Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Good_Fella]

Here on earth, it will be up to each individual believer to study and pray to find the truth.

Scripture is not of itself sufficient to serve as the sole rule of faith for individual Christians; nor can the sacred texts act as the final teaching authority or arbiter of the faith, though Scripture is the objective rule of faith. We read in 2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God is fully equipped by Scripture, but he has no assurance that he will interpret the Bible correctly on his own. Scripture is materially sufficient in that it contains all the truths God wills we should know, stated either explicitly or implicitly. If Scripture were formally sufficient, the Bible would not only contain all the truths God has revealed, but would also present them in a very clear and understandable way as in a catechism. The divine myteries would thus be presented in practical usable form and, as a result, there would be no need for us to appeal to Tradition for clarification or rely on an authentic interpreter invested with the authority to teach in the divine office of the Church. But, as it stands, Scripture is formally insufficient as a medium of divine revelation. Much of what is contained in the Bible is ambiguous and unclear and virtually impossible for an individual believer to understand if left on his own. Moreover, a misunderstanding of Scripture may lead him to stray from the truth and imperil his soul (2 Peter 3:16).

Scripture is not a matter of private interpretation when essential doctrines come into question (2 Pet 1:20). Too often in the history of the Church the written word has been distorted and the spoken word rejected because of a faulty interpretation of Scripture by individual clerics. It was partly for the foreseen purpose of making the written word clear and comprehensible in light of Tradition that Jesus founded his Church on Peter and the Apostles (Mt 16:18-19). Our Lord never intended to give the keys of the kingdom to each baptized Christian for him to decide for himself what the divine truth is. The definition of doctrines lies with the college of bishops in union with the Pope - St. Peter’s successor. The Church which Christ established has never believed that Scripture is sufficient of itself and requires no authentic interpreter. The seal of the Holy Spirit for preaching the Gospel is not conferred through the sacrament of Baptism, but through Holy Orders. In the words of St. Paul: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code, but in the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:5-6). St. John concurs: “We are of God. He who knows God listens to us; he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 Jn 4:6).

The truth is Jesus sent the Paraclete to his apostles and through them to their valid successors in the divine office as a helper to aid human reason in the formulation of essential doctrines as the Church matures in understanding the fullness of the divine mysteries until the end of this age (Mt 28:20). What the apostles understood after Pentecost was foundational with room for more insight and greater understanding (Jn 14:16, 26; 16:12-13). Reason alone is unable to facilitate the acquisition of divine knowledge belonging to the deposit of faith. “And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths in spiritual language” (1 Cor 2:13). In Acts 8:26-40, the Holy Spirit leads the deacon Philip to an enuch from Ethiopia who fails to understand the meaning of the prophet Isaiah concerning Christ. Scripture was formally insufficient as a medium of divine revelation for the enuch. He could not have understood the OT text in light of its secondary fulfillment (sacred Tradition) unless he was taught by someone who was commissioned to preach the Gospel with apostolic authority and the seal of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:6; 8:4-8). “It is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Cor 1:21-22).

*“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes; and it consists in reading the word of God without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy.” *
*St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, lV.33.8 (A.D. 180) *

PAX

 

[Radical]

We have the Scriptural evidence for Saul’s conversion.

Do you have the book, chapter and verse for your position that James, brother of the Lord, an unbeliever for the majority of the Lord’s ministry, converted?

I seem to recall that we have covered this already, but clearly it didn’t stick so I’ll lay it out in point form:

a) James is listed among Christ’s brethren

b) Christ’s brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5)

c) therefore James would be a non-believer before the resurrection

d) after the resurrection, James, the brother of the Lord leads the church at Jerusalem

(wouldn’t you agree that (d) requires James to be a believer at that point in time…or do you hold that that conclusion would also be an unbiblical tradition?)

assuming that you grant that (d) makes James a believer, then if you have an explanation (other than conversion) that changes one from being a non-believer into a believer please share.

