I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[JHow]

True. Let’s say I, along with 2 other sola scriptura advocates start a church. My question for non-catholics is:

By whose authority do I have the right to start my church and call my new church either the church founded by Jesus Christ or the church reformed by the 3 of us,** via the authority of Jesus?** Or, (question directed at non-catholics) - does it even matter if a person belongs to the church to which the apostles belonged?

I think some would say that the authority is from Christ, and is found in scripture. A protestant like Alexander Campbell would have said that he was not trying to, and in fact did not, found a new denomination or sect, but rather that he was returning to apostolic Christianity. To your second question, I think he would have answered that it matters very much that a person belongs to the church to which the apostles belonged.

 

[joe370]

JHow;8428173]I think some would say that the authority is from Christ, and is found in scripture.

I understand. You know, I wouldn’t feel too comfortable starting a church and claiming that it was by Jesus’ authority that I was doing so, but that’s just me.

A protestant like Alexander Campbell would have said that he was not trying to, and in fact did not, found a new denomination or sect, but rather that he was returning to apostolic Christianity.

Well, if Alexander can claim to be returning to apostolic Christianity then so can a hundred other folks, all teaching something different, basing those teachings on their unique take on the bible and then calling it - the return to 1st century apostolic Christianity.

To your second question, I think he would have answered that it matters very much that a person belongs to the church to which the apostles belonged.

Makes sense. I guess my next question to non-catholics would be:

How could all of the protestant reformers belonging to separate churches, validly claim to be returning to the oneness of apostolic Christianity?

 

[JonNC]

Makes sense. I guess my next question to non-catholics would be:

How could all of the protestant reformers belonging to separate churches, validly claim to be returning to the oneness of apostolic Christianity?

They couldn’t. Only the Lutherans can.

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

No one has the authority but Christ to establish His Church, which He did already. As you probably can predict, Joe, I’ll speak to the point of there only being on true Church, that being the congregation of believers where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered, and this does not limit His one Church to any one institution, much less one see.

So, the issue is more that, because of human sin, The one true Church (not many Churches) is wounded by division and schism, and men on all sides share the blame.

Jon

 

[ufamtobie]

Of course I don’t claim that the assembly with which I fellowship is the unique and only church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost so although I am evangelical thus thread does not apply to me.

AmeaturPianist, seem that you know the truth that your church was not founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost… Hmmm if I were a Protestant, knowing what you know, I would leave and become a member of that Church Christ founded on Pentecost, over 2000 years ago, but that is Just me.

Ufam Tobie

 

[JHow]

…How could all of the protestant reformers belonging to separate churches, validly claim to be returning to the oneness of apostolic Christianity?

Well, in the case of Campbell, it was partially motivated by the circumstance of seeing up close many sects and divisions squabbling with each other. Protestants are likely more aware than Catholics of just how many branches, sects and so forth, reside within Protestant experience (for instance, Campbell’s father came out of the “Old Light Anti-Burgher Seceder Presbyterian Church”). Five adjectives is a lot of qualifications for any church, and clearly, logically, every sect can’t be 100% right. But at the same time, a new Christian religious movement has to claim some link back to the apostles, or else it is something new entirely. Bear in mind, too, that some of the things a guy like Campbell was reacting to were Calvinistic religious features, not Catohlic (e.g., “fenced table” communion). On some points (like weekly communion) Campbell’s reductionism lands him back on a Catholic position.

 

[jericho777]

I think the greater point is how you define what church is. The biblical definition for church is the “called out ones”. It’s a group of believers that from the body of Christ. It’s not an “organization” that forms the body. We are not starting a “church” as if it is a new thing but building the body and occupying the enemy’s territory and being the church.

We see the Apostle Paul called directly by God apart from the will of men Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. God is not beholden to any “organization“or group. He is however building His body the church.

You always seem to be fretting over people who love God and His word yet don’t go to your church. Even though they live out the gospel in a real and effective manner by sharing the love of Christ and His word with those around them. Changing the lives of those they meet for all eternity.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

JonNC - They couldn’t. Only the Lutherans can.

Well that goes without saying brother. LOL…

No one has the authority but Christ to establish His Church, which He did already. As you probably can predict, Joe, I’ll speak to the point of there only being on true Church, that being the congregation of believers where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered, and this does not limit His one Church to any one institution, much less one see.

I am trying to understand and I certainly respect your perspective. Jon, which concourse of non-catholic churches comprise the one true Church established by Christ (besides the CC, EOC and the LC being the one church established by Jesus) - which also consist of the congregation of believers where the sacraments administered? Also, are we talking 7 sacraments or 2 sacraments, or doesn’t it matter?

