Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[tdgesq]

I’d written a fairly lengthy reply, but it seems that your main point is that logic and reason alone can be used to prove that the RCC is the church established by Christ.

Close. My point is that the authority of the Catholic Church is not a circular conclusion if it is based upon reason and the senses. Do you agree that this would not be a circular argument?

As for proof, I first need to know what standard of proof you are willing to accept. If it can be demonstrated that the authority of the CC is historically more reasonable than your demonstration, then you should accept it. Do you agree?

On the other hand, if the standard is going to be “couldn’t you possibly be wrong,” then I decline. Because if that is the standard then nothing can be proven about anything.

So, the floor is yours. Let’s start with the basics, and work our way up to the more complex issues. I really am looking forward to what you will provide, because I’ve been trying to find logical and reasonable explanations here for a long time.

I’m glad to oblige if you agree to the two points above. I will probably start a new thread.

 

[planter654]

Jesus prayed, "[IWould somebody tell me how an unorganized people, people having opposing fundamental beliefs among themselves, could be considered as one?

“ONE” Not two but “ONE” in all things!

“ONE” GOD
“ONE” KINGDOM
“ONE” CHURCH ( us his family all make up God’s Church) “ONE” body with many memebers all serving “ONE”
“ONE” NATION
“ONE” thought
God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “ONE” We to are to
become “ONE” also.

Like a husband and wife are separete, but both become “ONE” in marriage but if they break the convend of marriage, lies, adultery, lust for others, they do not serve each other ( sin) then they are not “ONE” but two. A house divided cannot stand!!

It is the same with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit they are “ONE” in all things thou they are seperate but all are “ONE”!

there is only “ONE” thought that is God’s will and desire for all. They all move as “ONE”.

We also are to “become HOLY” for our “Father is HOLY” in order to become “HOLY”. for what does good and evil have in common…

The two cannot become “ONE” good vs evil.

God and God alone is the “ONE” who makes us “HOLY”

Love to all
[/quote]

 

[planter654]

There is only “ONE” GOD!!! Let NO MERE MORTAL MAN judge you!!!

St. Paul did not even “JUDGE” Himself!

He pleased and served God only!!! St. Paul became “ONE” with God in all things!!! ST Peter was crucified up side down also for his faith!!! ST. Paul suffered and was also beheaded for his faith, belief in God!! I ask do you want to go into bondage again in serving man??? Jesus did not die in vain!!

We are not here to appease “MAN” this is not pleasing to God and God will not be “MOCKED”!

It is a frightful thing to end up in the “HAND OF THE LORD” St. Paul!!

Love to all

 

[planter654]

Ok. So I see the likelihood that there needs to be an earthly authority. Question is: How does one determine who has that authority?

There are many churches claiming to be The One True Church/Earthly Authority. Why should I believe the CC is that authority?

I think the problem, at least for me and perhaps others, is the tendancy to believe that the best way to determine where the authority is, is to compare it to the early church; the apostolic church; the church of the Bible… Or, is that really a problem?:

JESUS SAID " THE TIME FOR SUCH IGNORANCE HAS PASSED"

God knows his own and his sheep knows his voice. Test the spirits!! God will return and gather “HIS CHURCH”!
GOD BLESS All.

 

[PC_Master]

Just so you’re all aware – I’ve read the stuff in this thread. I do intend to reply, but it’s going to take a while to compose that reply. I need to have enough time to sit down and do so, and for the moment, I don’t. I’ll try to get to it later tonight, or perhaps tomorrow.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Just so you’re all aware – I’ve read the stuff in this thread. I do intend to reply, but it’s going to take a while to compose that reply. I need to have enough time to sit down and do so, and for the moment, I don’t. I’ll try to get to it later tonight, or perhaps tomorrow.

Have you thought about just praying about it instead of debating it?

By the way, the quote that you have in your signature (which seems to have started this discussion) is simply wrong.

If the pope said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

If the pope were to declare such a thing, it would be considered a heretical teaching.

We, however, have confidence in our Church.

Stated more clearly, we have confidence that God would not allow the leader – the leader we believe Jesus has given to lead us – to lead us by the Holy Spirit into such an error regarding peanuts and salvation.

Consequently, to a lesser degree, I have this same confidence that many other “churches”-- such as the Orthodox, conservative Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. – would most likely not fall into the same error either.

