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

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand. 🙂

QUOTE=John1;7278561]Hi Joe,

The answer to th question is “yes”. Whether or not you or I agree that the “new church” is the church founded by Jesus is another question completely.

Now about the first part of your post, I am a member of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. I lable myself as a “Christian Catholic” because that’s what I am. It’ a bit of irony that the term “Catholic Christians” entered Roman Imperial law when Theodosius I, Emperor from 379 to 395, reserved that name for adherents of “that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff (Pope) Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria …as for the others, since in our judgement they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches.” This law of 27 February 380 was included in Book 16 of the Codex Theodosianus. It established **Catholic Christianity **as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Somehow through time the “Christianity” part of that term has been lost, and now many refer to the religion as the “Catholic religion”. We are supposed to praise God that we bear the name “Christian” as Peter says in 1 Peter 4:16. I think it would be an insult to be called anything else.
 
John1 said:
Hi Elvisman,

Maybe I didn’t read your post closely enough, and if I didn’t I apologize. My point about the “Catholic Church” term written by Ignatius around 110 A.D. is the earliest known use of that term historically speaking. We can speculate as much as we want, but that type of speculation only boils down to personal opinions and bias. There simply is no historical evidence that the term was used prior to that letter. I doubt if St. Ignatius coined that term, however I have no historical evidence as proof. 🤷

I am a Christian, first and foremost, and a member of the local Catholic Church. Surely you don’t question my participation in the Body of Christ of my membership in the Catholic Church! Actually, I think that you were probably trying to be funny, like a clown, or maybe you were being condescending, I don’t really know, but that’s okay.🙂

I never stated that God’s will is that we only love our brothers and sisters in Christ, but according to the first letter of John, whoever says “I love God”, yet hates his brother is a liar. As a matter of fact, the biggest part of the letter emphasizes the importance love between brothers. In the first letter of Peter, Peter says "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. 👍
Click to expand...
First of all - no need to apologize. 👍
Secondly, I’ve spoken to many people over the years who say exactly what you expressed:
“I am a Christian FIRST, then a Catholic.”

That is a contradiction in terms, my friend. The Catholic Church IS the Christian institution established by Christ. In short it was the first and ONLY Church instituted by him. “Catholic Church” simply means, “The Church Universal” – the worldwide Christian Church.

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the declaration, Dominus Iesus, ALL Protestant denominations are not Churches in the fullest sense of the term. They are “ecclesial communities”. The point is that many of them have a partial truth and, although they are related to the Body of Christ, they are divorced from of it.

**The only Church established by Christ himself (Matt. 16:18) is the same Church we read about as being the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the one we read about in 1 Tim. 3:15 that is the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Finally - it is the very same Church that Jesus Christ identified himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
You must remember - Jesus only built ONE Church - not thousands.

Partial truth isn’t enough. The Church HAS to encompass the fullness of Truth – the fullness Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Any institution that doesn’t is NOT his Church.
 
John1 said:
Hi Elvisman,

Maybe I didn’t read your post closely enough, and if I didn’t I apologize. My point about the “Catholic Church” term written by Ignatius around 110 A.D. is the earliest known use of that term historically speaking. We can speculate as much as we want, but that type of speculation only boils down to personal opinions and bias.

There simply is no historical evidence that the term was used prior to that letter. I doubt if St. Ignatius coined that term, however I have no historical evidence as proof. 🤷
Click to expand...
John,

What is it you’re arguing against?

Re:the date 110 a.d. Ignatius ,a disciple of John, has been bishop of Antioch for 41 years. The Church is called the Catholic Church during Ignatius tenure as bishop. However, what you are arguing for, is that for 41 years Ignatius never used the term Catholic Church during his tenure, even though you agree, he probably didn’t invent the name… So what you’re saying is, Only when he is going to Rome to be martyred is he using the name Catholic Church. If you read Ignatius you wouldn’t be arguing this way.

I would suggest, reading Ignatius letters yourself. He’s NOT an innovator. If he was trying to slip one over on anyone, like a name change for the Church, there would be immediate criticism IN WRITING from his contemporaries or those that followed him. Instead of criticism(s), we see everyone uses the name Catholic Church also. No push back, no criticism.

Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?
**
NO
 
elvisman said:
First of all - no need to apologize. 👍
Secondly, I’ve spoken to many people over the years who say exactly what you expressed:
“I am a Christian FIRST, then a Catholic.”

That is a contradiction in terms, my friend. The Catholic Church IS the Christian institution established by Christ. In short it was the first and ONLY Church instituted by him. “Catholic Church” simply means, “The Church Universal” – the worldwide Christian Church.

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the declaration, Dominus Iesus, ALL Protestant denominations are not Churches in the fullest sense of the term. They are “ecclesial communities”. The point is that many of them have a partial truth and, although they are related to the Body of Christ, they are divorced from of it.

The only Church established by Christ himself (Matt. 16:18) is the same Church we read about as being the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the one we read about in 1 Tim. 3:15 that is the *“pillar and foundation of truth”. *Finally - it is the very same Church that Jesus Christ identified himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
You must remember - Jesus only built ONE Church - not thousands.

Partial truth isn’t enough. The Church HAS to encompass the fullness of Truth – the fullness Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Any institution that doesn’t is NOT his Church.
Click to expand...
Amen brother!👍
 
elvisman said:
First of all - no need to apologize. 👍
Secondly, I’ve spoken to many people over the years who say exactly what you expressed:
“I am a Christian FIRST, then a Catholic.”

That is a contradiction in terms, my friend. The Catholic Church IS the Christian institution established by Christ. In short it was the first and ONLY Church instituted by him. “Catholic Church” simply means, “The Church Universal” – the worldwide Christian Church.

As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the declaration, Dominus Iesus, ALL Protestant denominations are not Churches in the fullest sense of the term. They are “ecclesial communities”. The point is that many of them have a partial truth and, although they are related to the Body of Christ, they are divorced from of it.

The only Church established by Christ himself (Matt. 16:18) is the same Church we read about as being the fullness of truth (Eph. 1:22-23). It is the one we read about in 1 Tim. 3:15 that is the *“pillar and foundation of truth”. *Finally - it is the very same Church that Jesus Christ identified himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
You must remember - Jesus only built ONE Church - not thousands.

Partial truth isn’t enough. The Church HAS to encompass the fullness of Truth – the fullness Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). Any institution that doesn’t is NOT his Church.
Click to expand...
Hi Elvisman,

Firstly, we’re cool then? good!

Secondly, just as you have run into people that say that they were Christian, then Catholic, over the years I have asked a lot of people if they were Christians and several times got the response, “no, I’m Catholic”. It’s troublesome to anyone would see “Christian” and “Catholic” as a contradiction in terms, and especially troublesome when someone opts to be called “Catholic” instead of “Christian”. The terms “Christian” and “Catholic” should go together like bread and butter. I agree with you 100% that Jesus established only one church. The church is considered the Body of Christ and it is made up of all the followers of Jesus. I don’t agree however, that the “ecclesial communities” or “separated bretheren” are divorced from the Body of Christ. If the “separated bretheren” are confessing bthat Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, being Baptized in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is active in those “ecclesial communities”, then that says to me that they are an active part of the Body of Christ, even if they have the Truth only in part. The only way to get the Holy Spirit is to accept Jesus, then Father sends the Holy Spirit to lead that person into full truth. The Apostle Paul wrote that right now we see only partially, as if through a clouded mirror, but when perfection comes we will see perfectly. We must remember that we are united through one Holy Spirit. We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, and we were all given one Spirit to drink. Remember too, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts of the body that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.🙂

Elvisman, just because I don’t agree with you on everything, doesn’t mean that I don’t care about you and respect you. You’re my brother Christ!
 
steve_b said:
John,

What is it you’re arguing against?

Re:the date 110 a.d. Ignatius ,a disciple of John, has been bishop of Antioch for 41 years. The Church is called the Catholic Church during Ignatius tenure as bishop. However, what you are arguing for, is that for 41 years Ignatius never used the term Catholic Church during his tenure, even though you agree, he probably didn’t invent the name… So what you’re saying is, Only when he is going to Rome to be martyred is he using the name Catholic Church. If you read Ignatius you wouldn’t be arguing this way.