So, the issue is more that, because of human sin, The one true Church (not many Churches) is wounded by division and schism, and men on all sides share the blame.

I agree that Jesus’ church has been wounded by division and schism, and men on all sides share the blame. However, I am still grappling with the logic of the premise you are presenting. So, even though men like Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Calvin left the CC (or were excommunicated for whatever reason) - just to name a few, and started new movements that eventually took on the formation of separate autonomous churches over time, they still belonged to the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost because, like you said, no one has the authority but Christ to establish His Church? Not me (LOL) - Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli or John Calvin? I am really trying to warm up to that concept but am still having trouble embracing it. Points for effort though - right?..LOL…

I don’t think that I have asked you this, so forgive me if I have; I’m getting’ old man. LOL…

If I, for example, start a church tomorrow and establish a following, over time, would you eventually consider my new congregation of believers part of the one true Church established by Christ, consisting of the congregation of believers where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments administered, if in fact I embraced some of the sacraments?

Perhaps personalizing it like this will help me better understand your perspective…

 

[amber_lux]

INo protestant churches existed until the 16th century. If I am wrong please prove it.

Do you understand the differences between Christianity as practised in Parthania, and Christianity as practised in Carthage, and Christianity as practised in Antioch, and Christianity as practised in Constantinople?

Also take a look at the Christianity that developed outside the Parthanian and Roman Empires. Pay very close attention to first and second century Christianity in the Near North. What is now known as Mongolia, China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea.

Catholics in the early church, wrongfully thrown out of the CC, leading to schisms? Examples?

The Holy, Roman, Catholic, And Apostolic Church is an example of a schismatic group. Which schism created it, depends upon which heresy you are an adherent of. Pick your date: 310, 359, 688, 1054, 1520. Which flavour of heretical belief and practice do you adhere to? If your heretical beliefs are not reflected in a date given, then substitute the appropriate date.

by whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost?

Treating Christianity as a revealed religion, the issue is whether it was an Oral or Written Revelation. If Oral, then Tradition is crucial, and everything else is an irrelevant distraction. If Written, then only the writings that are Revelatory are crucial, and everything else is an irrelevant distraction. If it was both an Oral and Written Revelation, then both Tradition, and Revelatory Writings are crucial.

The problem with Christianity as Oral Revelation, is that Tradition has strewn it to the winds. That when it spread, the oral teachings, beliefs, practices, and theology were not equally spread.

The problem with Christianity as Written Revelation, is that there is no definitive corpus.

Judaism claims a Written Revelation witnessed by the entire nation. The difference between Karaite Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism, is whether or not an Oral Revelation was Revealed to the nation when Moses handed down the Written Torah.

There is no Written Revelation witnessed by a group of people for Christianity. There is a death on a cross, and a resurrection from the dead. But nothing in writing from the victim of the crucifixion. Well, there are those letters. Letters that are awkward if rejected, but even more awkward if accepted.

Amber

 

[joe370]

Hey Amber…

Do you understand the differences between Christianity as practised in Parthania, and Christianity as practised in Carthage, and Christianity as practised in Antioch, and Christianity as practised in Constantinople?

Sure.

Also take a look at the Christianity that developed outside the Parthanian and Roman Empires. Pay very close attention to first and second century Christianity in the Near North. What is now known as Mongolia, China, Japan, Vietnam, Korea.

I have no idea where you are going with this?

The Holy, Roman, Catholic, And Apostolic Church is an example of a schismatic group.

So the RCC is a schismatic church that broke away from the church founded by Jesus Christ. If you can prove that to me I will believe you?

Which schism created it, depends upon which heresy you are an adherent of. Pick your date: 310, 359, 688, 1054, 1520.

You pick it; you are the one making the claim, and please, back it up with historical data supporting your claim. If you are right then I will have to re-think the whole catholic church thing, in search of the true church founded by Jesus.

Which flavour of heretical belief and practice do you adhere to?

Protestantism…LOL… Silly question…What would you say if I asked you the same question?

Treating Christianity as a revealed religion, the issue is whether it was an Oral or Written Revelation. If Oral, then Tradition is crucial, and everything else is an irrelevant distraction. If Written, then only the writings that are Revelatory are crucial, and everything else is an irrelevant distraction. If it was both an Oral and Written Revelation, then both Tradition, and Revelatory Writings are crucial…

OK, but perhaps we can try and stay on course regarding the original post?

 

[Nicea325]

I didn’t know you needed authority or a right.

When the Soviet Union fell in the early ninties you had a lot of people who had never heard, or cared, about Christ.