In other words, the Catholic Church believes there to be an authentic motion of the Holy Spirit amongst many non-Catholic Christian groups too-- so much so that these other “churches” too would most likely not make a statements like this…

Orthodox:

If our synods of bishops autocephalously said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

Anglican:

If the Archbishop of Canterbury said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

Presbyterian:

If our Elders said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

Lutheran:

If the Lutheran Confessions said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

Baptist:

If the London Baptist Confession of Faith said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts.

Quite frankly, if I heard an Orthodox, conservative Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Baptist making such ‘fictional claims’ that I noted above, I would simply dismiss there comments as being highly ignorant of their own confessional teachings.

We would hope that you would be able to make this same distinction and use some cautious discernment when judging the claims of the Catholic faith too.

To say the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth is not the same things as saying only the Catholic Church possess the truth.

And if you’re still thinking this is the case after all that’s been discussesd in this thread, then I suspect that you are not actually searching for the truth at all.

 

[PC_Master]

Premise 1 What I am going to write is not as important in itself , from my point of view, as stressing the value of plausibility. Particularly cumulative plausibility. That is a paramount methodological point, IMHO .
Premise 2 I am not so ambitious to think of this as something more than of a brick of plausibility.
Premise 3 Hopefully I am not going to be self-contradictory.
Dunno whether this meet criteria for “logical” expositions.

This makes sense, however I should point out that I have suggested other plausible explanations in the past, and if I’m to believe one over another, there must be good reason for doing so. So, I’m looking for more than plausibility, but it’s a start at least.

Christ speaks only twice as we know about what He calls “church”.

True, but I don’t think we can exclude the writings of Paul either.

In the famous pericope in Matthew 16 you have “…I shall build my church”. You have a singular. Christ’s Church is one.

I would rather say that he did not establish multiple belief systems. He established one, though I believe he certainly knew that people would not be in perfect alignment with it. There certainly is absolute truth, and an absolute way Christ wishes us to behave in regards to belief.

Jesus, elsewhere (I’ll get the reference if you like), likens his followers to a flock of sheep. Either you’re within his church, his congregation of followers…his flock, or you’re not. If you’re within the flock, you know him and his voice – you follow his words. Thus, there is only one church, comprised of all who believe in and follow Christ.

That is not to say, however, that this implies an earthly organization.

The other pericope in Matthew with “… tell the church”. Here you have a visible congregation.
So you have visible congregations, belonging to one Church.

Rather, it seems to me that this says that one should tell the others that believe in Christ and are good, upstanding people – the members of the flock (the church). Now, as it is impractical to tell the entire church (that is, every believer in Christ), I think this would often have played out as telling individual groups (congregations) of believers who follow Christ.

Has the Church a visible earthly leadership ?

As there isn’t a visible earthly organization which is “the church”, no. However, let’s take a look…

We saw eg in Heb 13:17 that this is the case.

This passage does indeed tell you to submit to those that are in spiritual authority over you. If we couple this with the guidelines Paul laid out for the selection of leaders in the church, this is saying to submit to those of greater spiritual understanding, so that you may learn from them and grow yourself.

Is the organization and leadership trans-congregational ? It sure is, in the apostolic time, if we look at Paul’s pastoral cares.

Paul’s position as a spiritual teacher did indeed encompass several congregations, which he helped to found. I’d suggest we stop trying to make this fit a model of being an organization, and instead look at it as one large body of believers, with those of greater spiritual knowledge instructing those of less spiritual knowledge. The true followers of Christ were (and should continue to be) open to such teaching. Yet this does not imply a physical organization with an official office held by Paul or anyone else. Where does Paul even allude to such a position?

Does this trans-congregational structure cease after the Apostles ? Clement’s first letter to Corinthians strongly points to the opposite. So far I cannot see only an unstructured set of followers of Jesus.

Again, as one of spiritual understanding (or at least one who believes he has that), Clement writes to help impart greater understanding to those who are falling away. This is fine.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Does this leaderhip go astray in the following generations ? That means assuming very much, IMHO. Please answer Post 116, points A and C. The connection between Church and Scripture is a fundamental, unescapable issue, even for non Solascripturaists, as every poster here.

