The Doctrine of Christ

[Pophead]

In your opinion, what is the Doctrine of Christ ?

There is no doubt that throughout the History of the Church (here there needs to be a difference between the organisation called the Church and the invisible Body of Christ) there has always been the flesh teachings and the genuine teaching of the Holy Spirit as to which are the actual original doctrine of Christ.

The source of these doctrines of Christ have been various and varied to the point that throughout the History of the Church certain induviduals have tried to lead the Body of Christ by instituting various doctrines. It is true that a consensus has been formed and an attempt to discover what was authentic, but the variations from one Church denomination to the next has been so varied (each one claiming ascendency, each one claiming she has recieved the final light) that in the end there is now nothing but confusion to as what is and was and will always be the official doctrine of Christ.

Finally, it is most important to remember that the Doctrine of Christ would be certainly the doctrine: Of Christ, and therefore one might not in effect truly know this Doctrine, unless one were in possession of Christ within. Whether or not it is worth even declaring what this may be in written terms is a point I have often wondered at. We do remember that Jesus Christ explained what was in Him: the Father; most carefully and succinctly while He walked this sod as a man, and now declares this from the hearts of induvidual believers, both by lifestyle and dialogue, and therefore to reduce such to a body of teaching, might in and of itself be far to extensive to be recorded anywhere in a reasonably sized volume of books. I am thinking of Augustine’s complete works, John Calvin’s Institutes, the works of the early Fathers, the writings of the disciples (some apostles of Jesus Christ our Lord) and the writings of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms, which Christ who is the Lord of the doctrine declared testify of Him.

I might be actually chasing my tail with this one, but it has always been a wonder to me seeing as the Master never wrote a single word, whether infact the doctrine is not really written but actually something far more sublime. Enlighten me if you will ?

 

[puzzleannie]

In your opinion, what is the Doctrine of Christ ?

of what possible significance is my opinion of doctrine? the only question of any relevance is what is the actual doctrine, revealed by the Holy Spirit, preserved and taught by the Catholic Church through His guidance free from error.

 

[geezerbob]

My take on it is that we are to love God and love our neighbor. Everything else, both in the Old and New Testaments and in the Church, is related in some way to helping us obey these two commandments.

 

[Pophead]

Like the rich young ruler; I used to think this way as well, but that was until I met Jesus Christ and he convinced me of my need to repent (first) and believer (second), after which I was baptised in the Spirit and then began an intimate deep to deep relationship which overspilled into love for Him and for others (my neighbours)…a few years later he baptised me in water, and in the time being I had my fare share of an introduction to suffering for righteousness sake, now that I was one with Jesus Christ. (fire baptism (three) I got to see first hand how we can lay hands on people to be healed and delivered and to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit (four). This wonderful counsellor, the Mighty God, instead of being on the outside, the Spirit of Christ clearly made sure that I received of Him teaching on the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (five and six) and as the Lord continues to work in me, for His love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, I began as Paul explained to experience the unsearchable riches in Christ and was able to love Him and my neighbour not out of my own ability but because of the wonderful enablement of the Holy Spirit. This I believe is how He works on the inside, instead of the outside by commandments that we have to worry if we are obeying or not, but rather as we read in Galatians 5 v 22 the fruit of the Holy Spirit is the result of being grafted in by His grace into the vine, and the sap of His Spirit, His Life goes nicely into that God shaped hollow and we are led, and walk an abide in Him for He now dwells in us, the wonderful miracle of newbirth where He writes His laws on our minds and our hearts and causes us to walk in His ways. This I believe is some of what it means to live in the Spirit of Jesus Christ and to have his doctrine. It is then that we love as He loved, and not immediately but a wonderful deep work that gets sweeter every day. Such a wonder is this love. (seven…on to full stature in Christ… )

 

[geezerbob]

Pophead, you can’t limit how God works. What’s right for you may not be the way He chooses to work with someone else. For some of us sinners, to borrow a quote from AA, it’s easier to act our way into a new way of thinking than to think our way into a new way of acting. Whichever route we have to take, as long as we get there, is okay, and one route is not necessarily better than the other. Easier, maybe, but not better.

 

[elvisman]

In your opinion, what is the Doctrine of Christ ?

There is no doubt that throughout the History of the Church (here there needs to be a difference between the organisation called the Church and the invisible Body of Christ) there has always been the flesh teachings and the genuine teaching of the Holy Spirit as to which are the actual original doctrine of Christ.

The “invisible” Body of Christ? Where do you get the idea that the Church is the “invisible” Body of Christ?
(Matt. 5:14-16)

 

[Todd_Easton]

There is no doubt that throughout the History of the Church (here there needs to be a difference between the organisation called the Church and the invisible Body of Christ) there has always been the flesh teachings and the genuine teaching of the Holy Spirit as to which are the actual original doctrine of Christ.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, this distinction between “the genuine teaching of the Holy Spirit” and “the flesh teachings” is sometimes referred to in Catholic circles as the distinction between Tradition, with a capital “T”, and traditions, with a small “t”.