Yup. It would certainly be an un-Biblical explanation. Something based, perhaps, on tradition, that could be proffered?

or one could logically deduce that a conversion is required to go from non-believer to believer…seems like pretty easy logic from over here. Further, if one read the bible one could note the manner of Paul’s conversion and note this passage from 1 Cor 15 (NIV):

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,** and then to the Twelve.** 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

it is speculation that James was knocked to the ground spiritually at that appearance, but something caused a (logically necessary) conversion.

 

[jrtrent]

According to the Scriptures, such an indefectible entity does exist.

Yes, I know that Catholics believe their church to be “the one church that Christ founded,” and that “Even though different people have left it, it has always remained visible and united: the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Church that He guides.” cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/What_is_the_Catholic_Church.pdf

The Orthodox believe the same about their church; however, as mentioned previously in this thread, I, along with most protestants, believe that “men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church,” that a church embodying “the scriptural and apostolic ideal . . . existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work,” and that the church “is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” (quotes taken from Smith’s Bible dictionary)

I originally wrote a longer response but realized that, like the quote above, I’m simply repeating what I’ve already written in this thread. I’ll simply leave it that as a protestant, I do not accept the position that the Catholic Church is an indefectible entity or that its dogmas set the parameters by which I must understand scripture, even though this means I’m in an imperfect church holding doctrines that are disputed by other protestant believers.

 

[Good_Fella]

Further, if one read the bible one could note the manner of Paul’s conversion and note this passage from 1 Cor 15 (NIV):

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,** and then to the Twelve.** 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

By “the Twelve” St. Paul means the other original apostles, but not literally twelve in number. Recall Judas hanged himself, so at the time Jesus appeared to his apostles after he rose from the dead there were only eleven in number. Thus Jesus could have appeared to the apostle James after he appeared to Peter and the other apostles, unless the Bible is errant.

PAX

 

[joe370]

Yes, I know that Catholics believe their church to be “the one church that Christ founded,” and that “Even though different people have left it, it has always remained visible and united: the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Church that He guides.” cts-online.org.uk/acatalog/What_is_the_Catholic_Church.pdf

The Orthodox believe the same about their church; however, as mentioned previously in this thread, I, along with most protestants, believe that “men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church,” that a church embodying “the scriptural and apostolic ideal . . . existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work,” and that the church “is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” (quotes taken from Smith’s Bible dictionary)…

In other words, God failed and the devil succeeded, in terms of doctrinal truth…Interesting perspective…

 

[PRmerger]

I seem to recall that we have covered this already, but clearly it didn’t stick so I’ll lay it out in point form:

a) James is listed among Christ’s brethren

b) Christ’s brothers did not believe in him (John 7:5)

c) therefore James would be a non-believer before the resurrection

d) after the resurrection, James, the brother of the Lord leads the church at Jerusalem

(wouldn’t you agree that (d) requires James to be a believer at that point in time…or do you hold that that conclusion would also be an unbiblical tradition?)

Fair enough.

So even though you don’t see “James was converted by the Good News” you acknowledge that it’s a very logical possibility.

Even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says he was converted.

I don’t have a problem with that.

We just hope that you allow Catholics that same type of reasoning.

Even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says Mary remained a PV, that’s the logical conclusion from reading the Scripture through the lens of the Tradition which gave us those Scriptures.

And even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says that Mary was assumed into heaven, that’s the logical conclusion of reading the Scriptures through the lens of the Tradition which gave us those Scriptures.

So do you see, Radical, the road which you have led yourself to?

You cannot argue for the alleged conversion of James (you can read Genesis through Revelation and won’t find a single verse that states this occurred), without allowing for the possibility of Catholic dogmas also not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Radical]

Fair enough.

