Hey DaveY…
I agree with this. My point was that anyone can argue that, because someone disagrees they are not a part of the true church.
Dave, are you suggesting that any person who starts a church can argue that God maintains doctrinal truth in the church started by said person, in spite of the weeds mixed in with the wheat, in said church? If so, I won’t bother you anymore. Scripturally and logically speaking, only the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost, circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, cam rightfully make that claim, for it is Jesus’ church
(Jesus said: I will build my church…) - that is being guided into all truth until the end of time, as opposed to any one church founded by a mere man, such as myself, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin or Joseph Smith etc - at a later date than Pentecost. The problem seems to be, I think: you do not believe the CC is the church founded by Jesus, on Pentecost - correct? Well, if you are right, (and we know that Jesus was not the founder of any of the protestant churches) - then I guess the one assembly founded by Jesus did not survive the test of time, leaving the world with all man-made churches - correct? We can’t rule out the CC without ruling out every PC, for all PC’s stem from the CC. You seem like a logical person; does that seem logical to you?
I believe that God inspired His disciples and apostles to record His doctrinal truth in Scripture. That is the standard by which we measure everything, including tradition from that point on, in my view.
Truth is found in sacred scripture, no doubt about that, and every Christian belonging to the CC agrees with you, however, I believe scripture calls Jesus’ church the pillar and foundation of truth. I often wondered why that was so long ago, that was until I read John 16:13, John 14:16, Matthew 16, Acts 1 and Matthew 28:20. The standard by which all sola scriptural proponents measure everything has been sacred scripture, since the reformation; what kind of fruits has that standard cultivated? If someone does not agree with the teachings of their church, they can just start their own church, since the bible, not their church, is the standard by which all is measured, and teach, basing their teachings on their judgment of sacred scripture. Does not sound to scriptural to me. Sounds like an added doctrine to me.
The problem is that I hear a lot of equivocation when it comes to the word church. Church can mean group of believers in Jesus, those confessing His name in the early days, then a couple of hundred years later it is ONLY those who accept this pope or that pope (eastern or western), a few hundred after that it is ONLY those who accept justification by penance and baptism…then papal infallibility…and so forth.
A church is the body of believers united and one, as per the Greek Lexicon; seems pretty straightforward. Equivocation is unavoidable in the protestant sphere, for no one man or church has the authority that the CC had in the 4th century, which was when the bible was codified.
I used to think like you until I immersed myself in church history, not that I am suggesting that I am right and you are wrong; heck, I could be wrong but this is the path I have chosen. Penance and baptism have been around since the 1st century. Infallibility does not mean that the bishop of Rome (successor of Peter) - is infallible, just as Peter was not infallible. I didn’t believe the CC taught that, even as a non-Catholic. Either the CC teaches inerrantly or
errantly, doctrinally speaking - period. I know of no protestant church leadership that claims to teach
errantly , aka, infallibly. The CC added nothing, just as they did not add the Trinitarian doctrine, which was not embraced by the apostles, as it was defined by the CC in the 4th century. The CC, when faced with heretical movements, simply steps up and clarifies; that’s all, and thank God, and they do this inerrantly, because Jesus is forever guiding His church into all truth, in spite of every fallible person in His church! After my exhaustive look into the Early church fathers (leaders closest to the apostolic age) - I realized that doctrines such as confession and baptism and the true presence in the Eucharist and penance and Mary’s sinlessness were all believed, and clarified, over time, just as the God-Head was clarified. My only obstacle was the assumption of Mary, which, after much prayer, it occurred to me that Mary’s assumption was the logical result of her sinlessness.
No one was anathematized for these things in the early church. They were judged by their fruit.
Plenty of people were anathematized in the early church!!!
If a church is judged solely on their fruit, then doctrinal truth really doesn’t matter, and anathematizing someone doesn’t either. If that is how you feel, Godspeed friend…
Also, since Paul did a majority of the Gentile church-planting after Christ and Peter focused on the Jews, were Paul’s churches ‘true’ churches? Was Paul under Peter, with passages such as those found in Galatians 2:11?
Of course. Peter and Paul belonged to the same church. Ignatius, as one example was a pupil of Peter and John and he said, where Jesus Christ is there is the CC, but it seems that you believe that Peter, John and Paul did not belong to the CC. Well, then please help me find the church, in the world today, that Peter and Paul did belong to, and let’s leave the CC and all of the PC’s out of the discussion for the time being?
To which church in the world today, do you feel drawn, and why brother?
