Foundations of the Church

[Dan_471]

suppose that drawing isn’t there?

Then keep praying and reading…

Yes, reading lots of different sources… I think there’s a proverb that goes something like 'in the multitude of counselors there’s no lack of success

…the facts are there. Start here:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

Does link still work? It wouldn’t load for me…

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

OK, gotcha so far… if the premises are true, then it works…

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition

Mostly true, personally I’m not sure about prop 1

– that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18).

Not sure if I’m still with you, here… I’m not sure if Matthew has an accurate quote here… At the suggestion of Ignatius (the forum member, not the ancient guy ), I opened another thread on that subject
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10014009#post10014009

The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist).

I don’t think I’m fully on-board with you here. I think, at least currently, the ‘gates of hell’ being a defensive apparatus, would not be able to keep the church out, i.e. the church would be able to reach dead people.

Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23).

Well, the Matt passage doesn’t use the word ‘head’

Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

OK, keep going

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse).

looks like a loose parallel to me

But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline.

Matt 18 doesn’t mention binding / loosing

But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

doesn’t say excommunication… it could mean spend extra time praying for them…

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

In your thinking, how did Peter’s binding and loosing powers work when he was (I think) attempting to compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Gal 2)

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Well, let’s see if we can resolve the earlier questions, and go from there

 

[Dan_471]

Accepting the Church is the instrument of God’s grace and teaching is a step of faith, but not of blind faith. The weight of evidence is on the side of the Church–it’s the thing that has brought many a convert to the Church from Protestantism. Again and again I’ve read conversion stories in which these persons say, persons trained in Protestant seminaries, not just average lay people, that looking into the early history of the Church is what made them see that the claims of the Church were justified–that the Church they saw when they looked into it was the Catholic Church because the papacy, the liturgy, the prayer life, the teachings, etc. were all there.

Possibly, tho possibly not,… I’m really not sure… It seems like a lot rests on the quote from Matthew 16… if for some reason Jesus didn’t say that, or maybe someone later on really thought He said it, or wanted Him to say that… then the weight might shift…

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
And it’s not like I’m ‘sold’ on the GoT… I wanted to consider that some of its quotes may be accurate… and I also wanted to consider that some quotes in Matthew may not be accurate… Is Matthew more accurate that GoT? Very probably. Is it highly accurate? I’m not sure…
It is good you are not “sold” on the GoT, ,since it was rejected by the successors of the Apostles. Since they were there, it would stand to reason that they were able to determine which documents best embodied the faith that was passed on to them.

I agree that they were closer to the middle east than I am now, tho at the same time a few hundred miles back then could easily mean a few weeks trip with dangers… I find it interesting that many people who were there came up with different ideas…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
My understanding is that there were many competing canons and groups in the early days of Christianity… one can accept by faith that one of those groups was established by Christ… once one accepts that, then the rest falls into place… I can see that… the first part of the ‘connection’ if you will, is one of faith…

No, there were not competing canons, just arguements over which books belonged in the one canon.

Marcion’s canon looks like a different canon to me… I guess you could say it’s just an intense argument over which books…

There were 400+ memoirs and letters all claiming to be inspired by God (Holy Scripture). The Church had to sort through them all, and applied rigorous requirements to select those that were bound into the canon we have today. One of those requirements is that the document was used by the Church from the time it was received.

The book of James wasn’t used by the Muratorian group, I think…

Another was that it be written by an Apostle or someone close to an Apostle.

How did they know in some cases? for example, did they know that the Apostle named Matthew wrote the book we call Matthew? Perhaps someone else wrote it? How close did you have to be to write Scripture? the book of Revelation was written by someone named John, or maybe using a literary device as John on Patmos… Revelation wasn’t well-received by Christians on the East side…

If the early Christians had believed the GoT was such a document, it would be in the canon today.

Well, some early Christians probably did, otherwise they wouldn’t have spent time hand-copying it… What percentage of early Christians need to accept something?

