What is the true church?

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

makes no sence at all each individual Church cant have the fullness of truth, but they can have partial truths.

I am trying to understand where you may have some basis for that statement… but I can’t seem to figure it out… are you saying that no two churches can proclaim the same truth? If that is what you are saying, and you believe the Catholic Church to be in the fulness of truth, the only logical outcome is that everything I or any other denomination says is a complete fabrication. To refute your claim, all I would have to do is establish a first principle that we agree on.

But all Churches even the baptist tought that contiception is a sin. Why has it changed in your Church. Why is the Catholic Church the only one who still teaches aginst it. obviousley you cant be the Church because you have changed what you have proclaimed to be true. No ways around it.

First of all, you don’t know anything about my church so you shouldn’t make assumptions about my beliefs. Secondly, it sounds like you are stating that the true Church cannot be fallible. No person, or assembly of believers is perfect while we are here in our sinful flesh…

1Co 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

You also said…

Well, according to your statement #8, the Catholic Church would not be the Church which Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church was not founded until the 4th century.

That is false I bet you cant give any historical evidince of this. From someone who dosnt have an ax to grind with the Church. Most Historians Jewish, Aithest, whatever will tell you we are the first.

I see you snipped out those portions of your quote of me that showed I proved your claim false that the Catholic Church was responsible for compiling the New Testament, and if you’ll remember I gave solid evidence for my claim that the CC was not responsible.

I can give you several evidences for the claim that the Catholic Church did not organize until the 4th century, and in order to do that I will have to find the books and the quotes (I’ll have them for you by tomorrow). I would also like to ask you to give me irrefutable proof that the Catholic Church was organized before that time.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[TheGarg]

Atreyu,

It sounds like you would rather start at Matthew 18:17.

You are correct that Jesus is speaking of the authority of the Church… but not on matters of dispute. He was speaking of the authority He gave the Church in that certain circumstance (of a person who is sinning outwardly and refuses to accept rebuke).

First of all, the “church” in those verses is referring to a “particular called out assembly”… That is, a local church. That passage in no way refers to an all-inclusive governing body that oversees the local congregations.

Also that passage does not insinuate that the “church” has any authority in any matter of dispute. Jesus was giving the “local assembly” authority over themselves in such a case where one refuses to repent. They only have authority to cease fellowship with that certain person…

Matters of dispute among Christians was addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:4-8. And he only said that disputes between Christians should not be taken before an unbeliever to judge, but a judge should be chosen from the church, and one who is esteemed least among them. This is a clear indication that in the Corinthian Church, there was not set in place a position of authority beforehand. And through Paul’s teaching in this verse it is clear that Paul recognized the absence of an authoritative position… and didn’t command or suggest that they elect one. He only said that if there is a dispute, select a person to judge that matter.

If you are a member of a local assembly, according to Jesus in Matthew 18 in the case of a person who persisted in unrepented outward sin you would only have authority as a congregation to make the judgement to cease fellowship with that person.

If you have a dispute with another member of that assembly, according to Paul a judge should be chosen from the least esteemed of the church to settle the matter. I don’t remember Paul referring to a council, or archbishops, or a central governing body of any sort… The church at Corinth was an “independent church”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

i would like to see the greek, hebrew, or aramaic words that tranaslate into “local assymbly”…and if this the case, why all those writings from paul, sometimes scorning the “independent churches”…why not tell Paul to shove off??..

 

[TheGarg]

Odell,

I am trying to understand where you may have some basis for that statement… but I can’t seem to figure it out… are you saying that no two churches can proclaim the same truth? If that is what you are saying, and you believe the Catholic Church to be in the fulness of truth, the only logical outcome is that everything I or any other denomination says is a complete fabrication. To refute your claim, all I would have to do is establish a first principle that we agree on.

First of all, you don’t know anything about my church so you shouldn’t make assumptions about my beliefs. Secondly, it sounds like you are stating that the true Church cannot be fallible. No person, or assembly of believers is perfect while we are here in our sinful flesh…

See, this right here is the problem wiith chaos, and democrocy in Religion. IF we all worshipped the same Christ, I should know EXACTLY what you believe…

I am the WAY not plural ] the TRUTH once again, not plural ] and the LIFE and not plural]

be hot or cold, lest he spit you out

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

also I asked you who is the true Church? I would still like to know your answer for this.

I apologize if I have been unclear up to this point on that point… it would have been irresponsible to fail to make that point clear until the 82nd post of a thread entitled “what is the true church”.

Here are the distinctives of the “true church” as it exists on earth according to the scripture…

a. Independent Churches
b. Regenerate Church Membership
c. Believers Baptism
d. Baptism by immersion (an illustration of the new birth)
e. Independent soul liberty of believers

In post #8 I said…

First of all, the “church” in those verses is referring to a “particular called out assembly”… That is, a local church. That passage in no way refers to an all-inclusive governing body that oversees the local congregations.

The first distinctive according to the scripture is that the “true church” is to be “independent” of any governing body. Christ alone is the Head of the local assembly as is stated in Ephesians 5:23.