I would suggest, reading Ignatius letters yourself. He’s NOT an innovator. If he was trying to slip one over on anyone, like a name change for the Church, there would be immediate criticism IN WRITING from his contemporaries or those that followed him. Instead of criticism(s), we see everyone uses the name Catholic Church also. No push back, no criticism.

Can anyone start a church, just as so many have done, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ?
**
NO
Click to expand...
Hi Steveb,

I’m really not aurguing against anything. I have a set of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Father writings, but I really need to get a set of the earlier Church Fathers as well. I thought that “The History of the Church” by Eusibeus was pretty good. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, you should. I think I will take your advice and get a set of the Anti-Nicene writings and read through them as well. Thanks for the suggestion. May God bless you and yours, peace-out!
 
joe370 said:
A genuine question for my non-Catholic friends, with absolutely zero flippancy intended: Can anyone (like myself for example) - start a church, just as so many have done for the last 500 years, and call his or her new church the church founded by Jesus Christ? 🙂
Click to expand...
There is a difference between

the church founded by Jesus Christ

and

a church founded by Jesus Christ
 
John1 said:
Hi Elvisman,

Firstly, we’re cool then? good!

Secondly, just as you have run into people that say that they were Christian, then Catholic, over the years I have asked a lot of people if they were Christians and several times got the response, “no, I’m Catholic”. It’s troublesome to anyone would see “Christian” and “Catholic” as a contradiction in terms, and especially troublesome when someone opts to be called “Catholic” instead of “Christian”. The terms “Christian” and “Catholic” should go together like bread and butter. I agree with you 100% that Jesus established only one church. The church is considered the Body of Christ and it is made up of all the followers of Jesus. I don’t agree however, that the “ecclesial communities” or “separated bretheren” are divorced from the Body of Christ. If the “separated bretheren” are confessing bthat Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, being Baptized in the name of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is active in those “ecclesial communities”, then that says to me that they are an active part of the Body of Christ, even if they have the Truth only in part. The only way to get the Holy Spirit is to accept Jesus, then Father sends the Holy Spirit to lead that person into full truth. The Apostle Paul wrote that right now we see only partially, as if through a clouded mirror, but when perfection comes we will see perfectly. We must remember that we are united through one Holy Spirit. We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body, and we were all given one Spirit to drink. Remember too, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts of the body that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor.🙂

Elvisman, just because I don’t agree with you on everything, doesn’t mean that I don’t care about you and respect you. You’re my brother Christ!
Click to expand...
Of COURSE, we’re good. You’e not disrespectful when you err - you respectfully disagree. I wish there were more posters like you who represented the non-Catholic side.

**That being said, the Church is not made of all believers in Christ – but those who remain faithful to ALL his truth without cherry-picking the truths they reject. Christ didn’t establish a buffet – he built a Church. **
James 2:19 tells us that even the demons believe in God and tremble. Simply believing in Christ does not save you – and does not make you part of his body.

**You’re wrong when you say that our separated brethren are not divorced from the Church, which is the Body of Christ. Protestantism was born of divorce – divorce from the Church. This is why so many denominations accept divorce. It would be hypocritical of them not to do so when their very origins are based in it.

**You seem to be a very sincere and honest person. My problem with you is that you misrepresent the Catholic Church that you claim to be part of. Much of what you say is *contrary *to tenets of the Catholic faith, making you a dissident. **
This is precisely what the Reformers were before divorcing themselves from the body of Christ.

**Remember Jesus’ warning in **Matt. 7:21-23:
**"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. **
*Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ *
**Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’

T****ake care.**
 
John1 said:
Hi Steveb,

I’m really not aurguing against anything. I have a set of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Father writings, but I really need to get a set of the earlier Church Fathers as well. I thought that “The History of the Church” by Eusibeus was pretty good. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, you should. I think I will take your advice and get a set of the Anti-Nicene writings and read through them as well. Thanks for the suggestion. May God bless you and yours, peace-out!
Click to expand...
You probably know, you can read the ECF’s online ccel.org/fathers.html Forget about reading footnotes there IMO. It’s where Protestants like Philip Schaff insert their bias. If you want examples, I’ll be happy to provide.

Re: historians, and history according to…, When primary documents are available, I prefer reading THEM, rather than what someone else says about them. It’s just my preference.
 
steve_b said:
Don’t keep us in suspense? 😉
Click to expand...
Well "the church founded by Jesus Christ implies exclusiveness. If my organization is in fact the church founded by Jesus Christ that means your organization by definition can not be.