 

[steve_b]

I agree that they were closer to the middle east than I am now, tho at the same time a few hundred miles back then could easily mean a few weeks trip with dangers… I find it interesting that many people who were there came up with different ideas…

Marcion’s canon looks like a different canon to me… I guess you could say it’s just an intense argument over which books…

The book of James wasn’t used by the Muratorian group, I think…

How did they know in some cases? for example, did they know that the Apostle named Matthew wrote the book we call Matthew? Perhaps someone else wrote it? How close did you have to be to write Scripture? the book of Revelation was written by someone named John, or maybe using a literary device as John on Patmos… Revelation wasn’t well-received by Christians on the East side…

Well, some early Christians probably did, otherwise they wouldn’t have spent time hand-copying it… What percentage of early Christians need to accept something?

It seems to me the questions you ask could be viewed in the framework of what happened in the Church

• while the writings we call scripture, were being written,
• then were collected into what we call the bible which took till ~419 a.d…
• what is the name of this Church that is their from the beginning to handle this, all along this process?

One needs to be familiar with the sources themselves. newadvent.org/fathers/
As a suggestion, look through Irenaeus newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm he wrote ~180 a.d. He was converted ~110 a.d. He was taught by Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus was from Smyrna in present day Turkey, and became bishop of Lyon, present day France. His work “Against Heresies” is 5 books. In Bk 1 ch 10, he names the Church as the Catholic Church. In Bk 3 ch 1-3 he goes into quite alot of detail, naming the bishops of Rome coming from the apostles.

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
I mean he was the first to write them down… I 've heard that Galatians, Corinthians were the first of the NT epistles to be written

Yes, but this same Apostle also testifies in his writings that the OT Scriptures were sufficient to lead one to salvation. That means the Apostles could see all of what was needed in the OT, and that is what they preached from until the NT began to be written. Those scriptures and the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, humans being what they are, I think lots of people were teaching lots of things from the OT in the early days… the Apostles themselves, if not teaching different things (possibly), at least seem to have a different emphasis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
No, I don’t think Paul used the word ‘alone’… he says somewhere that we’re justified by faith, or maybe grace, I’m not sure, and that’s the first time that idea had been expanded on, I think…

Yes Paul has a great deal to say about justification by faith, grace, etc. You might be thinking of the only place in the NT where the words “faith” and “alone” are found together?

James 2:24-25
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Right… so I think that Paul is the first to write about justification by faith (or was it grace?), James adds faith plus works

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
But this is not the first time the idea had been expanded upon.

Not at all. The Christian faith came out of Judaism, and is build firmly upon the Jewish moral law. Justification has always been by grace, through faith. That did not change with the coming of Jesus.

I think something went wrong with the ‘quoter’ system here… I don’t think I wrote
“…this is not the first time the idea had been expanded upon.” I think I wrote that without the ‘not’… well, anyways, I think Paul is the first to write about justification outside of works of the law… I think he’s the first to write a lengthy treatise about justification by grace through faith…

I agree. Yes, the Judaizers in Galatia, probably some other people and groups in other churches as well. Barnabas, who seems to be a good guy, doesn’t feel he has to follow Paul’s directions all the time, I think…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471 View Post
I agree there, possibly several churches

 

[Dan_471]

It seems to me the questions you ask could be viewed in the framework of what happened in the Church

while the writings we call scripture, were being written,
then were collected into what we call the bible which took till ~419 a.d..
what is the name of this Church that is their from the beginning to handle this, all along this process?

One needs to be familiar with the sources themselves. newadvent.org/fathers/
As a suggestion, look through Irenaeus newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm he wrote ~180 a.d. He was converted ~110 a.d. He was taught by Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus was from Smyrna in present day Turkey, and became bishop of Lyon, present day France. His work “Against Heresies” is 5 books. In Bk 1 ch 10, he names the Church as the Catholic Church. In Bk 3 ch 1-3 he goes into quite alot of detail, naming the bishops of Rome coming from the apostles.

