Did Jesus institute a Church in NT?

[peeteyg]

I have heard many contrary arguements against this. This is what he said but he didn’t really mean that. I personally think he instituted a church and further more I think many of the letters in the NT were written to the church. This is interesting because it means that the church had to exist before the NT bible existed. If letters were written to the church then the church existed first. This lends creedance to the fact that the bible is a Catholic book, it stand to reason if you think about it. Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans etc, they were the early churches and christian communities. Many want to deny a Church to allow their beliefs to continue. The catholic religion was the first and original christian faith and was Co-opted by heretics and eventually by Calvin and Luther and the reformers who modified the true faith handed down thru the ages.

 

[dnu]

God became man to institute the New Covenant.

Jesus did this by establishing a Church.

It is through this Church and its Sacraments that humanity participates in the New Covenant. This is both scriptural and historical. Those who try to refute the notion that Jesus established one single Church tend to ignore the history though.

Jesus did not write a book, he did not come so we could make him our “Lord and personal Savior,” he did not come so we could hold tent-revivals and work on “gettin saved.” He did not come so we could have a “personal relationship” with him. I think you get the idea.

 

[peeteyg]

Man, thats awesome !

 

[RobinHood]

Jesus came to institute a Church (Mat 16:18) which could settle disputes when they arose between believers (Matt 18:15-17) and bind and loose what was true in an infallible way (Matt 18:18). This Church then must be visible if we are to follow Christ’s directive of going to the Church. If its invisible, how do we GO to the church to settle the matter?

The followers of Christ went to the Church when disputes arose and we see this in the first council the Church ever convened at the council of Jerusalem. The judaizers were teaching things that Paul and Baranabas disagreed with, ie circumcision for salvation (Acts 15:1). Because of these conflicting messages the Antiochians sent both parties to Jerusalem to settle the matter (Acts 15:2). The early church leaders got together and decided the matter (Acts 15:28) with the sanction of the Holy Spirit and their decision was binding to ALL Christians (Acts 16:4).

Since there decisions were binding to all and whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven we know that nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, therefore what is bound on earth MUST be the truth. That is why Paul can call the Church Christ founded to be the upholder and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

God Bless
Robin Hood

 

[Luke_K]

Jesus came to institute a Church (Mat 16:18) which could settle disputes when they arose between believers (Matt 18:15-17) and bind and loose what was true in an infallible way (Matt 18:18). This Church then must be visible if we are to follow Christ’s directive of going to the Church. If its invisible, how do we GO to the church to settle the matter?

The followers of Christ went to the Church when disputes arose and we see this in the first council the Church ever convened at the council of Jerusalem. The judaizers were teaching things that Paul and Baranabas disagreed with, ie circumcision for salvation (Acts 15:1). Because of these conflicting messages the Antiochians sent both parties to Jerusalem to settle the matter (Acts 15:2). The early church leaders got together and decided the matter (Acts 15:28) with the sanction of the Holy Spirit and their decision was binding to ALL Christians (Acts 16:4).

Since there decisions were binding to all and whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven we know that nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, therefore what is bound on earth MUST be the truth. That is why Paul can call the Church Christ founded to be the upholder and defender of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

God Bless
Robin Hood

Great post! I especially like the last point. It really supports Papal infallibility.

I view this question from the standpoint of necessity. Without some sort of infallible foundation for promulgating and interpreting the truth, humanity can get nowhere. We see this today now more than ever. Christians are abandoning religion altogether for a vague “spirituality” where everyone has their own “personal relationship” with Christ. This is of course just code-language for a “church of myself” where each individual just makes Jesus into the type of person they want him to be.

 

[CoachSTL]

Jesus is the Church! The Church is His body, and believers are part of His Body.

Those who believe in all that He taught participate in His Body. Those who believe in him and follow all of His teaching will reside with Him in heaven. This he promised the believers.

Those who believe He is God, and knowingly do not beleive all that He taught, will suffer. How? We do not know. Are they part of the Body of Christ? Sure, if they are true beleivers, but, they can lose their faith while here on this earth, and then they are doomed.

Jesus did not teach Peter that the Eucharist was His real presence, and then John that it was only symbolic, now did He?

One Jesus, One Teaching, One Church started by His Teaching.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Jesus came to institute a Church (Mat 16:18) which could settle disputes when they arose between believers (Matt 18:15-17) and bind and loose what was true in an infallible way (Matt 18:18). This Church then must be visible if we are to follow Christ’s directive of going to the Church. If its invisible, how do we GO to the church to settle the matter?