The phrase a church founded by Jesus Christ has no impliciation of exclusiveness.

To be honest the phrase “founded by Jesus Christ” is not a phrase I have heard in use much except in these parts. If I were to use this phrase I suspect I would be using it in an entirely different sense than your usage of it, which would make true communication difficult.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Well "the church founded by Jesus Christ implies exclusiveness. If my organization is in fact the church founded by Jesus Christ that means your organization by definition can not be.

The phrase a church founded by Jesus Christ has no impliciation of exclusiveness.

To be honest the phrase “founded by Jesus Christ” is not a phrase I have heard in use much except in these parts. If I were to use this phrase I suspect I would be using it in an entunication difficult.
Click to expand...
Read Matt. 16:16-19 and tell me that Jesus founded more than one Church.
I think you’ll discover that he only built ONE - and it’s exclusive.

It’s the only one he identifies himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
It’s the only one that is called the Bible refers to as the fullness of Christ (1 Eph. 22-23).
It’s the only one that Paul refers to as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Christ has ONE Body - not thousands of splintered bodies.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Well "the church founded by Jesus Christ implies exclusiveness.
Click to expand...
Absolutely 😉

And what words did Jesus use? “I will build my Church” That’s exclusive language.
AP:
If my organization is in fact the church founded by Jesus Christ that means your organization by definition can not be.
Click to expand...
True
AP:
The phrase a church founded by Jesus Christ has no impliciation of exclusiveness.
Click to expand...
That’s because what HE founded IS exclusive. He set the parameters. Seems silly, …no arrogant, for anyone to think they can start up a Church, knowing Jesus didn’t do it, or authorize it, but thinking somehow, it is authorized or even valid. Especially when the apostles talk specifically about don’t divide from the Church they are building for Our Lord. To do so is deadly for their soul.
AP:
To be honest the phrase “founded by Jesus Christ” is not a phrase I have heard in use much except in these parts.
Click to expand...
I’m truly surprised this phrase is strange to your ears.
AP:
If I were to use this phrase I suspect I would be using it in an entirely different sense than your usage of it, which would make true communication difficult.
Click to expand...
Just being transparent, and with all charity, this is why it is NOT good to be self taught on this subject.
 
elvisman said:
Read Matt. 16:16-19 and tell me that Jesus founded more than one Church.
I think you’ll discover that he only built ONE - and it’s exclusive.

It’s the only one he identifies himself with in Acts 9:4-5.
It’s the only one that is called the Bible refers to as the fullness of Christ (1 Eph. 22-23).
It’s the only one that Paul refers to as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

Christ has ONE Body - not thousands of splintered bodies.
Click to expand...
Of course per Matthew 16 there is one church.

The issue is how does God view the church today when there are many organizations.

There are a lot of issues here and I don’t want to simplify it and will not accept simplified arguments either way.

I also do not have the energy at all to revisit it.
 
AmateurPianist said:
The issue is how does God view the church today when there are many organizations.
Click to expand...
The issue created (thousands of different denominations) is a product of human arrogance,ignorance and pride and it has nothing to do with God as its author.
 
AmateurPianist said:
Of course per Matthew 16 there is one church.

The issue is how does God view the church today when there are many organizations.

There are a lot of issues here and I don’t want to simplify it and will not accept simplified arguments either way.

I also do not have the energy at all to revisit it.
Click to expand...
God sees things the way he always sees them - in eternity.
He doesn’t change his mind about things and he doesn’t change his plan of salvation.

Do you really think that he built a Church - then changed his mind about it after the Reformation because they finally got it “right”?

I’m not trying to fight with you but to declare that you will not accept somebody’s argument because you don’t have the time or energy to revisit it is a cop-out.
 
elvisman said:
God sees things the way he always sees them - in eternity.
He doesn’t change his mind about things and he doesn’t change his plan of salvation.

Do you really think that he built a Church - then changed his mind about it after the Reformation because they finally got it “right”?

**I’m not **trying to fight with you but to declare that you will not accept somebody’s argument because you don’t have the time or energy to revisit it is a cop-out.
Click to expand...
Sigh…have it your way then. I am done though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top