So even though you don’t see “James was converted by the Good News” you acknowledge that it’s a very logical possibility.

more of a logical necessity

Even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says he was converted.

the math is fairly simple…non-believer => believer requires a conversion…

I don’t have a problem with that.

duly noted…you don’t have a problem with this logical necessity

We just hope that you allow Catholics that same type of reasoning.

by all means…claim your logical necessity

Even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says Mary remained a PV, that’s the logical conclusion from reading the Scripture through the lens of the Tradition which gave us those Scriptures.

sheeesh! your first try at this logical necessity thing and you make mistakes. First, from the tradition created by the earliest ECF to address this subject (Tertullian), the PVof M isn’t a necessity…instead it is prevented. As such, you must be working off of tradition selected to yield the result that you desire…

And even though there’s nothing explicitly in Scripture that says that Mary was assumed into heaven, that’s the logical conclusion of reading the Scriptures through the lens of the Tradition which gave us those Scriptures.

and what lens would that be exactly?..a lens that isn’t manufactured until hundreds of years after the alleged event in question?..get a better lens.

So do you see, Radical, the road which you have led yourself to?

yes, I have chosen the road travelled by logic applied to what is stated in scripture…that isn’t the road constructed from logic applied to the vision of scripture that is seen through the fuzzy/distorted lens of tradition

You cannot argue for the alleged conversion of James (you can read Genesis through Revelation and won’t find a single verse that states this occurred), without allowing for the possibility of Catholic dogmas also not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

if you can’t discern the blatant difference, then I can’t help you see things more clearly.

 

[PRmerger]

more of a logical necessity

Or an example of begging the question.

 

[PRmerger]

sheeesh! your first try at this logical necessity thing and you make mistakes. First, from the tradition created by the earliest ECF to address this subject (Tertullian),

Oh, the irony of your attempting to correct me while proclaiming an egregious error!

Tertullian is not considered by patristic scholars to be an ECF, but rather is an early ecclesiastical writer. His orthodoxy is indeed questioned. Indeed, he is not a saint, dying out of communion with the Church.

While he is quoted by our Church, and even by our popes, that does not = ECF.

 

[PRmerger]

. yes, I have chosen the road travelled by logic applied to what is stated in scripture…that isn’t the road constructed from logic applied to the vision of scripture that is seen through the fuzzy/distorted lens of tradition

And yet it is this Tradition that has given you these Scriptures. Each and every time you quote the NT you are giving tacit submission to our Sacred Tradition.

For you would not know that Hebrews is inspired…

except through the Tradition of the CC.

Unless you are willing to explain how it is that you know that the Gospel of Barnabas is not inspired, we must assume the, er…logical necessity of your reliance on our Church’s Sacred Tradition.

 

[jrtrent]

In other words, God failed and the devil succeeded, in terms of doctrinal truth…

How many non-Catholic Christian churches are immune from that charge? I’m guessing the Orthodox churches would be, but are there any others?

 

[Porknpie]

Oh, the irony of your attempting to correct me while proclaiming an egregious error!

Tertullian is not considered by patristic scholars to be an ECF, but rather is an early ecclesiastical writer. His orthodoxy is indeed questioned. Indeed, he is not a saint, dying out of communion with the Church.

While he is quoted by our Church, and even by our popes, that does not = ECF.

That Tertullian is not a ECF has already been pointed out to Radical. Knowing it is untrue with the intent to deceive is to lie.

Or perhaps he did not read my earlier post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10110992#post10110992

newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

 

[PRmerger]

That Tertullian is not a ECF has already been pointed out to Radical. Knowing it is untrue with the intent to deceive is to lie.

Or perhaps he did not read my earlier post. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10110992#post10110992

newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

That’s okay.

It was fun correcting him.

 

[joe370]

How many non-Catholic Christian churches are immune from that charge? I’m guessing the Orthodox churches would be, but are there any others?

Only the church established by Jesus the Christ should be immune, logically speaking, for the simple fact that it is His church, and it is the responsibility of each and every Christian to identify His church, in a world with so many autonomous churches making that claim.

A very simple question, in terms of the preservation of doctrinal truth within Jesus’ church: did God (Jesus the Christ) fail? If so then the devil did in fact succeed (the gates of hell did in fact overcome Jesus’ church, in terms of doctrinal truth). If God did not fail then doctrinal truth can still be found, intact, somewhere, within Jesus’ church, in the world today, but you do not believe this to be the case; correct me if I am wrong?