The NT is not the first instance in which the Greek word for church (ekklesia) is used. It was used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT–which was the translation used by the NT Church in spreading the Gospel. Often, but not always, it referred to the congregation of Israelites.

What Jesus DID inaugurate, through the shedding of His blood, was the New Covenant --a covenant which according to Jeremiah 31:31ff was very specifically made with “the house of Israel” and 'the house of Judah"–i.e., the Israelite (Jewish) people. Thus, it is understandable why NT Jewish Christians struggled to understand how non-Jewish believers in Jesus could be saved outside of becoming converts to Judaism. Cornelius and his household’s receiving of the Holy Spirit (which, if you study the covenants of the Bible, is the seal of the New Covenant) laid the foundation for the Council of Jerusalem’s decision about “the Gentile question” of Acts 15. In Ephesians 2, St. Paul explains how the Gentiles were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world”–but through the blood of Christ became “fellow citizens with the [Jewish] saints and of the household of God.” Jesus death not only brought a new covenant for the Jewish people who received Him, but it opened the door for believing Gentiles to become part of the covenant people of Israel.

“Binding and loosing” was a Jewish term that referred to the authority which spiritual leaders (typically, the Sanhedrin) had in making legal decisions and similar types of rulings. Among the Jews, it never included the power to forgive sins, as it does in the RCC.

My point: Since the Bible is, for the most part, a book penned by Jews who wrote from a Hebraic cultural and theological frame of reference, I think it is important to consider these things in interpreting the meaning of the scriptures, particularly in reference to NT theology. Gentile Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, haven’t always taken the Hebraic context into consideration.

 

[no2masters4life]

Those he left in charge have the final say on what it means to be a Church. As you proceed through Acts, you see that Peter and Barnabas kicked the dust off their feet when they weren’t able to convince the Jews that the Messiah had come, and from here began relying on the authority to bind and loose in the context that Jesus Christ gave, not of a legalistic Judaic binding and loosing but of the power that only the Son of God may bestow.

 

[OchsFam]

“Binding and loosing” was a Jewish term that referred to the authority which spiritual leaders (typically, the Sanhedrin) had in making legal decisions and similar types of rulings. Among the Jews, it never included the power to forgive sins, as it does in the RCC.

Jesus made this more clear in John 20:22-23. I am not sure it can be more clear than this, but I suppose there are always people who do not want to believe the Church simply because it is the Church.

The question is, to whom shall we go? The Church alone has the words of truth. The Church Christ instituted to preach His gospel throughout this age. The Church that Christ gave the power of binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining sins, and the Church that God promised would prevail against Hades.

As Christ says in Luke 10:16, whoever hears the Church, hears Him. Whoever rejects the Church rejects Him, and whoever rejects Him, rejects the Father. And how do we know he meant the Church here? Acts 9:4-5 has the answer. Jesus is the Church and the Church is Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church is what Christ left in His physical absence which is why when Saul was persecuting the Church, he was actually persecuting Jesus.

So again I ask, to whom shall you go?

God Bless.

 

[Karmartia]

God became man to institute the New Covenant.

Jesus did this by establishing a Church.

It is through this Church and its Sacraments that humanity participates in the New Covenant. This is both scriptural and historical. Those who try to refute the notion that Jesus established one single Church tend to ignore the history though.

Jesus did not write a book, he did not come so we could make him our “Lord and personal Savior,” he did not come so we could hold tent-revivals and work on “gettin saved.” He did not come so we could have a “personal relationship” with him. I think you get the idea.

While I agree completely with your first paragraph I dispute the second becuase it does not logically follow. I am a Catholic but I certainly believe that Jesus is my Lord and personal savior. Without him I would be lost. I am a Catholic but I absolutely believe my faith in Christ is me “getting saved.” Saved from sin, saved from damnation, saved from myself. I am a Catholic but I would not be if I thought there was no prospect of having a “personal relationship” with my God. I pray to Him personally and deeply. Indeed, I try to live my life as if He were standing right beside me (which I believe He is). I get the idea, but what Protestants believe about Christ isn’t so much wrong as it is an expression of what they desire most from Jesus. Our Lord is generous, and will turn away none who come to Him in earnestness, whether they be within His Church or without. The Church is certainly the the bosom of Christ and the Sacraments are the great conduits of Grace. Especailly the blessed Sacrament. Instead of criticizing our Protestant brothers for what little they have, we should amaze them with the wonder of what they have not.