The tiny groups of Christians who had been secretly meeting for years suddenly had a bit of freedom to express their love for Christ and have open (well, more open) meetings. Many of these groups grew in size and soon were able to rent buildings and/or buy land to build on. Now there are thriving Christian communities teaching about and spreading Chritianity.

Are you saying that you believe this is wrong?

Well did an external authority decide what books should belong in the bible? Did an authority declare,define and ratify fundamental Christian doctrines? Trinity,Incarnation,etc,etc?

 

[jmcrae]

I think this is referring to the difference between “catholic” and “Catholic” (small C, large C)

Up until 1524 AD and the establishment of the Lutheran church, there was no distinction between “small c” and “large C” catholic Churches. Although not all were in full communion with Rome, all were in the line of Apostolic succession.

At the time of the Lutheran schism, it was the first time there was a nominally Christian worshipping community whose head was not a Bishop (whether in schism or not) whose lineage extended back to one of the the 12 Apostles.

Luther was not only not a Bishop, he never even asked for permission from any Bishop to establish his Lutheran congregation. They were completely without any kind of recognizable authority, other than the say-so of Martin Luther himself.

Those whom he appointed as his own successors and co-workers could not receive more authority from him than he had for himself (which was zero) so they, too, were acting without authority, and on down to the present day, their successors of whatever Protestant offshoot of Lutheranism also have the same or even less authority than Luther himself (ie: zero).

Catholic is a shortened form for the Roman Catholic Church, but the term catholic means universal and many denominations (mainly the traditional ones) use it to refer more broadly to the Christian Church.

The Pope (the Bishop of Rome) was originally appointed by Christ Himself as Chief Shepherd of the Church. (see John 21:15-19) with authority to bind on earth, and to loose on earth, and have his decisions not only mandatory to be followed here on earth, but also to have them ratified in Heaven. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Peter’s successors are clearly identifiable - the line of authority is unbroken. The Pope’s laws are still in force both on earth and in Heaven.

There is no evidence that Jesus ever came down from Heaven to take this authority away from him.

 

[jmcrae]

I think some would say that the authority is from Christ, and is found in scripture. A protestant like Alexander Campbell would have said that he was not trying to, and in fact did not, found a new denomination or sect, but rather that he was returning to apostolic Christianity. To your second question, I think he would have answered that it matters very much that a person belongs to the church to which the apostles belonged.

In which case, he should have been a Roman Catholic.

 

[Syele]

You are judging protestant churches by Catholic authority. It’s never going to agree because they are not based the same ways.

Protestants definitions:

Church: The body of all true believers on the earth
Authority: The Triune God, the Bible

I could say that if God calls me to open a new church, I will do it. But then you will get into how I KNOW it was really God. Since God did not tell me to open a church I can’t answer that question. I can cite scripture from the Bible. That will not satisfy your curiosity I would expect, because it will not fit with Catholic theology.

Some Bible verses about gathering together, singing, fellowshipping, helping one another. (Which are what most Protestant churches set up in order to do)

“For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” Matthew 18:20

“Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord…because we are members of His body.”
Ephesians 5:2,19,30

“Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”
Colossians 3:16

“Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”
Galatians 6:2,10

10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
Romans 12:10

13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
Galatians 5:13

So you are asking, by what authority do Protestants have “churches” (you said not denominations). By the command of the Scriptures (inspired by God Himself) we gather together, sing praises, fellowship together, help one another, and serve one another.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I think this is referring to the difference between “catholic” and “Catholic” (small C, large C)

Catholic is a shortened form for the Roman Catholic Church, but the term catholic means universal and many denominations (mainly the traditional ones) use it to refer more broadly to the Christian Church. So Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, believe their churches are catholic (small c). Most Catholics would not agree with that assertion, but that is the way that these congregations see it.

I wasn’t going to participate in this thread because I used to be fundamentalist, evangelical, bible only Christian. I see this as a fundamental way of starting a fight.
BUT,

You are absolutely wrong on your point that Catholic is short for Roman Catholic… It was the King of England, Henry VIII, that started the Roman thing. The Church has always been called Catholic, not catholic, as you try to portray it as merely meaning universal. It’ does mean universal, but it means more precisely “for everyone”. Your information is flawed. As far was what most people think today, knowing that they are not educated properly in the teachings of the Church, they have no business going against the teachings of the Church. They are NOT speaking from authority. Even if someone is “right” in their assertions, they still have no authority. Like it or not, that’s simply the way it is. Read Matthew 23, Chair of Moses, carefully. Jesus does not give anyone permission to ignore the teachers of the law, he commands that they obey what they teach, but don’t do what they do, because they are hypocrites.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[Bran_Stark]

Why?