Yes, Irenaeus is very much into one church… He is closer than we are, tho he’s still about 150 years after the resurrection… He’s sort of a spiritual grandson of St. John the Apostle, tho at the same time, I don’t see things really the same way that my grandparents did…

To doubt is the greatest insult to the Divinity.[St Padre Pio]

An interesting quote… to me, a God who can’t take a reasonable challenge doesn’t quite sound right… I like the story of Nathaniel, who had doubts about whether Jesus was really the Messiah… so he went and checked it out… he believes after being satisfied…

 

[steve_b]

Yes, Irenaeus is very much into one church… He is closer than we are, tho he’s still about 150 years after the resurrection… He’s sort of a spiritual grandson of St. John the Apostle, tho at the same time, I don’t see things really the same way that my grandparents did

I would suggest looking at this another way.

• St John was selected by Jesus to be an apostle, and he remained with Jesus the entire time of Jesus ministry, and was the last apostle to die. His death was estimated ~100 a.d.
• Polycarp, Bp of Smyrna was a contemporary of St John and a disciple of St John, as was St Ignatius of Antioch, Bp of Antioch, a contemporary and disciple of St John.
• It was Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. Which means Irenaeus was only one man away from an apostle, but was taught by a man who was taught by an apostle.

D:

An interesting quote… to me, a God who can’t take a reasonable challenge doesn’t quite sound right… I like the story of Nathaniel, who had doubts about whether Jesus was really the Messiah… so he went and checked it out… he believes after being satisfied…

I think you answered the question. To doubt is an act of one’s will. Just like faith is an act of one’s will. iow, one chooses to believe or not. Given all that God has done, persistant doubt on our part to the end, is an offense to Him. As you note, Nathaniel didn’t persist in doubt.

 

[PoorKnight]

Hey Dan,

I’d like to point something out here with this quote. COULD the Apostles have had alterior motives? Sure. What would they have been? 1) Power 2) Money 3) Sex 4) Fame 5) Life of ease are just some of the possibilities. What’s another possibility? Spreading the Truth about Jesus Christ.

So what happened to the Apostles for preaching what they did?

1. Not a single one of them ever got to power, and we have no evidence that any of them ever tried.
2. Not a single one of them got rich and there is ample evidence that they gave away the little they had (just read Paul’s “I count all gain as loss”)
3. Show me any evidence that anyone of them amassed multiple wives or multiple lovers… It’s not there. On the contrary, most of them remained unmarried even.
4. They gained some amount of notoriety while they lived, but most of their ‘notoriety’ came after they were dead, but that doesn’t do you any good if your dead (more on that later). And none of them took to the trappings of “fame” (like wealth, power, sex etc…)
5. None of them had anything that would resemble a life of ease: they were refused the normal priveledges of civilian life , they were beaten, whipped, screamed at, driven out of towns, and killed…
6. While there are a number of other “possibilities” the only one that holds to the evidence we have of the Apostles’ lives is: their motive was to spread THE TRUTH and that’s it.

11 of the 12 Apostles (Including Mathias) were martyred in torturous ways. St. John is the only one we have testimony of not being martyred. With each one of those 11 Apostles, they had the oportunity to make all the pain stop by simply denying what they were saying was true. But they freely chose torturous death over denying their preaching.

Put yourself in their position. Say you make up a new religion (Danism). What would your motives be? Let’s just pick one: Money. Ok so you start your preaching, but what would you do as part of it? You’d ask for lots of money. Maybe you’d cover it with “money for the poor” kind of thing or whatever. So things are going along swell. How would you be living? I’m assuming NOT with other people, working for them to pay your own way - as the Apostles did. I’d assume you’d have lots to eat and pleasures all around? The Apostles did not have these things…

Now one day you get caught and it happens to be in a place where fraud is punishable by being skinned alive. The authorities say to you that all you have to do is deny that Danism is true and you will not get skinned… you’ll just get let go. What do you do?

I know what I’d do, but say your REALLY brave - or really dumb, one of the two - and refuse to say that Danism was all made up. They then take out a knife and tie you down. They then start sharpening it infront of you and ask again, “Deny your Danism and we’ll let you go free!” What would you do?

Again, say you were high on some of your ill gotten pleasures… They then begin cutting at your feet, slicing just beneath the skin and pulling it away from your foot. “Deny your Danism and we’ll let you go free!”