 

[CoachSTL]

Jesus made this more clear in John 20:22-23. I am not sure it can be more clear than this, but I suppose there are always people who do not want to believe the Church simply because it is the Church.

The question is, to whom shall we go? The Church alone has the words of truth. The Church Christ instituted to preach His gospel throughout this age. The Church that Christ gave the power of binding and loosing, forgiving and retaining sins, and the Church that God promised would prevail against Hades.

As Christ says in Luke 10:16, whoever hears the Church, hears Him. Whoever rejects the Church rejects Him, and whoever rejects Him, rejects the Father. And how do we know he meant the Church here? Acts 9:4-5 has the answer. Jesus is the Church and the Church is Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church is what Christ left in His physical absence which is why when Saul was persecuting the Church, he was actually persecuting Jesus.

So again I ask, to whom shall you go?

God Bless.

I think this is nicely said, I also think it is important to point out that regardless of written reasons to validate the Chruch’s Teaching, there is also the Oral Tradition of Christ’s promise.

What is it that keeps a Protestant from not seeing the truth about the Church?

 

[nuna507]

While I agree completely with your first paragraph I dispute the second becuase it does not logically follow. I am a Catholic but I certainly believe that Jesus is my Lord and personal savior. Without him I would be lost. I am a Catholic but I absolutely believe my faith in Christ is me “getting saved.” Saved from sin, saved from damnation, saved from myself. I am a Catholic but I would not be if I thought there was no prospect of having a “personal relationship” with my God. I pray to Him personally and deeply. Indeed, I try to live my life as if He were standing right beside me (which I believe He is). I get the idea, but what Protestants believe about Christ isn’t so much wrong as it is an expression of what they desire most from Jesus. Our Lord is generous, and will turn away none who come to Him in earnestness, whether they be within His Church or without. The Church is certainly the the bosom of Christ and the Sacraments are the great conduits of Grace. Especailly the blessed Sacrament. Instead of criticizing our Protestant brothers for what little they have, we should amaze them with the wonder of what they have not.

I completely agree!!

 

[Lapell]

I have heard many contrary arguements against this. This is what he said but he didn’t really mean that. I personally think he instituted a church and further more I think many of the letters in the NT were written to the church. This is interesting because it means that the church had to exist before the NT bible existed. If letters were written to the church then the church existed first. This lends creedance to the fact that the bible is a Catholic book, it stand to reason if you think about it. Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans etc, they were the early churches and christian communities. Many want to deny a Church to allow their beliefs to continue. The catholic religion was the first and original christian faith and was Co-opted by heretics and eventually by Calvin and Luther and the reformers who modified the true faith handed down thru the ages.

Well, Jesus had a good numbers of disciples and among them he chose twelve men whom He established as apostles. On the Last Supper, He established the Eucharist, telling the Apostles to do this “in memory of” Him (making truly and really present what happened that night), not just for themselves alone, but for those who become His disciples. In doing so, He certainly did established His Church on earth, didn’t He?

 

[PJM]

=peeteyg;6567598]I have heard many contrary arguements against this. This is what he said but he didn’t really mean that. I personally think he instituted a church and further more I think many of the letters in the NT were written to the church. This is interesting because it means that the church had to exist before the NT bible existed. If letters were written to the church then the church existed first. This lends creedance to the fact that the bible is a Catholic book, it stand to reason if you think about it. Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans etc, they were the early churches and christian communities. Many want to deny a Church to allow their beliefs to continue. The catholic religion was the first and original christian faith and was Co-opted by heretics and eventually by Calvin and Luther and the reformers who modified the true faith handed down thru the ages.

It’s a historically proveable FACT; The CC has been in existence from the time of Christ on earth [the first time]

Matt.16 Verses 15 to 19 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
[16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you** the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**Eph. 2: 19-22 **“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, **Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, ** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [SINGULAR]
in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

This sums it up nicely**

 

[minder_bender]

Great post! I especially like the last point. It really supports Papal infallibility.

I view this question from the standpoint of necessity. Without some sort of infallible foundation for promulgating and interpreting the truth, humanity can get nowhere. We see this today now more than ever. Christians are abandoning religion altogether for a vague “spirituality” where everyone has their own “personal relationship” with Christ. This is of course just code-language for a “church of myself” where each individual just makes Jesus into the type of person they want him to be.

