Catholic Church founded by Jesus?

[mcq72]

Really? I’ve come across plenty of Protestants on other web sites who completely ignore the first 1500 years of Church history - it’s as if, to them, Christianity died with the apostles and didn’t live again until Luther.

Fair enough. I suppose some Catholics lead me to believe they don’t study their historical development either. They think the apostles and first bishops held Saturday night confessionals, and carried around gold chalices for Eucharist, (or fasted before,) or were never married, or wore collars or stoles and carried and prayed the Rosary and talked to deceased saints, etc…

 

[mcq72]

I sometimes refer to myself as a “Jesus freak” - every Christian should be proud to be called a “Jesus freak”.

Ok, am somewhat surprised to hear you say that. It was a specific term used in 70’s, for folks who only talked about Jesus, like the Samaritan women at the well, who went back to her village excitedly telling everyone about the man she met at the well. No verbiage about church or rituals or Mary and saints but focus is " the man" that has been met. In fact the urge was to put Him forward in conversation. As soon as you got specific with a church association, you were off message.

 

[Wannano]

Jesus also said that one MUST be born again!

 

[mcq72]

Jesus also said that one MUST be born again!

Yes, that was/is central to the Jesus movement.Can’t really see, know, Jesus otherwise.

 

[pablope]

hope:

What it is conveying is that those who belong to God will have the tools for every good work not that everything is in Scripture

Actually it conveys only one tool in this text, the tool being scripture, to be competent or perfectly equipped. It does not say scripture is insufficient. It does not say you also need tradition, history or extra biblical sources to be competent/ perfectly equipped in this text.

You forgot to take note of v14…which if taken together…connotes an entirely different sense.

 

[Buzzard3]

Fair enough. I suppose some Catholics lead me to believe they don’t study their historical development either. They think the apostles and first bishops held Saturday night confessionals, and carried around gold chalices for Eucharist, (or fasted before,) or were never married, or wore collars or stoles and carried and prayed the Rosary and talked to deceased saints, etc…

The Church’s practices and traditions have evolved and doctrines have been refined since the apostles, but the Church was essentially Catholic from the beginning … ask John Henry Newman, a prominent Anglican theologcal who set out to prove that the early Church was not Catholic, by studying history - he subsequently discovered that the Church was in fact Catholic from the very beginning, which compelled him to convert to Catholicism. He famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

Btw. there is nothing wrong or unbiblcal about adding novel traditions to Christianity. You can stack Christianity will as many novel traditions as you like, as look as they don’t conflict with the gospel or what was taught by Christ and the apostles.

 

[Buzzard3]

You forgot to take note of v14…which if taken together…connotes an entirely different sense

Disciples of Sola Scriptura cling to 2Tim 3:16 like barnacles to a rock - it’s their only perceived “proof-text”, despite the weakness of their argument. At the same time they’ll ignore scripture like Eph 4, which says Christ uses the Church to provide correct doctrine and to bring believers to the “fullness of Christ”.

Also ignored is the fact that Sola Scriptura was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Actually, SS would probably have been considered to be a form of heresy.

 

[mcq72]

You forgot to take note of v14…which if taken together…connotes an entirely different sense.

Hello Pablobe, been a long time since we last chatted…hope all is well

A fair point you make. In fact there is even more in the chapter. There is even a verse that seems to rely on tradition, perhaps even a. OT commentary, for he cites two of Pharoahs agents (Jannes and Jambre (who opposed God’s two agents Moses and Aaron in vs 8. Those names are not in Scripture, yet Paul makes use of them.

Indeed Paul makes mention of his ministry and teaching of not just doctrine, but of love, patience perseverance. He even examines himself as others should, that he has been tested in light of false teachers as has not been bettered. Like Timothy always had a choice between what others say and what Paul taught. He had to decide which was of man and which from Christ Himself (Paul always asserted his doctrine and impetus came from Christ, which men can come to attest to).

So yes, there is a teacher, even some tradition, amongst false teachers displayed in chapter. Yet, in the end Paul says to prevail as the man of God will prevail, as Moses did.

The implication is that Scripture is the bedrock for this, the rightly dividing of this. The Godly teacher and any tradition are scriptural. Paul uses OT to teach Timothy in this chapter.

As a side note, not only did Timothy have to cling to the discerned Christ’s teaching thru Paul, he had to drop any conflicting teaching. What could be used for sure as a foundation was all scriptural teaching he had as a youth.
So false teaching/tradition have their powers over unregenerated man for a time, but when the blinds are lifted, verification of the truth can be had thru new vision of OT scripture, whose central figure is Christ…as in Pauls case.

It is my opinion that Paul would not captilize the t in tradition, as is the s in Scripture. And like Augustine says in Confessions, yes their is a teacher, small t, (Ambrose) thru whom the Teacher works, Christ Himself.

So Paul (and Peter and all apostles) had sure doctrine and manner to follow, to now be deduced by God’s Scripture thru them, just as Christ and the apostles used all Scripture they had to equip/ prove their ministry’s.

Anyone claiming succession to Abraham, Moses, and any other leaders up to the apostles (who many also wrote Scripture) are to judged/ discerned as to their doctrine and manner. Falsehood will creep in, succeed in some and for a time, yet those called acording to His purposes will not fall, or will be enlightened out of them.

