calvin entered the stage have in fact founded other bodies of believers who have “gone out from the first ecclesiastical tradition” handed down to us from the apostles and safeguarded by their valid successors in the episcopate of the Catholic Church in the face of heresy.

They would argue, they did not leave the church, the church left them and left behind the teachings handed down from the apostles, and the New Testament-which those apostles and their associates wrote.

Its ironic Luther and Calvin are labelled as those who engage in private interpretation, when the RCC system exempts them from all accountability. In fact, it sets itself up not to be questioned, because in that system, they cannot err when teaching on faith and morals yet Paul warned us that there would be many false teachers amoung us, to test everything, and hold to what is good. Rome tells the laity we must accept everything in obedience.

In the 2nd century, the Egyptian Valentine, who separated himself from the Catholic Church because he was denied a bishopric, formed a Christian sect known as the Valentinians who subscribed to the false doctrine of justification by faith alone and denied that Mary was the Mother of God - just as Protestants do. Do you believe that this “institution” either belonged to the (invisible) Church or was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ? This sect went so far as to deny human free will (a logical conclusion in the Calvinist doctrine of double-predestination) and the resurrection of the body.

PAX :heaven:

I don’t know much about this group, but if all that was “wrong” with them was that they preached salvation by grace through faith alone, and they denied that Mary was the Mother of God, there was nothing wrong with them. As for Marian doctrine, I actually accept much of it and would disagree with Valentine on that, but unlike the RCC, I do not see it as dogma. Come to think of it, most Marian doctrines were not dogma in the second century either.

 

[JohnnyReb]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinianism

After doing a google search, its clear that the Valentinians were Gnostics. Its clear that what Protestants believe and what Gnostics believe are far different, so its comparing apples to oranges. Even the Roman Catholic church denies that Gnostics are Christians, but believes Protestants to be seperated bretheren. Its clear they see the difference!

 

[elvisman]

Well actually there is. Jesus sais that if a part of the body was offensive, then it would be better to remove that part, than to let the rest of the body go to hell. From what I’ve read about church history, the Reformers were separating themselves from what they saw as a politically corrupted system and not from the Body of Christ. From what the history books say, the Reformers viewed themselves as leaving a a portion of the Body that was corrupt and sending the rest of the Body to hell. I’m not, however, saying that I agree with their decision, or that I fully understand what the church leadership was doing at that time in history. I believe the precedent that they felt justified their action, was the Schism between the Eastern and Western branches that happened about five hundred years earlier.

Sorry, but that’s a cop-out.
I asked you to show me a BIBLICAL precedent for what the Reformers did. You are simply comparing what they did with another wrong perpetrated by the Orthodox 500 years earlier.
Show me where the BIBLE tells us to leave when we disagree.

The lesson of the eye being gouged out or the hand being cut off has nothing to do with the Body of Christ. Jesus was using hyperbole to show the severity of sin – NOT telling the crowd to break off when they disagreed with the Body at large – which is what the Reformers did.

Nowhere do I read in history that the Reformers were separating themselves from Jesus Christ. You are correct that the people talked about in John 6:66

as they were people that had stopped believing in Jesus. They had abandonded their faith in Jesus and because they had stopped believing in Jesus, they were not part of His church anymore.
In Acts 9:4-5, Jesus equated the Church with his very self. Eph. 1:22-23, Paul says that the CHURCH is the fullness of Christ, who fills things in every way.

Of his Church, Jesus said:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
**So, when the Reformers left the Church – they left the FULLNESS of Christ to follow **their flawed version of a partial truth.