I’m Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your understanding of “a personal relationship with Jesus”. This is no vague spirituality. And it is definately NOT a church of ‘myself’ making Jesus into themselves. The exact opposite is the truth. A personal relationship with Jesus makes us more like Him not the reverse. Jesus said “come to me all you who labour and I will give you rest”. He didn’t say, go to the church and they (it) will give you rest. The church was more a place for settling quarrels when Christians didn’t act in a christian way. And if you want to know what a “Christian way” is. Jesus said “love one another as I have loved you. Do good to those who harm you”. This would be the hardest thing of all to do if you didn’t first humbly take “all things” to Him (as He instructed) and let go and allow His light to shine in and then through you. Your statments reflect no faith in the divine being more powerful then matters of the earth. When you have a strong relationship with Jesus, you actually become “usable” by Him and the Holy Spirit because you are constantly listening to His voice. A voice which becomes clearer and more tangent the more you give yourself to Him. The more you give yourself the more He challenges you to become more like Him. It is obvious you have never experienced such relationship or you could never make such comments.

 

[OchsFam]

I have heard many contrary arguements against this. This is what he said but he didn’t really mean that. I personally think he instituted a church and further more I think many of the letters in the NT were written to the church. This is interesting because it means that the church had to exist before the NT bible existed. If letters were written to the church then the church existed first. This lends creedance to the fact that the bible is a Catholic book, it stand to reason if you think about it. Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans etc, they were the early churches and christian communities. Many want to deny a Church to allow their beliefs to continue. The catholic religion was the first and original christian faith and was Co-opted by heretics and eventually by Calvin and Luther and the reformers who modified the true faith handed down thru the ages.

Upon further reflection into this question, I think the answer is actually no.

God instituted His Church in Adam. Sacrifices were being offered by the time of Cain and Abel. This necessitates a priesthood and a Church. Christ did not “institute” a Church, he fulfilled it and brought it to its highest level this side of Heaven. He made the Church on Earth merge with the Church in Heaven, not just symbolize it.

I think this may be one of the essential problems with protestants. They believe Christ instituted a Church and so divorce themselves from the look and feel of the OT Church that was the Roman Catholic Church in its infancy. Jews today are still trying to get by on the milk while the Roman Catholic Church has matured to solid foods. This is the only thing I can come up with as to why their denominations have no resemblance to the OT Church. I honestly believe that most protestants today would say that they would be just fine getting to Heaven without the OT, that the NT is sufficient. I think the message is sufficient, but the understanding would be sorely lacking.

I know we say the Roman Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old, but I believe that in reality, it is the same Church from the beginning of time. It has developed into what we today call the Roman Catholic Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the hand of God, and the sacrifice of the Son, but it is one and the same Church. I can honestly say this has helped me understand the Truth that is Catholicism. If you can’t see some Jewish heritage in the worship, you are in some foreign religion to Christianity.

God Bless.

 

[Lapell]

Upon further reflection into this question, I think the answer is actually no.

God instituted His Church in Adam. Sacrifices were being offered by the time of Cain and Abel. This necessitates a priesthood and a Church. Christ did not “institute” a Church, he fulfilled it and brought it to its highest level this side of Heaven. He made the Church on Earth merge with the Church in Heaven, not just symbolize it.

I think this may be one of the essential problems with protestants. They believe Christ instituted a Church and so divorce themselves from the look and feel of the OT Church that was the Roman Catholic Church in its infancy. Jews today are still trying to get by on the milk while the Roman Catholic Church has matured to solid foods. This is the only thing I can come up with as to why their denominations have no resemblance to the OT Church. I honestly believe that most protestants today would say that they would be just fine getting to Heaven without the OT, that the NT is sufficient. I think the message is sufficient, but the understanding would be sorely lacking.

God Bless.

Not the OT without the NT, and not the NT without the OT either. Both compenetrate each other. The OT gives the context of the NT, and the NT crowns the OT. So says Vatican II.
But Jesus did institute a Church to make Him present to our world. He did institute the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist at the Last Supper.

 

[PJM]

******=OchsFam;6585549]Upon further reflection into this question, I think the answer is actually no.

God instituted His Church in Adam. Sacrifices were being offered by the time of Cain and Abel. This necessitates a priesthood and a Church. Christ did not “institute” a Church, he fulfilled it and brought it to its highest level this side of Heaven. He made the Church on Earth merge with the Church in Heaven, not just symbolize it.