How long could you hold out?

Every one of those 11 Apostles DIED torturous deaths for what they stated they had been direct witness to. Some were dragged to death behind horses, some were skinned alive, most were crucified - a method of death so torturous that a new word had to be made to describe the pain: excruciating!

Would you do that for your made-up Danism?

Rule of Sociology: No one DIES for what they KNOW to be a lie, if the choice is merely life or death. That was the choice the Apostles were given. They chose Death. Why?

Just food for thought.

God Bless you on your journey of Faith

 

[Dan_471]

I would suggest looking at this another way.

*]St John was selected by Jesus to be an apostle, and he remained with Jesus the entire time of Jesus ministry, and was the last apostle to die. His death was estimated ~100 a.d.
*]Polycarp, Bp of Smyrna was a contemporary of St John and a disciple of St John, as was St Ignatius of Antioch, Bp of Antioch, a contemporary and disciple of St John.
*]It was Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. Which means Irenaeus was only one man away from an apostle, but was taught by a man who was taught by an apostle.

Sorry, I don’t understand how that’s really different from what I said… Irenaeus is taught by Polycarp who is taught by John… Did John remember everything Jesus taught him exactly? Possibly, I think probably not… did Polycarp remember everything John taught him? again, possibly…

I think you answered the question. To doubt is an act of one’s will. Just like faith is an act of one’s will. iow, one chooses to believe or not. Given all that God has done,

Yes, and I think this is the heart of my questions… what has God done? Many people have different claims about this

persistant doubt on our part to the end, is an offense to Him. As you note, Nathaniel didn’t persist in doubt.

Amen to that

 

[Dan_471]

Given all that God has done…

Say, here’s another idea… choosing to believe that God did something that God hasn’t done is probably not a very nice thing to do to God, either…

 

[Dan_471]

Hey Dan,

I’d like to point something out here with this quote. COULD the Apostles have had alterior motives? Sure. What would they have been? 1) Power 2) Money 3) Sex 4) Fame 5) Life of ease are just some of the possibilities. What’s another possibility? Spreading the Truth about Jesus Christ.

So what happened to the Apostles for preaching what they did?

1. Not a single one of them ever got to power, and we have no evidence that any of them ever tried.

Well, Peter would have significant power as head of the church, if he was… Paul writes something (not sure if it’s truly him) about handing someone over to Satan… that’s a lot of power

1. Not a single one of them got rich and there is ample evidence that they gave away the little they had (just read Paul’s “I count all gain as loss”)

yes, definitely

1. Show me any evidence that anyone of them amassed multiple wives or multiple lovers… It’s not there.

no record of multiple wives… sure thing…at the same time, it’s also true that some women like spiritual leaders, so that can be an attraction… no record of it with the Apostles, tho…

On the contrary, most of them remained unmarried even.

1. They gained some amount of notoriety while they lived, but most of their ‘notoriety’ came after they were dead, but that doesn’t do you any good if your dead (more on that later). And none of them took to the trappings of “fame” (like wealth, power, sex etc…)

1. None of them had anything that would resemble a life of ease: they were refused the normal priveledges of civilian life , they were beaten, whipped, screamed at, driven out of towns, and killed…

James seems to have some amount of power in the church at Jerusalem… did they have the power of excommunication? that could be significant

1. While there are a number of other “possibilities” the only one that holds to the evidence we have of the Apostles’ lives is: their motive was to spread THE TRUTH and that’s it.

well, the truth as they understood / remembered it

11 of the 12 Apostles (Including Mathias) were martyred in torturous ways. St. John is the only one we have testimony of not being martyred. With each one of those 11 Apostles, they had the oportunity to make all the pain stop by simply denying what they were saying was true. But they freely chose torturous death over denying their preaching.