Haha well it seems pretty clear to me. Neither Protestants nor Catholics claim that, for example, the United Methodist Church was established two thousand years ago by Jesus, since the historical record is plainly otherwise. So what is there to argue about? The question to ask is not “who founded your denomination”, but rather “does it matter who founded your denomination?”. And the Protestant says that it’s irrelevant who founded your denomination, because denominations are insignificant trifles compared to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I’m not making the connection between the different dioceses of the CC and the different protestant churches? There is one CC with many dioceses. There are many protestant churches - period.

My point is that the Protestant sees his many denominations not as competing mutually exclusive sects, but as various local expressions of the Church.

 

[akasseb]

Protestants definitions:

Church: The body of all true believers on the earth
Authority: The Triune God, the Bible

These few words probably contain a dozen or more ecclesiastical errors, but let me highlight just a few. Christianity is not a genus with the thousands of sects acting as species of that genus. After all, two sects can have opposite views of essential doctrines (i.e. Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist). This error stems from a baser error which holds that the early Church was amorphous and unknowable. Yet, we have thousands of writings from the Church Fathers at our fingertips. Indeed, the Apostolic Fathers were disciples of the Apostles themselves. Might they have something to say about the nature of the Church? I recommend studying the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

Furthermore, the Church came before the Bible. Christ founded the Church on Peter and the Apostles in 33 A.D. The earliest books of the Bible were not written until about 20 years later. The New Testament canon was not established until the late 4th century through the work of Catholic Church councils and with the approval of the popes. The Bible needed an authority outside of itself to determine the canon. It also requires an infallible Magisterium to interpret it. For this reason, 1 Tim 3:15 states that the Church is pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[akasseb]

My point is that the Protestant sees his many denominations not as competing mutually exclusive sects, but as various local expressions of the Church.

It’s true that there are probably very few mutually exclusive sects because they share some views in common. But there are endless mutually exclusive doctrines within the sects. What do 16th century Lutherans have in common with contemporary fundamentalists? Luther believed in the Real Presence; fundamentalists deny it. Luther believed in Marian devotion; fundamentalists call it idolotry. The early reformers believed in infant baptism; many contemporary denominations deny it. This can go on ad nauseum. These are essential doctrines!!

The term Protestant is also an intellectual farce. How are all of the thousands of non-Catholic sects grouped together under a common umbrella, when the sects themselves have very little in common?

 

[Bran_Stark]

It’s true that there are probably very few mutually exclusive sects because they share some views in common. But there are endless mutually exclusive doctrines within the sects. What do 16th century Lutherans have in common with contemporary fundamentalists? Luther believed in the Real Presence; fundamentalists deny it. Luther believed in Marian devotion; fundamentalists call it idolotry. The early reformers believed in infant baptism; many contemporary denominations deny it. This can go on ad nauseum. These are essential doctrines!!

There are extremists on various ends, yes, but in general I think that while most Protestants may love debating their divisions, they don’t consider them “essential” as in essential to salvation. We mourn our divisions, yes, but we don’t consider them a fatal disorder.

 

[liturgyluver]

I wasn’t going to participate in this thread because I used to be fundamentalist, evangelical, bible only Christian. I see this as a fundamental way of starting a fight.
BUT,

You are absolutely wrong on your point that Catholic is short for Roman Catholic… It was the King of England, Henry VIII, that started the Roman thing. The Church has always been called Catholic, not catholic, as you try to portray it as merely meaning universal. It’ does mean universal, but it means more precisely “for everyone”. Your information is flawed. As far was what most people think today, knowing that they are not educated properly in the teachings of the Church, they have no business going against the teachings of the Church. They are NOT speaking from authority. Even if someone is “right” in their assertions, they still have no authority. Like it or not, that’s simply the way it is. Read Matthew 23, Chair of Moses, carefully. Jesus does not give anyone permission to ignore the teachers of the law, he commands that they obey what they teach, but don’t do what they do, because they are hypocrites.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

I am not surprised at all by your response, and you’ll notice that I did say in my original post that most Catholics would disagree with the assertion that the catholic church includes other branches. In terms of that specific point, when Anglicans, and Lutherans recite the Creed as they do every Sunday and say they believe in the catholic church, they are not saying they believe in the Roman Catholic Church, but in the universal church of which they are part. Doubtless you will say that they are flawed: you may not agree but that’s the way it is!

Incidently, the term Roman Catholic was not introduced by Henry VIII, it only began to be used during the 17th century.

 

[East_Anglican]

I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost!

Thanks…

Anyone can set up a Church so they can preach any nonsense that peoples itching ears want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;