If God did not fail, and the church that He established on earth, is in fact the Catholic Church, then the logical corollary is: what the Catholic Church teaches about Jesus, (irrespective of the fact that every leader belonging to the CC is a fallible sinner) in terms of siblings, must be right, again, because Jesus did not fail in terms of preserving doctrinal truth. Seems like a reasonable conclusion, only if Jesus continues to preserve doctrinal truth within His church, and only if the CC is the church established by God circa AD 33, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem.

 

[Good_Fella]

Of course, the Catholic Church also operates on a principle other than adherence to Biblical authority. Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary at least in part because that is what their church teaches.

It was the Catholic Church that finally established the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century without having to adhere to biblical authority as the final arbiter of the faith. Since the Bible does not provide an inspired list of contents, we cannot know with certainty which Books and Epistles belong to it, unless there is an infallible extra-biblical ruling authority guided by the Holy Spirit: the universal Magisterium of the Church. The Early Church Fathers, in the meantime, either explicitly or implicitly bore witness in their extant writings to a universal belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, while the Church still questioned and debated over which texts should be listed in the sacred canon, and at that time there was but One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.* St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D. 107): “Now Mary’s virginity and her giving birth (the virgin birth) escaped the notice of the prince of this world, as did the Lord’s death - those three secrets crying to be told, but wrought in God’s silence.” St. Justin Martyr (155): “He became man by the Virgin* in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin.” St. Irenaeus (180): “They preached the Emmanuel born of the Virgin: in this way they caused Him the Pure One, to open the Virgin’s pure womb in a pure manner that regenerated mankind in God, and that He himself made pure.” St. Hippolytus (200): “For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon himself the flesh of the holy Virgin.” St. Clement of Alexandria (202): “I love to call her (Mary) the Church.This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother – pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood.” Origen (244): “And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in perpetual chastity, and Mary was among women.” St. Athanasius (362): “Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also He took true human flesh from Mary Ever-Virgin.” St. John Chrysostom (370): “And when he had taken her, 'he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born son, ’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth (when Joseph had taken Mary home: my emphasis) **the Virgin **was wholly untouched by man.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (371): “What happened in the stainless Mary when the fullness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out from her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.” St. Epiphanius (374): “The Son of God … was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.” St. Basil (379): “The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin.”

The faithful transmission of God’s spoken word (sacred Tradition) helped facilitate the transmission of God’s written word, just as it had true devotion to Mary. If the Church had been wrong about Mary these three centuries, what guarantee is there that she wasn’t wrong about the canon of Scripture? Until the Synod of Rome in 382, and the subsequent councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), the canon varied among the churches. Some lists contained books (i.e., The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache) which eventually were declared non-canonical by the Church, while other lists contained books that by right belonged to the canon. Thus until the canon was settled by the Church, the final ruling authority was the Magisterium, and its authority could not cease, since the Church was in no position to adhere to any biblical authority when the canon had to be settled. Who the Church relied on was the ultimate ruling authority - the Holy Spirit, whom she also relied on for a true understanding of Mary in the economy of salvation in accord with our Lord’s promise: “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever” (Jn 14:16).

One blatant fallacy of sola Scriptura is the assertion that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. In other words, the biblical books bear witness to themselves that they have in fact been inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, if this were so, the Church would never have debated which books should belong to the canon. Needless to say, some books in the Bible even fail to identify their authors. And those that do are copies of copies with no original autographs. So we have no idea that these authors writing in the name of God are who they are supposed to be, and no way of testing their credentials. To know with moral certainty who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, we must turn to extra-biblical sources: Tradition and scholarship. The authenticity of any biblical book or letter can be finally determined without error only by the Magisterium of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. What we possess at present are thousands of manuscripts with thousands of variations which we would like to believe are true copies of the original ones, but more likely are copies of copies. Without the original copies we can’t know for sure that we possess the written word of God in its entirety. We can only hope in faith that God ensured a correct duplication of the original manuscripts and safeguarded their transmission from error as He had the spoken word through the Paraclete.