Well, if the martyrdom stories are true (and they may be, I don’t know how firm the historical evidence is, it may be very firm), it raises a couple of questions… what kind of a god likes this situation? Jesus is said to have said “I desire mercy ( or compassion) rather than ( or and not ) sacrifice” why did the Apostles go through horrible deaths? perhaps they weren’t fully on board with the mercy better than sacrifice idea… if indeed that’s how it all played out… also, of course, people will sometimes die for things they think are true…

Put yourself in their position. Say you make up a new religion (Danism). What would your motives be? Let’s just pick one: Money. Ok so you start your preaching, but what would you do as part of it? You’d ask for lots of money. Maybe you’d cover it with “money for the poor” kind of thing or whatever. So things are going along swell. How would you be living? I’m assuming NOT with other people, working for them to pay your own way - as the Apostles did. I’d assume you’d have lots to eat and pleasures all around? The Apostles did not have these things…

Sounds true

Now one day you get caught and it happens to be in a place where fraud is punishable by being skinned alive. The authorities say to you that all you have to do is deny that Danism is true and you will not get skinned… you’ll just get let go. What do you do?

deny it… tho I still might believe it’s true, if it was based on a vision or something

I know what I’d do, but say your REALLY brave - or really dumb, one of the two - and refuse to say that Danism was all made up. They then take out a knife and tie you down. They then start sharpening it infront of you and ask again, “Deny your Danism and we’ll let you go free!” What would you do?

Again, say you were high on some of your ill gotten pleasures… They then begin cutting at your feet, slicing just beneath the skin and pulling it away from your foot. “Deny your Danism and we’ll let you go free!”

I think you’re kind of enjoying this torture part

How long could you hold out?

Every one of those 11 Apostles DIED torturous deaths for what they stated they had been direct witness to. Some were dragged to death behind horses, some were skinned alive, most were crucified - a method of death so torturous that a new word had to be made to describe the pain: excruciating!

well, if they thought that the only alternative was eternal suffering, then it makes sense

Would you do that for your made-up Danism?

no, not hardly

Rule of Sociology: No one DIES for what they KNOW to be a lie, if the choice is merely life or death. That was the choice the Apostles were given. They chose Death. Why?

sometimes people die for things they think are true

Just food for thought.

God Bless you on your journey of Faith

Thanks, and you too!

 

[Dan_471]

Also, if the Apostles were dieing horrible deaths, what exactly were they dieing for? Paul undergoes persecution, it looks to me like it’s for the Gospel he preaches… which is basically Jesus dieing and coming back to life, and love…

 

[steve_b]

Sorry, I don’t understand how that’s really different from what I said… Irenaeus is taught by Polycarp who is taught by John… Did John remember everything Jesus taught him exactly? Possibly, I think probably not…

Here’s the problem with that.

It was John who tells us, Jesus promised the advocate (the Holy Spirit) to be with the apostles. The HS would teach and cause the apostles to remember all that Jesus taught.

Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
D:

did Polycarp remember everything John taught him? again, possibly…

Following consistancy of thought through the ages after him, tells us he probably did.
D:

Yes, and I think this is the heart of my questions… what has God done? Many people have different claims about this

Let’s make sure we clearly seperate what God does and what God allows. I say that in the interest of, He creates us with free will. We have the freedom to do as he commands, or we can disobey and bad stuff follows, if not now for us, then in eternity. Disobedience, doesn’t translate into liscence to disobey and cause huge harm in the guise of one’s freedom…agreed? That’s why heaven and hell exists. Neither happens for us, without God’s judgement of us. Freedom ≠ liscense

 

[steve_b]

Say, here’s another idea… choosing to believe that God did something that God hasn’t done is probably not a very nice thing to do to God, either…

True

 

[Dan_471]

Sorry, I don’t understand how that’s really different from what I said… Irenaeus is taught by Polycarp who is taught by John… Did John remember everything Jesus taught him exactly? Possibly, I think probably not…

Here’s the problem with that.

It was John who tells us, Jesus promised the advocate (the Holy Spirit) to be with the apostles. The HS would teach and cause the apostles to remember all that Jesus taught.

Jn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

I think the situation could become circular, here… Did Jesus say John 14:26? And did the Holy Spirit do those things? I think that would be a matter of faith… choosing to believe that’s how it happened… also, of course, is the Gospel of John written by John the Apostle, or one of his disciples?