It is in eyes of beholder. Some see this chapter as support for the three legged stool, others see strong implication for strict adherence to apostolic teaching by the church/ preacher thru God’s scripture of such.

 

[mcq72]

The Church’s practices and traditions have evolved and doctrines have been refined since the apostles, but the Church was essentially Catholic from the beginning

Thank you for admitting development". Essentially however is a very somewhat open ended abyss. Like a drop of arsenic in glass of water still leaves you with essentially a glass of water ( 99.9%). A little bit of leaven develops a whole lump.

John Henry Newman

Yes he went from a Catholic like Anglican church back to Catholicism thru history reading. Here I always cite CS Lewis who did same (read history) but then precisely remained Anglican.

The more I read church history the more I remain “reformed” (having been raised Catholic) and would insist “catholic”.

there is nothing wrong or unbiblcal about adding novel traditions to Christianity. You can stack Christianity will as many novel traditions as you like, as look as they don’t conflict with the gospel or what was taught by Christ and the apostles

Understand…traditions no capital t is inescapable, such as Chrismas and Easter stuff…as to " not contradicting scripture" ok, because not a very high bar relative to God breathed scripture. So fair enough, just cant make it a capital T.

 

[Buzzard3]

Thank you for admitting development". Essentially however is a very somewhat open ended abyss. Like a drop of arsenic in glass of water still leaves you with essentially a glass of water ( 99.9%). A little bit of leaven develops a whole lump.

It’s not like that at all - the Church can invent traditions and refine doctrine without being wrong.

Understand…traditions no capital t is inescapable, such as Chrismas and Easter stuff…as to " not contradicting scripture" ok, because not a very high bar relative to God breathed scripture. So fair enough, just cant make it a capital T.

The Church is as “God breathed” as scripture - the Church is the “fullness” of Christ and is his body (Eph 1:22-23). None of her traditions contradict scripture - that would amount to Christ contradicting himself.

 

[Montrose]

Thank you for admitting development". Essentially however is a very somewhat open ended abyss. Like a drop of arsenic in glass of water still leaves you with essentially a glass of water ( 99.9%). A little bit of leaven develops a whole lump.

You are wrong. The truth of a teaching NEVER changes. Development simply means it is explained in way that is easier to understand. There most certainly is no “open ended abyss”.

 

[mcq72]

It’s not like that at all - the Church can invent traditions and refine doctrine without being wrong.

Never said it couldn’t. Never said it hasn’t. Just not saying once right always right.

 

[Montrose]

the Church can invent traditions

Could you explain that please.

 

[mcq72]

The Church is as “God breathed” as scripture

yes, that is what the Catholic Church says about herself…i might almost agree especially when she is biblical in truth and Spirit , even apostolic.

 

[mcq72]

The truth of a teaching NEVER changes.

Development simply means it is explained in way that is easier to understand.

There most certainly is no “open ended abyss”.

As to first sentence, I would say a truth never changes. Our oneness with and depth of understanding can certainly change for the better , the same , or worse.

To second the second, might add not necessarily an “easier” way, but certainly a dogmatic way. For example, not sure transubstantiation is a simpler way but certainly dogmatic.

The third, I was responding to word “essentially” used to describe first church as “essentially Catholic”. I mean one could almost say the Anglican Church is essentially Catholic. Somewhat not a definitive word, leaving some wiggle room, and to a beholder could be wanting in more clarification, to another not.

 

[JimG]

The Church is of course apostolic. She was founded by Jesus with the apostles as her first bishops and Peter as their leader. Successors were chosen and ordained as needed. In reading the Acts of the Apostles, there does not seem to be a great concern that ‘we must write everything down before we all die.’ No, they rather chose good and faithful men to be ther successors and hand on the deposit of Faith to the next generation and to subsequent generations. In due time members of the Church wrote the gospels and letters which became the New Testament, canonized by that same Church.

 

[mcq72]

In reading the Acts of the Apostles, there does not seem to be a great concern that ‘we must write everything down before we all die.’

Well, agree, as per writing everything down (no one says that), or as per Acts.

Disagree as per Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, Romans, Corinthians 1,2 thru Revelation, some 26 books and 8 authors.

No, they rather chose good and faithful men to be ther successors and hand on the deposit of Faith to the next generation and to subsequent generations

it is not either or, but as you suggest both. Yet once Scripture is written and received, it becomes rule to future generations of successors and all.

I think that is why Barnabus wrote after apostles were gone but not their writings:

To those knowledgeable of the Lords precepts keep them, as many as have been written (ch20?)

 

[hope]

it is not either or, but as you suggest both. Yet once Scripture is written and received, it becomes rule to future generations of successors and all.

Now we return to the subject of this thread. Jesus established His Church and entrusted to it the teachings and authority to bind and loosen. Nowhere do you find Jesus saying write it down. I am sure you have heard this before but the Scripture came out of the Church not the Church out of Scripture.
1 Timothy Chapter 3

15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

 

[Buzzard3]

Could you explain that please.

An example: The Church invented the tradition of priestly celibacy.

 

[Buzzard3]

yes, that is what the Catholic Church says about herself…i might almost agree especially when she is biblical in truth and Spirit , even apostolic.

Scripture implies that the Church is as ‘God breathed’ as the Bible - the Church is the body and ‘fullness’ of Christ (Eph 1:22-23).