PAX

 

[joe370]

Good Fella;10175218]It was the Catholic Church that finally established the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century without having to dadhere to biblical authority as the final arbiter of the faith.

One of the key reasons why I joined the Catholic Church.

Since the Bible does not provide an inspired list of contents, we cannot know with certainty which Books and Epistles belong to it, unless there is an infallible extra-biblical ruling authority guided by the Holy Spirit: the universal Magisterium of the Church.

Another reason why I joined the Catholic Church.

The Early Church Fathers, in the meantime, either explicitly or implicitly bore witness in their extant writings to a universal belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, while the Church still questioned and debated over which texts should be listed in the sacred canon, and at that time there was but One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.* St. Ignatius of Antioch (c.A.D. 107): "Now Mary’s virginity… *

Folks like Radical, by his own admission, will simply say that those folks closest to the apostolic age were wrong and that Radical is right.

The faithful transmission of God’s spoken word (sacred Tradition) helped facilitate the transmission of God’s written word, just as it had true devotion to Mary. If the Church had been wrong about Mary these three centuries, what guarantee is there that she wasn’t wrong about the canon of Scripture?

Exactly. No doubt this post will be ignored.

Until the Synod of Rome in 382, and the subsequent councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), the canon varied among the churches. Some lists contained books (i.e., The Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache) which eventually were declared non-canonical by the Church, while other lists contained books that by right belonged to the canon. Thus until the canon was settled by the Church, the final ruling authority was the Magisterium, and its authority could not cease, since the Church was in no position to adhere to any biblical authority when the canon had to be settled.

Why protestants ignore siad authority is beyond me.

Who the Church relied on was the ultimate ruling authority - the Holy Spirit, whom she also relied on for a true understanding of Mary in the economy of salvation in accord with our Lord’s promise: “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever” (Jn 14:16).

Most protestants believe that the HS guides everyone; this of course is not historical or biblical, thereby rendering the practice of sola scriptura unworkable.

One blatant fallacy of sola Scriptura is the assertion that the Scriptures are self-authenticating. In other words, the biblical books bear witness to themselves that they have in fact been inspired by the Holy Spirit. However, if this were so, the Church would never have debated which books should belong to the canon.

:yup:

Needless to say, some books in the Bible even fail to identify their authors. And those that do are copies of copies with no original autographs. So we have no idea that these authors writing in the name of God are who they are supposed to be, and no way of testing their credentials. To know with moral certainty who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, for instance, we must turn to extra-biblical sources: Tradition and scholarship. The authenticity of any biblical book or letter can be finally determined without error only by the Magisterium of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This too will probably be ignored or sidestepped.

What we possess at present are thousands of manuscripts with thousands of variations which we would like to believe are true copies of the original ones, but more likely are copies of copies. Without the original copies we can’t know for sure that we possess the written word of God in its entirety. We can only hope in faith that God ensured a correct duplication of the original manuscripts and safeguarded their transmission from error as He had the spoken word through the Paraclete.

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

I, along with most protestants, believe that “men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church,” that a church embodying “the scriptural and apostolic ideal . . . existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work,” and that the church “is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” (quotes taken from Smith’s Bible dictionary)