The source of these doctrines of Christ have been various and varied to the point that throughout the History of the Church certain induviduals have tried to lead the Body of Christ by instituting various doctrines. It is true that a consensus has been formed and an attempt to discover what was authentic, but the variations from one Church denomination to the next has been so varied (each one claiming ascendency, each one claiming she has recieved the final light) that in the end there is now nothing but confusion to as what is and was and will always be the official doctrine of Christ.

Throughout the history of the Church, when there has been a serious disagreement over the true doctrine of Christ, the ordained leaders of the Church, the bishops of the Catholic Church, have met together and, guided by the Holy Spirit, have decided the issue, as they did in Acts 15. After all, “…his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, … so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” (Ephesians 4:11, 14)

Finally, it is most important to remember that the Doctrine of Christ would be certainly the doctrine: Of Christ, and therefore one might not in effect truly know this Doctrine, unless one were in possession of Christ within. Whether or not it is worth even declaring what this may be in written terms is a point I have often wondered at. We do remember that Jesus Christ explained what was in Him: the Father; most carefully and succinctly while He walked this sod as a man, and now declares this from the hearts of induvidual believers, both by lifestyle and dialogue, and therefore to reduce such to a body of teaching, might in and of itself be far to extensive to be recorded anywhere in a reasonably sized volume of books. I am thinking of Augustine’s complete works, John Calvin’s Institutes, the works of the early Fathers, the writings of the disciples (some apostles of Jesus Christ our Lord) and the writings of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms, which Christ who is the Lord of the doctrine declared testify of Him.

I might be actually chasing my tail with this one, but it has always been a wonder to me seeing as the Master never wrote a single word, whether infact the doctrine is not really written but actually something far more sublime. Enlighten me if you will ?

If you are looking for an authoritative compendium of the doctrine of Christ, I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by the late Pope John Paul II.

 

[Pophead]

The “invisible” Body of Christ? Where do you get the idea that the Church is the “invisible” Body of Christ?
(Matt. 5:14-16)

Mr Bean put it so succinctly when he said, ‘The mysterious ways of Cod’, and certainly there are many mysterious things between heaven and earth that we can only attempt to express in whispers to one another. I hope in time you will figure such a thing out.

I have very little more to offer in the way of dialogue as my work has suddenly come in. I hope that you will discover the answers to such things in the writings of the Catholic Mystics, for indeed there are many who understood such terms. Happy hunting.

 

[Pophead]

If you are looking for an authoritative compendium of the doctrine of Christ, I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by the late Pope John Paul II.

How sweet of you to offer Sir, but I think I have satisfied myself adequately upon the few crumbs I have received at the hand of God. I don’t have much time in my busy schedule to wade through yet another attempt at what is already well enough captured by others in the Scriptures. I am enjoying a full life in what Paul referred to ‘ye are complete in Him’ Abiding in the vine is a fullness so satisfying that it needs no other but Christ within to satisfy one. This deep well which was filled with loneliness is filled with songs He gives me and JOY he has suprised me with as He did the late C.S. Lewis. Blessings to you as you seek a full like in Christ, for such are the unsearchable riches of God in Christ.

 

[elvisman]

Mr Bean put it so succinctly when he said, ‘The mysterious ways of Cod’, and certainly there are many mysterious things between heaven and earth that we can only attempt to express in whispers to one another. I hope in time you will figure such a thing out.

I have very little more to offer in the way of dialogue as my work has suddenly come in. I hope that you will discover the answers to such things in the writings of the Catholic Mystics, for indeed there are many who understood such terms. Happy hunting.

How does this answer the question I posed?
Where do you get the idea that the Church is the “invisible” Body of Christ?
Scripture says quite clearly that the Church is VISIBLE.
(Matt. 5:14-16)

 

[Pophead]

Where do you get the idea that the Church is the “invisible” Body of Christ?

Try this. Elvisman, I generally charge for any googling I have to do. I personally believe that the Church is visible and invisible…I hope this quote and the reference to the full article help you to better understand what I said in my opening post. For now I am really a fly on the wall. It seems my discussion here is over, for I do have considerable work to do. Hey, do your own googling or use the Wikipedia, it is generally quite good.

Reformed theologians emphasize that this distinction does not mean that God has two separate churches. Indeed, they assert that Jehovah has founded one church, that Jesus has only one bride, people, church, or body. Our Lord does not have two churches but only one. The terms “invisible” and “visible” are used to describe two distinct aspects of the one church; or, to put it another way, the church is considered from two different perspectives. It is not that there are two separate air tight categories with one group on heaven and another on earth. On the contrary, there is a great overlap between both categories. All genuine believers are members of the invisible church whether they are living in heaven or on earth, whether they are alive or dead (i.e., have died physically). Not all professing Christians, however, who are members of the visible church, are members of the invisible church. Some people who make a profession of faith and are baptized are hypocrites. Such people do not truly believe in Christ (thus are never truly united to Him by faith) and are not part of the invisible church. This reality will receive further elucidation below.