All right, aside from that the “church” was not a tightly-knit organization, but rather was a large community of believers spread out in multiple groups throughout the nations, let’s get to those points…

Can we determine if a church is in accordance with the Apostolic Church by scripture alone? I’d say no – at least, not completely. Scripture does not hold every detail of every belief that was in the church. What it does hold, however, are the essentials of faith. By comparing these, we can at least get a very good idea of where any modern denomination stands. I’m not saying we can say “X teaching is wrong because it’s not in scripture”, but I am saying we can say “X teaching is wrong if it claims to be vital to salvation but is not in scripture”. I’m also saying that such teachings are wrong if they’re in contradiction to scripture.

In short, you take the premise that scripture and Roman Catholic tradition cannot be in conflict, and look for explanations that fit that. I do not take that premise as valid. Instead, I want proof that the two are not in conflict that does not require me to simply accept as a tenet of faith that the RCC is right. Every issue I’ve explored here eventually seems to come down to that.

As for point C – Can we trust scripture if it came to us through a church which was slowly falling into error? I’d say yes. Let’s consider, for a moment, that the church is not simply a single organization. In fact, when the churches Paul wrote to were falling into various errors, Paul wrote to them as fellow believers, not as their superior, nor as one in authority over them. Instead, his concern was that a portion of the flock of Christ was drifting away from the shepherd. It wasn’t all of them in a given region, and God led Paul to try to correct the error.

Now, if we overall look at scripture, we see that the majority of it was agreed on by the middle of the second century, with the exception of a few works (Hebrews, John’s letters, Jude). We also see that God has made it such that every point of major doctrinal importance is confirmed by multiple attestations in scripture. He has taken steps to protect his teachings, and continues to work in the hearts of believers, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

A gradual introduction of heresy and the workings of the holy spirit, both of which sway people on an individual level (and not an institutional one) explain how portions of the church fell into disagreement with one another over time.

“The Church at large”? What do you mean by that? Do you think that the Holy Father did not grant Jesus’ prayer, "that they may be one as we are"?

Look at who he prayed for “for all that will come to believe in me through their teaching”. Jesus prayer was for there to be no heretics, no schismatics, and so on. I still believe in Jesus, and yet I’m not completely in unity with you. So clearly, Jesus prayer was not answered. It’s fortunate he didn’t say that it would be, lest he become a liar.

“A collection of followers”. Who collected them? And when they were thus collected, who among them has the authority to call all of them to a general meeting or fellowship?

First, Christ collected us. We are his flock. He’s the shepherd. As for fellowshipping – the gathering together of believers in common worship, praise, prayer, and such, doesn’t require an authority – it only has need of believers who wish to associate together in worship for their God.

Jesus said, “And behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” If the line was cut somewhere sometime, what happened to the assurance of the Lord that He will accompany the Church “all days”, if there was a day that there was no Church?

If the church was never an earthly organization, but rather is simply, as I’ve said, a flock of all the believers in him, then his promise is indeed true. He’s with us even today.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

How do you know that those who compiled the canon of the Bible - whether you believe it to have already been universally excepted or decided officially by the magisterium - were those who have a genuine belief in and desire to follow Christ? How do you know they were part of that, general church you believe Christ established (vs an organization)?

Truthfully, it’s somewhat a matter of faith. I have to trust that God will lead me into truth if I’m open to it, including the possibility that my faith has been misplaced. While the preservation of scripture isn’t exactly supernatural, it certainly defies the preservation of any other ancient work. So, perhaps God allowed Satan to accomplish this, but if so, it would seem to contradict my understanding of his love for me, and thus I have faith that all the important things have been preserved in scripture.

Jesus said error would arise from w/in the church itself, and He also said that the way is narrow and straight and few find it. Following the universally accepted theory seems dangerous grounds to accept the Bible knowing that in the case of Christianity there isn’t really safety in numbers.

Actually, that’s a good case for rejecting the RCC. It is, after all, one of the largest religions in the world. I really don’t know how to answer you at this point, except to say that Jesus didn’t contradict scripture. What he did contradict was the commonplace understanding thereof. He gave the people scripture, and they twisted and misunderstood it. I believe much the same is happening again, which is why God promised to give us the holy spirit.

Don’t you see the need for there to have been an earthly authority (an organized, infallibly led church) to even consider the Bible?

No. I certainly agree that it would have made things easier, but the historical record just doesn’t support it.

Pneuma> I didn’t reply to your second post because it seems we have issues with your first post to work out.

Close. My point is that the authority of the Catholic Church is not a circular conclusion if it is based upon reason and the senses. Do you agree that this would not be a circular argument?

I think so.

As for proof, I first need to know what standard of proof you are willing to accept. If it can be demonstrated that the authority of the CC is historically more reasonable than your demonstration, then you should accept it. Do you agree?

It depends how you define “reason”. For some people, they simply say “It’s more reasonable to assume that God left us an earthly authority”, but obviously that’s not enough for me. I agree it might be better (at least in my belief) if there were such, but I know that God’s ways sometimes don’t match my own, because my own is faulty, and that he has reason for doing things in a certain way. In other words, demonstrating that the RCC is “a better system” won’t do it. You need to demonstrate that it’s what was actually instituted by Christ.

Have you thought about just praying about it instead of debating it?

I’ve been praying over these issues for months now. I can only conclude that either it’s not in God’s timing for me to fully understand, or that something about myself or Satan’s influence is preventing me from having full understanding and certainty of his will in this.

By the way, the quote that you have in your signature (which seems to have started this discussion) is simply wrong.

It’s not. First, a poster here really did make that statement. I believe it was NotWorthy, though I could be mistaken. Second, he really was serious about the statement. Third, I asked how you would react in a similar circumstance. You’re free to answer as you will, but the point of the signature was to demonstrate the type of “blind faith” I see in some Roman Catholics, and to cause others to think about such faith – is it reasonable or not?

Also, I didn’t start this thread, and discussion along this line is way off-topic.

 

[tdgesq]

I think so.

In answer to this question of mine:

Close. My point is that the authority of the Catholic Church is not a circular conclusion if it is based upon reason and the senses. Do you agree that this would not be a circular argument?

If you think it is so, then you also believe it is so. That is enough for now; however, if your belief in this regard changes, then I need to know immediately.

It depends how you define “reason”. For some people, they simply say “It’s more reasonable to assume that God left us an earthly authority”, but obviously that’s not enough for me. I agree it might be better (at least in my belief) if there were such, but I know that God’s ways sometimes don’t match my own, because my own is faulty, and that he has reason for doing things in a certain way.

What I meant by “more reasonable” in my post is “more likely.” Does history show it is more likely that Christ instituted a Church with teaching authority as claimed by the RCC than your competing claim?

In other words, demonstrating that the RCC is “a better system” won’t do it. You need to demonstrate that it’s what was actually instituted by Christ.

But read carefully what I wrote:

If it can be demonstrated that the authority of the CC is historically more reasonable than your demonstration, then you should accept it. Do you agree?

Is your system historically reasonable? If you claim that it is, as you must, then if it can be demonstrated that the RCC system is historically more reasonable than yours, you should accept it. Agreed?

I’ve been praying over these issues for months now. I can only conclude that either it’s not in God’s timing for me to fully understand, or that something about myself or Satan’s influence is preventing me from having full understanding and certainty of his will in this.

All I can recommend here is to pray for courage. Courage to intellectually assent to what has been historically passed down to us by our Fathers, regardless of where that leads. We only have the intellect God gave us to guide us, with the aid of the Holy Spirit no doubt, but He will not lead you to an unreasonable conclusion.

 

[PC_Master]

We seem to be in agreement, with one exception – proving that your system is more likely (based on history, etc) than mine may not be good enough. There could be insufficient evidence to really support either. I realize that it makes you feel like you’re in a no-win situation, but it’s all I can give right now – I’ll have to see where the evidence ends up and then decide if that’s enough to convince me or not. But I really can’t do that until I see the evidence (without all of the usual “it must mean what I say it means” stuff that apologists throw in).

 

[tdgesq]

We seem to be in agreement, with one exception – proving that your system is more likely (based on history, etc) than mine may not be good enough.

You have to recognize the import of what you’re saying here. You have a system to which you hold. If it can be demonstrated that the system of the RCC is more likely, you cannot rationally reject it. Even if it is only slightly more probable. Only irrationally could you do so.

There could be insufficient evidence to really support either.

Only if you admit that your system is unreasonable. If you believe it to be reasonable, then all that needs to be done is to show that the system of the RCC is more reasonable than yours. Maybe you are ready to concede that your position is unreasonable. There isn’t anyway around it, unless you choose some options that are equally unpalatable.

I will not proceed without some standard of proof. I can’t think of one better than the RCC system being historically more likely than your system.

 

[pneuma07]

dear PCM,

Quote:
…I shall build my church…

I would rather say that he did not establish multiple belief systems. He established one, though I believe he certainly knew that people would not be in perfect alignment with it. There certainly is absolute truth, and an absolute way Christ wishes us to behave in regards to belief.

Agreed. Establishing one church means establishing one belief system, and not many. Fine.

Jesus, elsewhere (I’ll get the reference if you like), likens his followers to a flock of sheep. Either you’re within his church, his congregation of followers…his flock, or you’re not. If you’re within the flock, you know him and his voice – you follow his words. Thus, there is only one church, comprised of all who believe in and follow Christ.

.
Two short points: 1) How can I know that I am following Jesus’ voice, how can I know what His voice is ? We need to explore this.
2) We are Jesus’ sheep. Agreed. A person was told by Jesus:
“Feed my lambs. … Tend my sheep. …Feed my sheep”. …

That is not to say, however, that this implies an earthly organization.

I don’t get here whether you simply don’t know if an eartly organization is implied, OR you know it is not.
In the latter case, how ?

On Matthew 18:17

Rather, it seems to me that this says that one should tell the others that believe in Christ and are good, upstanding people – the members of the flock (the church). Now, as it is impractical to tell the entire church (that is, every believer in Christ), I think this would often have played out as telling individual groups (congregations) of believers who follow Christ.

The mentioned pericope tells us:

1. The church ( local church, assembly … as you prefer) can listen. The question of my knowledge of the composition ( and/or organization ) of this entity arises. Indeed, whom have I to tell ?
   " others that believe and are good …". Consider: how can I know exactly who believes what ? How can I know who is good ? IMHO, noone of us could ever gather such a group of people. Only God could. This speaks for the necessity of a visible organization.
2. The church has a voice (" if he doesn’t listen even to the church…".). Now, let’s ask ourselves: has an unstructured assembly a voice ? How can I say: now the assembly has spoken, and I will listen. If you imagine an unstructured
   assembly, you will agree that it has no voice as such. There are many voices ( the members’) and no voice of the assembly as such. The oneness of the voice I have to listen to implies organization, roles, rules. Am I wrong ?

As there isn’t a visible earthly organization which is “the church”, no.

So you do state that. Founding the statement on what ?
On Heb 13:17*

This passage does indeed tell you to submit to those that are in spiritual authority over you. If we couple this with the guidelines Paul laid out for the selection of leaders in the church, this is saying to submit to those of greater spiritual understanding, so that you may learn from them and grow yourself.

We have to decide whether the requested submission is to authority or to understanding. For, authority we could acknowledge, and we then should know whom to obey.
In the latter case, I should not know how to follow this scriptural command. Because …I am given no ranking of my brothers
according to the spiritual understanding. And so, again, as for Matthew 18:17, without organization, here too I simply do not know whom to listen to.

Paul’s position as a spiritual teacher did indeed encompass several congregations, which he helped to found. I’d suggest we stop trying to make this fit a model of being an organization, and instead look at it as one large body of believers, with those of greater spiritual knowledge instructing those of less spiritual knowledge. The true followers of Christ were (and should continue to be) open to such teaching. Yet this does not imply a physical organization with an official office held by Paul or anyone else. Where does Paul even allude to such a position?

See above for much of what you explain here. As for the existence of offices, or ministries in the Church, Paul does tell us explicitly about that. See Ephesians 4:11

Again, as one of spiritual understanding (or at least one who believes he has that), Clement writes to help impart greater understanding to those who are falling away. This is fine.

He was asked to write by the Corinthians. Maybe in Greece they knew that precisely in Rome there was greater spiritual understanding. Anyway, chapters 42 to 44 speak just about ministries and appointments. Hard to fit into an unstructured church.

 

[pneuma07]

Can we determine if a church is in accordance with the Apostolic Church by scripture alone? I’d say no – at least, not completely. …
I’m also saying that such teachings are wrong if they’re in contradiction to scripture.

I was not asking about a church in general:

Quote:
*A) Do you state we can judge the orthodoxy or etherodoxy of the sub-apostolic Church *leadership, their faithfulness to the deposit they directly received from the Apostles, by the Bible ( the Bible alone) ?
Let’s forget Catholicism and so on for a while.
Just let’s consider this scenario. I have my Bible, read let’s say Ignatius, and then can tell you how he had gone astray.

Can I really do that ? I mean Ignatius and those guys had received the deposit from the Apostle’s very lips. I certainly did not. They had seen the Apostles, looked at their example,
asked them about possible doubts, about what the Apostles’ unique experience with the Lord had been like. All wonderful experiences and possibilities I do not have.
They were living at the very time when the Books that would go into our NT were being completed. They were the people who had started recognizing and delivering those Books as faithful written witnesses to the Tradition they had learnt from the living inspired source: the Apostles. It is those people who tell me
" Look, you can trust the NT, we know that !".
And now, just because I happen to have the Books selected and delivered by them and their successors, can I judge that those guys had misunderstood the Apostolic Tradition ?

Your criterion ( with some wise caveat) is clear: contradiction with ( my interpretation of ) Scripture = wrong doctrine. Why then all our problems and our present dialogue ? Isn’t that because there are so many interpretations of Scripture and therefore many belief systems, although Jesus established one ?

In short, you take the premise that scripture and Roman Catholic tradition cannot be in conflict, and look for explanations that fit that. I do not take that premise as valid. Instead, I want proof that the two are not

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

We seem to be in agreement, with one exception – proving that your system is more likely (based on history, etc) than mine may not be good enough. There could be insufficient evidence to really support either. I realize that it makes you feel like you’re in a no-win situation, but it’s all I can give right now – I’ll have to see where the evidence ends up and then decide if that’s enough to convince me or not. But I really can’t do that until I see the evidence (without all of the usual “it must mean what I say it means” stuff that apologists throw in).

Please do keep in mind that while the Scriptures do not explicitly say that the Scriptures themselves will bear the totality of the revelation of God’s will toward man, the Scriptures do seem to speak very much on the transmission of the Truth from Jesus to the apostles and onward.

So, for example, first we would have to see exactly what we mean when we say God’s grace and the Church carrying on the Spirit of Truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit .

First of all, God’s grace is God’s life within you. It is God’s life within us, something which Christ himself offered for us on the cross, which saves us from both physical and spiritual death. And the Scriptures, as noted within the link I provided above, do speak abundantly of this life which Jesus offered on the cross to bring us into everlasting life.

Second of all, there is the Spirit of Truth.

We have to ask ourselves,* “How do we recognize the Spirit of Truth?” *

More precisely, we have to ask ourselves, *“What do the Sciptures say regarding how we are to recognize the Spirit of Truth?” *

We know that John 4:24 clearly states that God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

We also know that John 14:17 clearly states that he, the Spirit of truth, will be known by us-- for he will live with us and is in us.

In addition to this, we also know that John 16:13 clearly states that Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth. The Scriptures even proclaim that he will not speak on his own-- he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell us what is yet to come.

According to John 18:37, when Jesus was facing off against Pilate, Jesus clearly stated:

You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.

Later, according to, 1 John 4:6, we hear an echo of the Spirit from Jesus’s own apostles’ restating the same exact message:

We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

In Luke 10:16 we see this very same message being formulated:

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

 

[agangbern]

Can we determine if a church is in accordance with the Apostolic Church by scripture alone? I’d say no – at least, not completely. Scripture does not hold every detail of every belief that was in the church. What it does hold, however, are the essentials of faith. By comparing these, we can at least get a very good idea of where any modern denomination stands. I’m not saying we can say “X teaching is wrong because it’s not in scripture”, but I am saying we can say “X teaching is wrong if it claims to be vital to salvation but is not in scripture”. I’m also saying that such teachings are wrong if they’re in contradiction to scripture.

I think you and the Catholic are saying the same thing here. There is no issue here.

In short, you take the premise that scripture and Roman Catholic tradition cannot be in conflict, and look for explanations that fit that. I do not take that premise as valid. Instead, I want proof that the two are not in conflict that does not require me to simply accept as a tenet of faith that the RCC is right. Every issue I’ve explored here eventually seems to come down to that.

I think he who says that Roman Catholic tradition can be in conflict with Scripture is the one who has the burden to give proof to that assertion. If you find one Catholic tradition that is undoubtedly in conflict with scripture, please show it and start a new thread about it so we can see if indeed it is in conflict with scripture.

As for point C – Can we trust scripture if it came to us through a church which was slowly falling into error? I’d say yes. Let’s consider, for a moment, that the church is not simply a single organization. In fact, when the churches Paul wrote to were falling into various errors, Paul wrote to them as fellow believers, not as their superior, nor as one in authority over them. Instead, his concern was that a portion of the flock of Christ was drifting away from the shepherd. It wasn’t all of them in a given region, and God led Paul to try to correct the error.

Paul not their superior? Paul said, “I write these things not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my dearest children.” (1Cor 4:14) That is the concept of “superior” that we have regarding those who exercise authority in the Church. We are their children. What did he say about those superiors? He said, “Obey your superiors and be subject to them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for that would not be expedient for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

Now, if we overall look at scripture, we see that the majority of it was agreed on by the middle of the second century, with the exception of a few works (Hebrews, John’s letters, Jude).

Who were they that “agreed on”? And what authority did they have to agree on?

He has taken steps to protect his teachings, and continues to work in the hearts of believers, so that the gates of hell shall not prevail.

But which believers? Your own “collection of believers”?

Jesus prayer was for there to be no heretics, no schismatics, and so on. I still believe in Jesus, and yet I’m not completely in unity with you.

You “still believe in Jesus”. That is what you think. How did you know that you really believe in Jesus? Who confirmed your belief? You alone? How was your belief confirmed to be right?

So clearly, Jesus prayer was not answered. It’s fortunate he didn’t say that it would be, lest he become a liar.

“Jesus prayer was not answered”? That is a mere opinion, a conclusion based on your personal understanding. Opinion like that should be acknowledged here as only such, an opinion. Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you.”(Mathew 7:7) That is a guarantee which no mere opinion could destroy. Christ prayer was granted, and He is not a liar!

First, Christ collected us. We are his flock. He’s the shepherd.

Again, how sure are you that it was Christ who “collected” you? Did He personally appear to you? How?

As for fellowshipping – the gathering together of believers in common worship, praise, prayer, and such, doesn’t require an authority – it only has need of believers who wish to associate together in worship for their God.

Who will initiate that gathering, and by what authority shall he do it? By authority of the bible? Or maybe, it shall be simply an accidental gathering?

 

[inkaneer]

This discussion has gone on for 20 pages. Quite frankly I think PC Master is jerking your chains. The answer to all this is simple and in the scripture. Jesus established a church and said that hell would not prevail over it. [Mt 16] Jesus gave the church its marching orders in the "Great Commission [Mt 28] Jesus also said he would remain with His Church until the end of the age [Mt 28]. Jesus said his Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. [John 16]. That church is a visible structure as acts tells us. Therefore the Church that Jesus established is still present today. Now which one is it? That is an easy question. The answer is find the one that can trace its history back to the Apostles. That is the true church of Jesus. You can stop all the “reasoning” and the debate. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. PC Master has a decision to make if he truly is searching for truth. I suspect he isn’t and is merely searching for a good debate. Time to shake some dust off of your sandals folks and move on.

 

[agangbern]

This discussion has gone on for 20 pages. Quite frankly I think PC Master is jerking your chains. The answer to all this is simple and in the scripture. Jesus established a church and said that hell would not prevail over it. [Mt 16] Jesus gave the church its marching orders in the "Great Commission [Mt 28] Jesus also said he would remain with His Church until the end of the age [Mt 28]. Jesus said his Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit into truth. [John 16]. That church is a visible structure as acts tells us. Therefore the Church that Jesus established is still present today. Now which one is it? That is an easy question. The answer is find the one that can trace its history back to the Apostles. That is the true church of Jesus. You can stop all the “reasoning” and the debate. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. PC Master has a decision to make if he truly is searching for truth. I suspect he isn’t and is merely searching for a good debate. Time to shake some dust off of your sandals folks and move on.

It is better to give him his day than we just simply dismiss his line of thoughts. Let us see how his thoughts stand to truth by letting him answer our questions relative to his thoughts. We try to understand him as best we could patiently. Pages used is not much our concern, for anyway, if the posts should reach 1000 the moderators I guess will simply close the thread.

 

[AndyF]

So I guess this means you are appointing yourself as arbiter of what are “God’s doctrines?”

You and Joy must have some secret knowledge that Scripture is the “how-to-build-a-church-and-teach-God’s-doctrine-correctly” book.

Gee, I must have missed that memo.

Robert

Oh, and Atemi, I’d love to hear your theory about constitutional government and the question of judicial restraint.

Time out here.

I was scrolling down quite interested in everyone’s contribution and was wondering when someone couldn’t resist to switch Ad Hominem.

If you can’t keep objectively focused and base your arguments on the data presented, bow out.

AndyF

 

[PC_Master]

My apologies for not addressing the other posts in this thread, but I simply don’t have the time, nor the desire to deal with some which are rhetorical in nature.

You have to recognize the import of what you’re saying here. You have a system to which you hold. If it can be demonstrated that the system of the RCC is more likely, you cannot rationally reject it. Even if it is only slightly more probable. Only irrationally could you do so…Only if you admit that your system is unreasonable.

Indeed. But I’m really looking to gain insight into history so I can see for myself what happened then (as best I’m able) – multiple interpretations often help in such endeavors, however, which is why I want to continue this discussion. I have, as of yet, not received a precise, detailed explanation which justifies the Roman Catholic position, and that’s something I’d like to have.

I will not proceed without some standard of proof. I can’t think of one better than the RCC system being historically more likely than your system.

What would you propose? I’ve had so many times on forums where a standard of proof was manipulated to try to force a conclusion that I felt the facts did not support, so I’m hesitant to fall into such a trap again.

Agreed. Establishing one church means establishing one belief system, and not many. Fine.

Moreover, it’s better to consider that not everyone will be within this one belief system fully, or fully outside of it. It’s obvious from scripture that some will fall into heresy, but that doesn’t mean they’re without any knowledge of the truth. I’d argue that there’s not one alive, now or in history, who is completely attuned to God’s morality and belief “system”.

.

Two short points: 1) How can I know that I am following Jesus’ voice, how can I know what His voice is ? We need to explore this.

I’ll let you take the lead on that.

1. We are Jesus’ sheep. Agreed. A person was told by Jesus:
   “Feed my lambs. … Tend my sheep. …Feed my sheep”. …

I believe this to be analogous for guiding the flock into more full knowledge of Christ, especially as many of its members lacked (and still do lack) maturity in Christ. This echoes the teaching that God inspired Paul to do, as well as many others. It also fits in well with the great commission, where all of the apostles were sent into all the nations, spreading the knowledge of Christ. In none of these instances do we see text which shows a superiority on the part of Peter.

The passage you refer to can be seen, quite reasonably as saying this…

“Do you love me?”
“Yes, I love you.”
“Well, if you love me, then feed (nourish, provide spiritual food for) my flock.”

What makes you think that such a concept should apply only to one apostle? Did not the others love Christ as well? Why then, was it said to Peter? Perhaps because he was shaken by his denial of Christ, and needed to understand that Christ wasn’t holding that against him.

I don’t get here whether you simply don’t know if an eartly organization is implied, OR you know it is not.
In the latter case, how ?

To clarify – I see nothing that requires an earthly organization to explain – all of it can be easily and rationally explained without an organization led by a strict hierarchy.

On Matthew 18:17
The mentioned pericope tells us:

1. The church ( local church, assembly … as you prefer) can listen. The question of my knowledge of the composition ( and/or organization ) of this entity arises. Indeed, whom have I to tell ?
   " others that believe and are good …". Consider: how can I know exactly who believes what ? How can I know who is good ? IMHO, noone of us could ever gather such a group of people. Only God could. This speaks for the necessity of a visible organization.

God certainly doesn’t need to use an earthly organization to gather people. As for understanding who is righteous and upstanding in God’s sight – I’m not sure I can quantify that for you presently. What I can say is that I know many people who are striving after God, and who I can turn to if ever I’m in doubt on the morality of an issue – I needed no earthly authority to tell me this.

I also believe that those who truly follow Christ have a change of their inner being (there are various scriptures which support this – we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit), and that inner being is often readily apparent.

Continued…