Men, such as Arius and Nestorius among many others, have tried to corrupt the doctrines of the Church and caused division. But the Church in NT time faced the same problem and had its fair share of controversies. Jesus warned his apostles of the fury of the gates of hell when he gave them the keys of the kingdom. Jesus also warned Peter that Satan would try to “sift” his ministers like wheat. It is because human beings are sinful and weak that the members of the Church are imperfect and prone to be seduced by the devil. However, what the Father wills to reveal through his household does not depend on “flesh and blood”. Peter infallibly declared by the grace he had received that Jesus was “the Son of the living God”, yet depsite his gift of knowledge, he tried to discourage Jesus from going to Jerusalem at the Pasch, for he feared the worst. And after Jesus was arrested, he denied him three times. Yet, in spite of this, Jesus said to Peter after he rose from the dead: “Feed my sheep.” So when Paul describes the Church (a corporate entity consisting of weak and sinful members) as “the pillar and foundation of the truth”, he does not mean that the Church consists only of saints without any sinners, but that the Holy Spirit prevents the “holy and unblemished” bride of Christ from teaching doctrinal error in the divine office of her shepherds. The infallibility of the Church is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, who was promised to be sent to her by Jesus, so as not to be left “orphaned”, and does not rely on any human impeccability. In the words of St.Paul to his successor Timothy (2 2:13): “If we are faithless, he remains faithful - for he cannot deny himself.” The apostle acknowledged to Timothy that some of the elders may be unfaithful, but he understood that the unfaithfulness of the Church’s members, especially in the divine office, had no ability to negate our Lord’s faithful promise and keep the Holy Spirit from being actively present as a guaranty. He writes: “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true, though every man be false” (Romans 3:3-4).

“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, lll.24 (A.D. 180)

I’ll simply leave it that as a protestant, I do not accept the position that the Catholic Church is an indefectible entity or that its dogmas set the parameters by which I must understand scripture, even though this means I’m in an imperfect church holding doctrines that are disputed by other protestant believers.

To be disputed until the end of time. How superfluous it would be of Jesus if he in fact established such a church. And how it contradicts the Scriptural idea and purpose of the Church . This invisible entity that you propose is a myth, or else our Lord has spoken idly.

“*And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.”
John 10:16

“that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
John 17, 21

“Whoever does not gather with me scatters.”
Matthew 12, 30

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 1, 10

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
Ephesians 4, 11-14*

Paul speaks of the Church as being the “body” of Christ. A body is something physical or visible - no less than a flock of sheep. The apostle does not describe her as the “soul” of Christ. Protestants are the first to perceive the Church as an invisibly unified whole, but visibly divided entity, to justify their separation from the Catholic Church. Such an idea of the Church is unscriptural. Nor did Jesus intend or pray for such a church to exist. As a true apostle, Paul strived to keep all faithful Christians in one visible fold in a unity of faith. That the Catholic Church has existed for about 2,000 years shows that Jesus didn’t fail him.

PAX

 

[jrtrent]

A very simple question, in terms of the preservation of doctrinal truth within Jesus’ church: did God (Jesus the Christ) fail? If so then the devil did in fact succeed (the gates of hell did in fact overcome Jesus’ church, in terms of doctrinal truth). If God did not fail then doctrinal truth can still be found, intact, somewhere, within Jesus’ church, in the world today, but you do not believe this to be the case; correct me if I am wrong?

If God did not fail, and the church that He established on earth, is in fact the Catholic Church, then the logical corollary is: what the Catholic Church teaches about Jesus, (irrespective of the fact that every leader belonging to the CC is a fallible sinner) in terms of siblings, must be right, again, because Jesus did not fail in terms of preserving doctrinal truth.

From your chosen words, I’ll assume you’re referring to Matthew 16:18 in setting up what I consider a couple of possible false dichotomies: 1) either God failed or the Catholic Church must be right in everything it teaches; or 2) either God failed or there must exist some church in the world today where everything it teaches is correct. You are right that I don’t believe there to exist a church which does not have some error mixed with truth, but neither do I believe God failed.

What follows is a typical Protestant understanding of the church that Christ built and the gates of hell not being able to prevail over it. I don’t necessarily believe every detail J. C. Ryle wrote (for example, I don’t believe the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches are quite so badly off as J. C. suggests), but his overall argument is consistent with what I believe (and also consistent with what Good Fella points out as being, perhaps from necessity, the typcial Protestant position).

The church spoken of in Matthew 16:18 is not defined by membership in any one Christian church organiszation, but is:

*made up of all true believers in the Lord Jesus
Christ. It comprehends all who have repented of sin, and fled to Christ
by faith, and been made new creatures in Him. It comprises all God’s
elect, all who have received God’s grace, all who have been washed in
Christ’s blood, all who have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness, all
who have been born again and sanctified by Christ’s Spirit. . .