The Visible vs The Invisible Church by John Hendryx (site owner)

 

[elvisman]

Try this. Elvisman, I generally charge for any googling I have to do. I personally believe that the Church is visible and invisible…I hope this quote and the reference to the full article help you to better understand what I said in my opening post. For now I am really a fly on the wall. It seems my discussion here is over, for I do have considerable work to do. Hey, do your own googling or use the Wikipedia, it is generally quite good.




The Visible vs The Invisible Church by John Hendryx (site owner)

Ahhhhh - so THAT’s where you’re coming from.
I was wondering where that view is supported in scripture.
The Protestant notion that there is a visible and invisible Church is a way of getting around the Scripturally-based Catholic belief in Church authority.

PS - Wikipedia is a source that can be edited by anyone, so I generally don’t rely on it much.

 

[Pophead]

Scripturally-based Catholic belief in Church authority

Elvisman,

I understand the Catholic belief in the autonomy of the Church.
I understand the Protestant belief in the autonomy of the Scriptures.
I understand the world’s belief in the autonomy of man.

There are many in the Catholic Church who do not submit to the autonomy of the Church, or the autonomy of Scripture, or the autonomy of man, but prefer to submit to the autonomy of the Spirit of Christ.

I shall repeat this; in a simpler way.

I appreciate that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. I personally submit to the authority of the Spirit of Christ.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I appreciate that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.

We submit to the authority of the Church because it is the pillar and bulwark of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)

I personally submit to the authority of the Spirit of Christ.

I don’t know what spirit you are submitting to but, if you don’t obey the leaders of the Catholic Church, whom the Spirit of Christ has made overseers of His flock, and submit to them, then you are not submitting to the Spirit of Christ but to your own spirit or worse. (Hebrew 13:17; Acts 20:28) It was his gift that some should be … pastors and teachers …that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Individual Christians can be misled. Consider St. James, the holy brother of the Lord, one of the first witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, a pillar of the Church, and human author of the inspired New Testament epistle that bears his name. No doubt he thought he too was submitting to the Spirit of Christ when he insisted that Gentiles converts should be circumcised but he and many other like-minded Christians were wrong!

Acts 15 tells us how the Spirit of Christ ordinarily preserves genuine doctrine in the Church through the conciliar decisions of its ordained leaders. And I don’t mean self-appointed leaders but legitimate leaders who were ordained by the laying on of hands by those who were ordained before them in the same manner in succession back to the Apostles. (Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:4)

In extraordinary circumstances, the Spirit of Christ also preserves genuine doctrine in the Church through the decisions of Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome (the pope), whose faith in those circumstances may not fail. (Luke 22:32)

 

[jemfinch]

The Protestant notion that there is a visible and invisible Church is a way of getting around the Scripturally-based Catholic belief in Church authority.

(All the color you added didn’t really make your point any stronger, it just served to make it harder to quote.)

The Protestant notion, generally, is either that there is only the invisible Church, or that there are many visible Churches, each as valid as the other. The view that there is an invisible Church (those who are joined to the Church through baptism) and one visible institution, the Church, which is more valid than any other visible institution that calls itself a “church” is a perfectly Catholic one.

Elvisman,

I understand the Catholic belief in the autonomy of the Church.
I understand the Protestant belief in the autonomy of the Scriptures.
I understand the world’s belief in the autonomy of man.

I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the word “autonomy” (your use of it as applicable to Scripture is a clear indication of that fact), so I have to doubt your understand of the Catholic stance on this issue.

I appreciate that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. I personally submit to the authority of the Spirit of Christ.

Then you are not following the Bible, for the Bible says, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith…Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” The Bible does not say that only “the Spirit of Christ” was given to us to teach us doctrine any more than it says that only Scripture was given to us: on the contrary, it says that, “he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

To “submit to the Spirit of Christ” without submitting to the Body of Christ and the rightful leaders God has placed over us is to be in rebellion against what God Himself has established.

I think you should re-examine your position, Pophead.

Jeremy

 

[elvisman]

Elvisman,

I understand the Catholic belief in the autonomy of the Church.
I understand the Protestant belief in the autonomy of the Scriptures.
I understand the world’s belief in the autonomy of man.

There are many in the Catholic Church who do not submit to the autonomy of the Church, or the autonomy of Scripture, or the autonomy of man, but prefer to submit to the autonomy of the Spirit of Christ.

I shall repeat this; in a simpler way.

I appreciate that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. I personally submit to the authority of the Spirit of Christ.

Again -
The problem with your brand of Protestantism is that you believe Jesus is separate from his Church.
Jesus and his Church are ONE. Submission to his Church is submission to Jesus Christ.

---

Luke 10:16:
**“Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” **

 

[elvisman]

(All the color you added didn’t really make your point any stronger, it just served to make it harder to quote.)
Jeremy

The colors are to emphasize my points and for those who need to think about what I’m saying.
**Judging by the way it irritated you, I’d say it was effective. . . **

 

[Contarini]

Elvisman,

I understand the Catholic belief in the autonomy of the Church.

That’s ludicrous. There is no such belief.

I understand the Protestant belief in the autonomy of the Scriptures.

Again, there is no such belief. You are indulging in malicious (or else ignorant) falsehoods about your fellow Christians. The Spirit of Christ does not lead people to do that!

Edwin