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

did Polycarp remember everything John taught him? again, possibly…

Following consistency of thought through the ages after him, tells us he probably did.

Sorry, I don’t understand the “consistency of thought” part…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Yes, and I think this is the heart of my questions… what has God done? Many people have different claims about this

Let’s make sure we clearly separate what God does and what God allows.

I think in the context of what I wrote, the “what God has done” was something like establish One Church… One key for me is what has God done? How would we know this? That’s why I’m looking for the connection, or how strong the connection is, between Jesus and the RCC… there are many people claiming God did different things, so (at least for me), it’s not enough just to say, God did this, accept it…

 

[steve_b]

I think the situation could become circular, here… Did Jesus say John 14:26? And did the Holy Spirit do those things? I think that would be a matter of faith… choosing to believe that’s how it happened… also, of course, is the Gospel of John written by John the Apostle, or one of his disciples?

Faith is a gift from God, and it is an act of our will to receive it or reject it. Without faith we can’t please God nor will we enter heaven. I’ts not like our faith can’t be proven. Considering the Catholic Church today was present in the 1st century, one can see physically, not just by faith, that Jesus keeps His promises

I had proffessors in college (many decades ago ) who tried to get me to buy into the arguments you’re buying now. Those arguments as are those proffessors, obviously haven’t gone away. Know that these arguments aren’t new. Every ECF had to deal with dissent and heterodoxy from someone who thought they knew more… I really believe this, that the test for everyone is, can they be, and remain obedient to the faith. That’s the test. In order to pass the test, someone has to be the tester…right? And it’s our test, to spot the frauds, from the real deals, and reject the frauds and pick what’s true.

here’s some reading if you’re interested

From the Pontifical biblical commission
Preface
Introduction
I. Methods and Approaches for Interpretation
II. Hermeneutical Questions
III. Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation
IV. Interpretation of the Bible in the Life of the Church
Conclusion
Endnotes
D:

Sorry, I don’t understand the “consistency of thought” part…

iow, what he said in his time didn’t end there, but echoed forward age after age by others as well.
D:

I think in the context of what I wrote, the “what God has done” was something like establish One Church… One key for me is what has God done? How would we know this? That’s why I’m looking for the connection, or how strong the connection is, between Jesus and the RCC… there are many people claiming God did different things, so (at least for me), it’s not enough just to say, God did this, accept it…

Refresh my memory, did I already say the following to you?

• *Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all *κατά kata ὅλος holos] Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. Kataholos is where we get the name Catholic. http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...natius-of-antioch-referred-to-them-as-catholi
• St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church [letter to the Church of Smyrna Epistle to the Smyrnæans
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teachesall must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]
• etc etc etc

You can see the name Catholic Church continues from the 1st century, from those who were disciples of St John… John was thought to have died ~100 a.d. Apostles didn’t contradict each other. Luke wrote Acts where we find the word Kata Holos. So I think it’s more than safe to say, John wasn’t alone in what he taught his disciples, Ignatius and Polycarp and all the others, whose writings may have existed, but we don’t have them any longer. . As you know, the amount of information one can read from the works of the ECF’s to the present , takes on avalanche proportions. And the Catholic Church has been here for all of it.

 

[Dan_471]

Faith is a gift from God, and it is an act of our will to receive it or reject it.

Faith could be a gift from God, I could see that… then one could choose to aim that faith in different directions… what I’m hearing here is that the connection between Jesus and the RCC is one of faith…

Without faith we can’t please God nor will we enter heaven.

If Hebrews is correct, I’ll buy that…

It’s not like our faith can’t be proven.

Well, proven is a pretty tough thing, imo… I’m looking for how much weight there is in history

Considering the Catholic Church today was present in the 1st century,

If you define at least one of the groups from the 1st century as being the RCC, then yes

one can see physically, not just by faith, that Jesus keeps His promises

If Jesus did in fact make that promise… that’s where I’m thinking the faith comes in…

I had professors in college (many decades ago ) who tried to get me to buy into the arguments you’re buying now.