I think this may be one of the essential problems with protestants. They believe Christ instituted a Church and so divorce themselves from the look and feel of the OT Church that was the Roman Catholic Church in its infancy. Jews today are still trying to get by on the milk while the Roman Catholic Church has matured to solid foods. This is the only thing I can come up with as to why their denominations have no resemblance to the OT Church. I honestly believe that most protestants today would say that they would be just fine getting to Heaven without the OT, that the NT is sufficient. I think the message is sufficient, but the understanding would be sorely lacking.

God Bless.

***Dear Friend in Christ,

While you’re words are beautiful and well entended; I fear you are wrong in proclaiming that Chrsit did not institue a new Church, a New Faith, and a far more personal relationship with God, and understanding in a much fuller sense, of who and what God actually is.

As evidence of this one needs only look at and UNDERSTAND Matt. 16:15-19,* properly.

The terms “loosing and binding” were at the time, common terms for Unlimited, Power of Governance, as was commom for "THE KEEPER OF THE KEY’S] given to Peter by Christ in v. 19.

You’re position denies the New Covenant that voids the OLD Covenant and Old religious practices. It futher denies the Formation by Christ of a New Faith and a New Church.

2Cor.3: 6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life”

Heb.8: 8, 13 "For he finds fault with them when he says: “The days will come, says the Lord,when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Eph.2 Verses 19 to 22 "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR]
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;[SINGULAR] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

One must be extremely careful in postulating a NEW IDEA. The CC is 2,000 years young; and few “new ideas” actually exit.**

Love and prayers,

 

[OchsFam]

I will have to devote some research and prayer into this topic. I do not think that I said anything against the new covenant within the Church but you are correct, it is a thought, not a truth. I will capitulate to whatever the Church teaches on this subject without hesitation.

I think the clearest sign that I may be wrong would be CCC 874. I see what it says and am not exactly sure that it is “against” what I am saying but it may be a vocabulary issue.

I am having trouble finding any Catechism references that divorce the historical Jewish Church from the new Church of Christ that you are referencing. It may be that I am mis-using the word Church and it is synonymous with covenant such that a new covenant is a new Church. If it is, then that of course would be the root of the problem.

My understanding was that the Church was the assembly of the people of God that have been called (CCC 781) and with each covenant, that calling has expanded into what is now the Catholic Church and all peoples. Christ revolutionized the Church forever by uniting it with His body (CCC 787-789), but I do not think that changes what I said previously. The call to the Jews is irrevocable (CCC 839) so it seems like they would still be related to the NT Church in some way.

The problem I am having is in seeing your point that the Church of Christ was not the Jewish Church prior to the coming of Christ. I do not believe the current Jewish church is legitimate in any way and the covenant with which they base their religion, while still containing some truth, is not the complete Truth. I do not see how recognizing God’s Church prior to the coming of Christ somehow results in denying the new covenant “voiding” the old though I think voiding may be the wrong word since those who have not heard the message of Christ and live by the old covenant can still obtain Heaven. Not a single letter will pass from the law of the old covenant because Christ came to fulfill, not abolish (Mt 5:17-18).

Just because the old passes away does not mean that it did not become something else, which is what I am saying. I believe the old Church became the new Church. I can definitely see an argument though that the new is so different from the old that it could be said to be a new beginning. I believe the Catechism in paragraph 874 is saying that Christ “organized and set into operation” His Church, not “started a new” Church. I could of course be wrong and would love to see some additional resources on this.

I look forward to learning more about this and thank you for your patience.

God Bless.

 

[Strategery]

I think the clearest sign that I may be wrong would be CCC 874. I see what it says and am not exactly sure that it is “against” what I am saying but it may be a vocabulary issue.

I am having trouble finding any Catechism references that divorce the historical Jewish Church from the new Church of Christ that you are referencing. It may be that I am mis-using the word Church and it is synonymous with covenant such that a new covenant is a new Church. If it is, then that of course would be the root of the problem.

Here’s the most direct quote from the CCC on the origin of the Church:

766 The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation, anticipated in the institution of the Eucharist and fulfilled on the cross. “The origin and growth of the Church are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus.” “For it was from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death upon the cross that there came forth the ‘wondrous sacrament of the whole Church.’” As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam’s side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross.