starting a new church...

[PJM]

=joe370;6294537]So, if I had studied Greek and Hebrew and could translate the Holy Bible from it’s original language, then you would consider my 21st century church the church of Matthew 16?

If I was teaching salvation as in the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then I could consider my 21st century church the church founded by Jesus Christ?

***REALLY GOOD QUESTION:thumbsup:

But I think there is a view that supercedes yours, mine and everyone elses. God Himself has already decided the issue. Mt. 16:15-19 an Eph. 2: 9-23 sum it up./*I] Ed of discusion. The answer is NO

If your interested in teaching the Gospels, FULLY alligned it thought and theology with the Catholic Church, you’d be sharing the truth. If your considering this, GOOD FOR YOU! Why not join the ONLY church founded by Christ so you can receive tha Sacramental graces ONLY Catholics can and DO receive?

Love and prayers, Pat**

 

[Erich]

Prodigal Son1;6294570:

How does one go about being ordained, as per scriptures?

That would be by the laying on of hands by a bishop who had previously been ordained.

That would be the ordinary way of transmitting apostolic authority and the Gospel message, yes… but you can also claim to have been appointed directly by God, as Moses was.

But, as this article points out, you had better be sure of your claim. Scripture does not speak well of those who illegitimately take this position upon themselves.

In fact, Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity:

Moses - "Then Moses answered, “But behold, they will not believe me or listen to my voice, for they will say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’” The LORD said to him, “What is that in your hand?” He said, “A rod.” And he said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. But the LORD said to Moses, “Put out your hand, and take it by the tail” – so he put out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand – “that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.” Again, the LORD said to him, “Put your hand into your bosom.” And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. Then God said, “Put your hand back into your bosom.” So he put his hand back into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, it was restored like the rest of his flesh. “If they will not believe you,” God said, “or heed the first sign, they may believe the latter sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or heed your voice, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it upon the dry ground; and the water which you shall take from the Nile will become blood upon the dry ground.” (Ex.4:1-9)
…
The Apostles - “…how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his own will.” (Heb. 2:3-4)
…
“And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest out thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4:29-30)
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.” (Acts 6:8)

In addition to the Apostles in general, there is the specific case of St. Paul, whose calling truly was extraordinary, in a way that the other apostles’ calling was not. They were called by Jesus while he was still a man on the earth; St. Paul was called through a vision and a heavenly voice. Thus, we see in Scripture:
“And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (Acts 19:11-12)

His calling was extraordinary, and so, in keeping with this, he performed “extraordinary miracles.” Finally, we come to our last example: Our Lord Himself. His was, of course, an extraordinary calling, He being sent on His mission to earth by God the Father directly. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. (John 14:10-12)

“If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:31-36)

This last case should truly give pause to any professed follower of Christ who claims to have been called as a Shepherd of God’s flock. Where are the miracles that must attend your ministry as verification of your extraordinary calling? If even Jesus submitted to this proof-test, how can any mere man exempt himself from this same test, unless he wishes to say he is greater than even Jesus?

 

[TimeToGrow]

all members of the Church be well versed in Scripture and able to interprete Scripture to help fend off the evil and false.

Hello schaick,

  If that is the case how do you explain that over 95 percent of the population wasn't formally educated and even less had access to things like scripture. Most converts to the Christian faith didn't know how to read. 

Scripture wasn't something read by all. It was read by those who where ALLOWED to be educated. Which is the way it was. It was a few that knew how to read, and even then you had different languages of the converts of which most scripture would have been the old testament of what language? What language did the apostles write in and what about those whose language was different.

Now consider that the protestant Church wouldn't even have scripture if the Catholic church hadn't faithful preserved them and connonized them.

Now consider that in scripture and according to Christ no greater faith was found in Israel than that of a ROMAN Centurin who’s god was pagan. Who wans’t even a bible thumper.

Peace and Godbless,

 

[SteveVH]

You bet
Annie

Annie, thanks for having a sense of humor.

 

[agent_grey]

scripture condemns the concept itself.

The best argument I have heard yet is that of the kings of Isreal picking up the scriptures and obeying them and God starts to talk to them… Yep in the Old covenant they always could kill another lamb!

 

[thirdn6]

I am not a non-Catholic, Joe, but I can help you build your church literally. I am a construction worker, you know. Knows every aspect of building construction… start to finish.npatrol::hammering:

Know this, I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[gtrenewed]

2 Timothy 3:15-17 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is confusing about the above?

If a persons heart is for God and for truth - he will find it in Scripture, God assures us of this. Can someone twist Scripture? Yes, but only those who have ears for false doctrine will follow. If Love of God, Love of neighbor, and walking in the truth of Scripture is followed a group will be saved. All Christian groups have unity in the core dogmas/doctrines. Pretender groups differ mostly in how they treat the divinity of Jesus as one person of the Trinity (Scripture uses the term God head) and his saving work here on earth.

Wolves and false apostles came in right at the beginning spreading heresy for their own private gain. In the beginning believers were called Christians, each group separate in authority but unified in Jesus. It took hundreds of years for that to change.

So here we are today, many Christian groups but really united in Jesus as the head of the body of Christ.

 

[gtrenewed]

Just to continue my thought, I have travelled around the country and have met many pastors of storefront churches. They minister to a certain segment of the population that other churches have forgotten or rejected. People get hurt in churches, Catholic and Protestant, by other people and they leave. The mercy of God ministers to these people through these men and women.

In a perfect world, we Christians would be perfect but we are not. If people can find fellowship and love, hear the Word of God and be restored in a community, isn’t that a good thing?

I grew up in the pre Vat II church where there was no tolerance for Protestants. It was big time sin to even step foot in their churches. It just so happened that my extended family was half Protestant and half Catholic. Very confusing as a child, my Protestant relatives would talk about Jesus and Scripture and my Catholic relatives talked of everything else preferring to keep their religion to themselves, a very common notion in pre Vat II Catholicism. It all seemed weird to me, especially the presidential campaign of 1960 where a Catholic was running for president. Some lively discussions were had at family get togethers. Vat II changed that and now we are tolerant or at least should be.

Instead of arguing who is the boss of the Christian world, if we took a little time to build ourselves up in the love of God and of our neighbor according to the Scriptures, we would see our common Christian mission and accomplish it in a better way. Christian Missionaries in third world countries work together out of a love for Jesus and for their fellow man.

In the final analysis, if someone feels called to start a community of believers, a church, and is a sincere believer then Scripture tells us the Holy Spirit will lead and guide him. If someone feels that he needs the approval of others, then he should seek that path. If he feels that the Catholic church is the best place to minister then he should follow that path.

 

[joe370]

Of course you can start a church - if that is what you feel truly called by God to do. As far as whether or not your church would be considered to be founded by Christ, then I guess that depends on who you ask

Annie

**Annie, I am asking you, or anyone else who responds. So, Jesus, who said: “I will build my church…” would have no problem with me saying: Jesus, instead of belonging to your church, (as long as I have access to His church) - “I will build my church…?” **

 

[TimeToGrow]

2 Timothy 3:15-17 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is confusing about the above?

Hello gtrenewed

It can be confusing at times. I will try to post some things that might help.

What’s confusing at times is many make the mistake of proof-texting without context… First rule of interpetation is “Communication” What’s being communicated and to whom it is directed.

Jews were the only ones that had scripture not gentiles. It was Israels sacred writings. And Jews didn’t know all the bible, but like many good traditions? Many were taught certain things from it “from Child hood” That they could see something of the Jesus their Messiah. There was no new testament for them to study, but were learning from the old testament. When Christ took the scripture and read? The question arose who taught this man how to read is this not the carpenters son.

  I understand that many catholics feel that Vatican II seemed like a cop out of Rome. But actually it is an outreach to those of other faiths. As the church historically protected its' traditions. And seriously most protestant faith as others could care less about Rome in there own doctrine. Most of them require re-baptism of Catholics and in there theology RCC is heavily condemed. Not because some today say things different but because THEIR tradition is heavily indoctrinated with negative interpretations of RCC faith. Or heretical teachings. I'm married to a protestant. The RCC is the Greatest faith in all Christendome. It didn't get that way from laying down and rolling over. Does this Give catholics the right to condemn or judge those of other Christian faiths? No it doesn't and there is scripture that flat spells it out. But the context is important.. 

 The term Christian was invented by the Apostolic Church, not as something about itself but others who saw the miracles of Christ and became believers who weren't part of the original 12 and given the great commision to go forth preach and baptise. This commision was Private between the Lord and his apostles. The CHURCH in the scriptures testifies of these kind of events and it is the Church calling those peoples Christians as later Rome or gentile pagans also used the term to describe anybody worshiping this Christman named Jesus.

What many call the New testament is in fact letters written to Churches that were the results of the great commision given to the Apostles. ((((Not those who saw miracles and believes something special about that Jew))). Their (apostles) labors of preaching and baptizing. Early Christians weren’t going around saying the Apostles were false prophets the whore of babylon and many other things that divide today. Although some disputes arose that words between church members but other Christians.

In saying these things I don’t want Protestant or any other non Roman Catholics to think I’m bashing them, I’m not. But 99 % of what was done wasn’t even written about and was mostly orally communicated. Even if you could write? Paper wasn’t cheap but rare. And persecution was very real. Being caught with certain written documents was instant guilt.

You can’t just pick up the bible and read it and think you are inspired or right. Most all letter or books of the NT were written to instruct from false presupposition of those who were in the CHURCH. Who were the results of the APOSTLES efforts. They are explaining the OLD Testament and teaching Jew’s and maybe Jewish Proselytes.

Does all this mean many are condemned or evil. No it doesn’t. God searches the Heart not our words. But our words can sometimes lead to a better understanding of what’s in the heart. Protestant should have more respect for Catholics they think are biblically illiterate and understand that oral tradition was the primary tool for education not reading and writing which was for the learned to pass down. And catholics likewise should understand most Protestants don’t understand squat about what the church actually believes and teaches. Apart from those who participate in certain apologetics.

Peace and Godbless

 

[Erich]

2 Timothy 3:15-17 “and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

What is confusing about the above?

If a persons heart is for God and for truth - he will find it in Scripture, God assures us of this. Can someone twist Scripture? Yes, but only those who have ears for false doctrine will follow. If Love of God, Love of neighbor, and walking in the truth of Scripture is followed a group will be saved.

Note the two words in bold face. What sacred writings would Timothy have known from childhood? Only what we refer to as the Old Testament. None of the New Testament had yet been written (much less canonized).

And who is “the man of God”? (Hint: it’s not just anyone. See By What Authority? starting about halfway down.)

All Christian groups have unity in the core dogmas/doctrines. Pretender groups differ mostly in how they treat the divinity of Jesus as one person of the Trinity (Scripture uses the term God head) and his saving work here on earth.

And what are the core dogmas/doctrines, exactly? As Disunity on Essentials points out,

…
One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on.
…

 

[Bluegoat]

2 questions for any non-Catholics: hypothetically speaking, would it be OK for me to start a church, using sola scriptura (scripture alone) - as my final authority, to teach?

Would my hypothetical church be considered the church founded by Jesus Christ?

Why would you ask such a question - so you can draw in unsuspecting people who think it is meant honestly and then attack them, or so other posters can? Is it some passive-aggressive debate technique?

As far as whether your hypothetical Church is the one founded by Jesus - If you mean the Church in its fullness, I guess the question would be, does it exist in or as part of the body of Christ? If it is, then it is one with any other group that is part of the body of Christ, even if they are not visibly joined on Earth at the present time. If you mean on Earth at the present time, I think you would find the answer varies considerably by what sort on non-Christian you are talking to. My answer would be that there really is no church on Earth that is perfectly the one Christ founded, all are imperfect attempts to be that Church.

 

[JonNC]

2 questions for any non-Catholics: hypothetically speaking, would it be OK for me to start a church, using sola scriptura (scripture alone) - as my final authority, to teach?

Would my hypothetical church be considered the church founded by Jesus Christ?

Hi Joe,
Hypothetically speaking, would it be OK for me to start a church, using Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition as my final authority, to teach?

Since Christ founded the Church, that is the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, then your new denomination or faith communion would be a part of the Church, if in fact the Gospel is taught and the sacraments administered.

Bet you’ve heard this before somewhere.
Jon

 

[Bill_Pick]

2 questions for any non-Catholics: hypothetically speaking, would it be OK for me to start a church, using sola scriptura (scripture alone) - as my final authority, to teach?

Would my hypothetical church be considered the church founded by Jesus Christ?

Jesus start just one Church and that is the Cathloic Church,and SS is a false teaching

 

[thirdn6]

Of course, Joe knows that…
Can’t you see he’s just ‘playin’’ with these n-C’s…

Peace but Truth is more important.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

Hypothetically speaking, would it be OK for me to start a church, using Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition as my final authority, to teach?

LOL…

 

[gtrenewed]

Note the two words in bold face. What sacred writings would Timothy have known from childhood? Only what we refer to as the Old Testament. None of the New Testament had yet been written (much less canonized).

And who is “the man of God”? (Hint: it’s not just anyone. See By What Authority? starting about halfway down.)

And what are the core dogmas/doctrines, exactly? As Disunity on Essentials points out,

Well, Erich, you missed the point. The point of the verses is that it was Scripture, OT or NT, that leads to salvation and to what is necessary for salvation and growth in that salvation.

The man of God is one called to salvation and to a place in the body of Christ by the authority of Jesus. Paul had to continually defend his apostleship because Jesus called him outside of the twelve. Yet his wisdom from God is the basis of most of the canonized Scripture.

Core doctrine is the teaching of who Jesus Christ was and is. It is that simple. There are many differences but no difference on Jesus Christ. Any Christian group holds to salvation in Jesus Christ by his redeeming work, by His passion, by His divinity, by His humanity, and by His resurrection. He was sent by the Father and together they sent the Holy Spirit who testifies to Jesus.

From there many differences arise but remember, Christians in the first century, Jews and Gentiles, looked very different but all held to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ as necessary to be called Christian.

 

[SteveVH]

My answer would be that there really is no church on Earth that is perfectly the one Christ founded, all are imperfect attempts to be that Church.

It occurs to me that Christ did found a Church (“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”), therefore it is not something to be attempted by man (whose attempts will always be imperfect), but something already accomplished by God. Its holiness and goodness come from the Head, Jesus Christ, and sanctify the Body which is made up of sinners.

 

[schaick]

Hello schaick,

  If that is the case how do you explain that over 95 percent of the population wasn't formally educated and even less had access to things like scripture. Most converts to the Christian faith didn't know how to read. 

Scripture wasn't something read by all. It was read by those who where ALLOWED to be educated. Which is the way it was. It was a few that knew how to read, and even then you had different languages of the converts of which most scripture would have been the old testament of what language? What language did the apostles write in and what about those whose language was different.

Now consider that the protestant Church wouldn't even have scripture if the Catholic church hadn't faithful preserved them and connonized them. 

 Now consider that in scripture and according to Christ no greater faith was found in Israel than that of a ROMAN Centurin who's god was pagan. Who wans't even a bible thumper.

Peace and Godbless,

I thought we were talking about a new Church, not a new religion.

The Gospel was known as Scripture before the Church was organized into the organization it is today. We have Paul referencing Scripture.

Yes, absolutely the Catholic Church did hold onto and safe guard scripture.

Did you know the single most important event that caused literacy to jump? The Holy Bible written in the persons native tongue.

It occurs to me that Christ did found a Church (“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”), therefore it is not something to be attempted by man (whose attempts will always be imperfect), but something already accomplished by God. Its holiness and goodness come from the Head, Jesus Christ, and sanctify the Body which is made up of sinners.

Again, I thought we were talking about a new Church, not a new religion.

 

[Erich]

Well, Erich, you missed the point. The point of the verses is that it was Scripture, OT or NT, that leads to salvation and to what is necessary for salvation and growth in that salvation.

Guess you didn’t read the linked article. Paul’s words were written to St. Timothy specifically, not to the congregation in general.

The man of God is one called to salvation and to a place in the body of Christ by the authority of Jesus.

Moses - “This is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death.” (Deut. 33:1)

“Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal; and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, ‘You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.’” (Josh. 14:6)

The Angel of the Lord - “Then the woman came and told her husband, ‘A man of God came to me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; I did not ask him whence he was, and he did not tell me his name…’ Then Manoah entreated the LORD, and said, ‘O, LORD, I pray thee, let the man of God whom thou didst send come again to us, and teach us what we are to do with the boy that will be born.’” (Jud. 13:6, 8)

Samuel - “The servant answered Saul again, ‘Here, I have with me the fourth part of a shekel of silver, and I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way.’” (1 Sam. 9:8)

Elijah - “And she said to Elijah, ‘What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of my son!’” (1 Kings 17:18)

Elisha - “And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out… When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed.” (2 Kings 4:21, 32)

David - “According to the ordinance of David his father, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their offices of praise and ministry before the priests as the duty of each day required, and the gatekeepers in their divisions for the several gates; for so David the man of God had commanded.” (2 Chr. 8:14)

St. Timothy - “But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.” (1 Tim. 6:11)

Contrary to the opinion that the “man of God” can be any Christian without distinction, Scripture itself will not allow such an interpretation, insisting that the “man of God” is a figure of authority, either commissioned by God directly through Divine Intervention (such as Moses or the Angel), or appointed by another holder of authority (such as Samuel, David, Elisha, and St. Timothy).

In other words, “man of God” is a title of authority that can in no way be taken upon oneself, but rather, it is bestowed upon a man by a higher authority. A man must be called by God to hold this title of “man of God.”

Paul had to continually defend his apostleship because Jesus called him outside of the twelve. Yet his wisdom from God is the basis of most of the canonized Scripture.

Paul’s calling was extraordinary, and so, in keeping with this, he performed “extraordinary miracles.” (Acts 19:11-12)

Core doctrine is the teaching of who Jesus Christ was and is. It is that simple. There are many differences but no difference on Jesus Christ. Any Christian group holds to salvation in Jesus Christ by his redeeming work, by His passion, by His divinity, by His humanity, and by His resurrection. He was sent by the Father and together they sent the Holy Spirit who testifies to Jesus.

From there many differences arise but remember, Christians in the first century, Jews and Gentiles, looked very different but all held to salvation by faith in Jesus Christ as necessary to be called Christian.

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” (John 3:3).

After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), “Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22).

Then we have the witness of the early Church that John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration. This was universally recognized by the early Christians. The Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching this.

Clearly, baptism is a core doctrine. And yet, there are those who say baptism is just a symbol, that the “water” is the preached word of God. Which is it? And who’s the final authority?