The members of this Church do not all worship God in the same way, or use
the same form of government. . .

Whether they are Episcopalian, Independent, or Presbyterian, they all
serve the interests of the one true Church. . . But no visible Church has any right to
say, “We are the only true Church. We are the men, and wisdom shall die
with us.” No visible Church should ever dare to say, “We shall stand for
ever. The gates of hell will not overcome us.”

The earliest visible Churches have in many cases decayed and perished.
. . . They are now among the things that have been. Their
candlestick has been taken away. But all this time the true Church has
lived on. . .

The promise of our text is true of the whole body of the true Church.
Christ will never be without a witness in the world. He has had a people
in the worst of times. He had seven thousand in Israel even in the days
of Ahab. There are some now, I believe, in the dark places of the Roman
Catholic and Greek Churches, who, in spite of much weakness, are serving
Christ. The devil may rage horribly. The Church may in some countries
be brought exceedingly low. But the gates of hell shall never entirely
prevail.* virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=168

With respect to the topic of this thread, as has been pointed out previously, some Protestants believe Christ had siblings who were children of Mary and Joseph and others don’t. The Bible tells us without doubt that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus, but it is not provable beyond doubt whether she remained a virgin. There are many other points of doctrine and practice about which Protestants disagree, and yet still be true believers in the Lord Jesus and members of the church He built (which even includes, as Ryle pointed out, some Catholics and Greek Orthodox).

 

[joe370]

From your chosen words, I’ll assume you’re referring to Matthew 16:18 in setting up what I consider a couple of possible false dichotomies: 1) either God failed or the Catholic Church must be right in everything it teaches; or 2) either God failed or there must exist some church in the world today where everything it teaches is correct. You are right that I don’t believe there to exist a church which does not have some error mixed with truth, but neither do I believe God failed.

Not everything; just the reveal teachings of Jesus, passed on to His apostles, who then did the same. I think I understand: human error, (due to the fact that humans are fallible) has made it impossible for God to preserve doctrinal truth within His church. OK.

How about just the “essential teachings” (a term often bandied about by some protestants) such as Baptism (necessary vs not necessary) and the Eucharist (true presence vs symbol). Did God preserve the truth regarding these 2 doctrines? If so which one is correct, regarding both, and how can you and I know? Scripture alone does not help us, just as it does not help us resolve the supposed siblings of Jesus.

 

[jrtrent]

How about just the “essential teachings” (a term often bandied about by some protestants) such as Baptism (necessary vs not necessary) and the Eucharist (true presence vs symbol). Did God preserve the truth regarding these 2 doctrines? If so which one is correct, regarding both, and how can you and I know? Scripture alone does not help us, just as it does not help us resolve the supposed siblings of Jesus.

I think you are quite right about that. I believe that some things are “essential,” and yet the Bible is not 100% clear on exactly how to carry them out. Baptism and obervance of the Lord’s Supper are clearly commanded, but, as a perusal of various Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran systematic theologies will soon show, there is room for differences on just what the Bible says these things mean and do, and on exactly how they are to be observed.

I think Ryle came up with an interesting list of seven essential parts and six leading principles of Christian public worship, yet throughout he is cognizant that there is more than one way to incorporate these elements.

“Now it is true that there is little said concerning the nature of public worship in the New Testament, and in this respect there is a wide difference between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. The Jewish religion was full of strict and detailed directions concerning worship; the Christian religion contains very few directions, and even these are very simple and general. . . The Jew could turn to the writings of Moses and see at a glance every item of his worship; but the Christian can only point to a few isolated texts and passages which are to be applied to every Church according to circumstances. In fact there is nothing in the New Testament which is equivalent to Exodus or Leviticus in the Old. Nevertheless a careful reader of the Scriptures can hardly fail to pick out the essential parts and principles of Christian worship. So it may be said that where these essentials are present, there is Christian worship; but where they are absent, the worship is defective, imperfect and incomplete.” churchsociety.org/issues_new/doctrine/anglican/iss_doctrine_anglican_RyleWorship.asp