OK

Those arguments as are those professors, obviously haven’t gone away. Know that these arguments aren’t new.

nope, nothing new under the sun, says ‘Solomon’

Every ECF

what’s an ECF? I’m taking early church father…

had to deal with dissent and heterodoxy from someone who thought they knew more… I really believe this, that the test for everyone is, can they be, and remain obedient to the faith.

well, of course, who’s an early church father, and who’s a heretic is relative… before we can apply a test of remaining faithful, we would have to know what the faith is…

That’s the test. In order to pass the test, someone has to be the tester…right? And it’s our test, to spot the frauds, from the real deals, and reject the frauds and pick what’s true.

sounds good

here’s some reading if you’re interested

From the Pontifical biblical commission
Preface
Introduction
I. Methods and Approaches for Interpretation
II. Hermeneutical Questions
III. Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation
IV. Interpretation of the Bible in the Life of the Church
Conclusion
Endnotes

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Sorry, I don’t understand the “consistency of thought” part…

iow, what he said in his time didn’t end there, but echoed forward age after age by others as well.

OK, I’m guessing that faith comes in there as well… being able to pick out, of the different voices, which one is Jesus…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

I think in the context of what I wrote, the “what God has done” was something like establish One Church… One key for me is what has God done? How would we know this? That’s why I’m looking for the connection, or how strong the connection is, between Jesus and the RCC… there are many people claiming God did different things, so (at least for me), it’s not enough just to say, God did this, accept it…

Refresh my memory, did I already say the following to you?

Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all κατά kata ὅλος holos] Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied. Kataholos is where we get the name Catholic. [catholic.com/quickquestions/what-were-christians-called-before-st-ignatius-of-antioch-referred-to-them-as-catholi](http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-were-christians-called-before-st-ignatius-of-antioch-referred-to-them-as-catholi)

no, I don’t think you said that to me yet… tho it may be in a post I’m yet to read…

St Ignatius Bp of Antioch, ~69 a.d. - ~107 a.d., disciple of St John the apostle, called the Church the Catholic Church [letter to the Church of Smyrna Epistle to the Smyrnæans
St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the "Catholic Church" The Martyrdom of Polycarp
Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote "Against Heresies" called the Church the "Catholic Church" Adversus haereses [Bk 1 Ch 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teachesall must agree with Rome [Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]
etc etc etc

I don’t doubt that there were people in the 1st c. that used the word ‘catholic’ or that thought there was a Catholic Church… and maybe that’s what Luke or ‘John’ mean… that’s not the same as saying that Jesus established it…

You can see the name Catholic Church continues from the 1st century, from those who were disciples of St John… John was thought to have died ~100 a.d. Apostles didn’t contradict each other.

not too sure about that… I think Paul and James contradict each other about when Abraham was justified… not sure if James is an Apostle, tho…

Luke wrote Acts where we find the word Kata Holos. So I think it’s more than safe to say, John wasn’t alone in what he taught his disciples, Ignatius and Polycarp and all the others, whose writings may have existed, but we don’t have them any longer. . As you know, the amount of information one can read from the works of the ECF’s to the present , takes on avalanche proportions.

Yes, the writing of many books is endless… too bad that we don’t have many of the other writings from people who didn’t get the approval from those later on… then we’d have more to compare…

And the Catholic Church has been here for all of it.

Yes, I think it would be great if we had more info about the very early days…

 

[steve_b]

Faith could be a gift from God, I could see that… then one could choose to aim that faith in different directions… what I’m hearing here is that the connection between Jesus and the RCC is one of faith…

But not faith alone. We can also see the actual history between Jesus and His apostles, and the Church He established and gave His promises to.
D:

If Hebrews is correct, I’ll buy that…

Well, proven is a pretty tough thing, imo… I’m looking for how much weight there is in history

If you define at least one of the groups from the 1st century as being the RCC, then yes

If Jesus did in fact make that promise… that’s where I’m thinking the faith comes in…

OK

nope, nothing new under the sun, says ‘Solomon’

what’s an ECF? I’m taking early church father…

well, of course, who’s an early church father, and who’s a heretic is relative… before we can apply a test of remaining faithful, we would have to know what the faith is…

sounds good

OK, I’m guessing that faith comes in there as well… being able to pick out, of the different voices, which one is Jesus…

no, I don’t think you said that to me yet… tho it may be in a post I’m yet to read…

I don’t doubt that there were people in the 1st c. that used the word ‘catholic’ or that thought there was a Catholic Church… and maybe that’s what Luke or ‘John’ mean… that’s not the same as saying that Jesus established it…

Why not?
D:

not too sure about that… I think Paul and James contradict each other about when Abraham was justified… not sure if James is an Apostle, tho…

James is listed among the apostles.

as for justification, it’s more than just a once-for-all event. . It can also be said as different events. ewtn.com/library/answers/abraham.htm
D:

Yes, the writing of many books is endless… too bad that we don’t have many of the other writings from people who didn’t get the approval from those later on… then we’d have more to compare…

the same could be said of the Gospels, John in particular. Read Jn 21:25
D:

Yes, I think it would be great if we had more info about the very early days…

What we have is enough.

It’s the old story,

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

 

[Dan_471]

Faith could be a gift from God, I could see that… then one could choose to aim that faith in different directions… what I’m hearing here is that the connection between Jesus and the RCC is one of faith…

But not faith alone. We can also see the actual history between Jesus and His apostles,

Yes, how reliable is that history… those documents… and which documents do we use…

and the Church He established and gave His promises to.

I’m hearing faith and history… one can choose which direction to point one’s faith, and there is some amount of subjectivity in the reading of history

I don’t doubt that there were people in the 1st c. that used the word ‘catholic’ or that thought there was a Catholic Church… and maybe that’s what Luke or ‘John’ mean… that’s not the same as saying that Jesus established it…

Why not?

There’s some distance between Jesus’ resurrection and the time Luke finds people to ask (supposedly) about Jesus’ life and works… so Luke is working on his understanding of what other people understood and told him… there’s opportunity for people to begin inserting their own ideas… even well-meaning people… granted we have the story of Polycarp being a disciple of John, but I think Polycarp didn’t write anything we have left, so we’re relying again on this person told another, I think…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

not too sure about that… I think Paul and James contradict each other about when Abraham was justified… not sure if James is an Apostle, tho…

James is listed among the apostles.

Ok, he’s not one of the Twelve, tho, is he? There’s a James there, but it’s the bro of John… where is James listed as an apostle? not that I’m doubting that he is, just wondering where…

as for justification, it’s more than just a once-for-all event. . It can also be said as different events. ewtn.com/library/answers/abraham.htm

Well, it looks to me like if Abraham isn’t completely justified before he is circumcised, then Paul’s argument loses a lot of steam…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Yes, the writing of many books is endless… too bad that we don’t have many of the other writings from people who didn’t get the approval from those later on… then we’d have more to compare…

the same could be said of the Gospels, John in particular.

Yes, more information would be great!

Read Jn 21:25

I have… I think that if that’s the situation, then it’s a bummer that the other three canonical Gospels spend so much time saying the same thing as each other…

Quote:
Originally Posted by D

Yes, I think it would be great if we had more info about the very early days…

What we have is enough.

I’m not sure about that… I think, and please correct me if I’m wrong here, that we have the book of Acts and early letters of Paul… the writer of Acts seems to have in mind as a theme the coming together and unity of the Church… and maybe that’s how it played out… the letters of Paul seem to show that people in Jerusalem were practicing a different form a Christianity than the ones in Galatia… Paul presents Peter ( and I think it’s good to remember the source on this one) as a weak person, more part of the problem than as a head of the church bringing a solution…

It’s the old story,

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”

Well, I definitely have faith, so it’s just a matter of finding the right explanation, then…

 

[Dan_471]

ewtn.com/library/answers/abraham.htm

Just looked over Akin’s article… seems to be directed at people who consider the Bible to be a unified whole… … one consistent doctrine throughout… for me, just reading Paul’s letter, possibly as the Romans would have read it, it looks to me, like I said above, that Paul’s reasoning loses a lot…