The second distinctive of a “true church” is that church which only accepts members as those who are “saved” (Acts 2:47). Those who are saved, are those who have been “quickened together with Christ” (Ephesians 2:5); which is to say each individual believer who is to be considered for membership in a “true church” is to already be “in Christ”.

The third distinctive of a “true church” is one who required of it’s members that they be scripturally baptized after their conversion. Acts 2:41 says: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.” Believers are commanded to be baptized after they believe as an outward profession of their faith (Acts 18:8).

The fourth distinctive of a “true church” is one who administers baptism by immersion. The New Testament gives no allusion to any other method of Baptism other than complete immersion (if you would like to discuss the particulars of Acts 2 we can). Baptism is an public illustration of what happened to that particular believer when they were saved. It is to illustrate what happened spiritually (Romans 6:3,4)

The fifth distinctive of a “true church” is one who respects the independent “soul liberty” of the individual members of that church. That is to say that the Church, to be a “true church” cannot usurp authority from God over the members so as to persuade those members to violate their conscience in order to “obey” the magisterium. For a church to expect obedience from it’s members to the rules, or standards that the church itself sets forth is to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit, and pervert the relationship God has designed to have with His children. A “true church” will not “lord over the heritage of God”…

1Pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over [God’s] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

The garg,

i would like to see the greek, hebrew, or aramaic words that tranaslate into “local assymbly”…and if this the case, why all those writings from paul, sometimes scorning the “independent churches”…why not tell Paul to shove off??..

Well, they didn’t tell Paul to “shove off” because they realized he was an Apostle, and was given his doctrinal teaching from Jesus Christ Himself.

The Greek word translated “church” throughout the New Testament is “ekklesia” which means: a calling out, a popular meeting, or a religious congregation. This “church” or ekklesia is only referring to a particular congregation. The only place in the scripture that the entire “church” of all those who are in Christ is mentioned is in Hebrews 12:23, where the entire unity of all believers is referred to as the “assembly”. The greek word translated to “assembly” in this context is “paneguris” which means: a mass meeting, or universal companionship. This unity is invisible at present, but will be visible in heaven, and is only visible from heaven…

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

The Garg,

See, this right here is the problem wiith chaos, and democrocy in Religion. IF we all worshipped the same Christ, I should know EXACTLY what you believe…

I am the WAY not plural ] the TRUTH once again, not plural ] and the LIFE and not plural]

be hot or cold, lest he spit you out

You are exactly right. You SHOULD know exactly what I believe. If we all submitted to the same Christ, and were all led by the same Holy Spirit there would be no reason at all that we should disagree. Since we apparently don’t agree, it stands to reason that one of us is wrong. That is why we are here on this thread, having this discussion…

I also agree that there is ONE truth, ONE life, and only ONE way, and Jesus Christ is the embodiment of those attributes… without Christ there is no truth, and that “truth” cannot be replaced with philosophy, traditions, or decrees. This is what I meant by my earlier post when I said…

For a church to expect obedience from it’s members to the rules, or standards that the church itself sets forth is to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit, and pervert the relationship God has designed to have with His children. A “true church” will not “lord over the heritage of God”…

Christ, who IS truth cannot comparably be replaced by philosophy, tradition, or a magisterium; and to attempt to do so is to attempt to lord of the heritage of God.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Ignatius]

Well, according to your statement #8, the Catholic Church would not be the Church which Jesus Christ founded. The Catholic Church was not founded until the 4th century.

That statement always gives me a good chuckle. Ignatius of Antioch, who was born in A.D. 50, learned at the feet of the Apostles Peter and John, was the Catholic Bishop of Antioch after Peter and was the first Martyr to be fed to the lions in the Collesium said “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.

As far as the Scripture goes, there were literally thousands of writings being used.
The New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: , the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393:
Council of Hippo. "It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church But the canonical Scriptures (canon 36 A.D. 393).

The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397:
Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures But the canonical Scriptures (canon 47 A.D. 397).

May the grace of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
I am trying to understand where you may have some basis for that statement… but I can’t seem to figure it out… are you saying that no two churches can proclaim the same truth? If that is what you are saying, and you believe the Catholic Church to be in the fulness of truth, the only logical outcome is that everything I or any other denomination says is a complete fabrication. To refute your claim, all I would have to do is establish a first principle that we agree on.

no John. No two Churchs can have the fullness of the truth. its impossible when the two differ in doctrine. also the Indians before we ever came over here they had wise men who had some truth to there moral teachings the Church does not deny that you can have some truth outside of the Church but you cant have the fullness out side of the Church Jesus founded.

First of all, you don’t know anything about my church so you shouldn’t make assumptions about my beliefs. Secondly, it sounds like you are stating that the true Church cannot be fallible. No person, or assembly of believers is perfect while we are here in our sinful flesh…

sorry if I offended but it is the truth John and you said it The Church cant change what it beleives to be true. Well all Churches said contriception was a sin including your Church if it was in existance, until the Anglican Church broke that tradition in 1930.

And yes the Church is infallible Jesus didnt establish a Church here on earth that you could not come to for the absolute truth in which you would have to be infallible in what you tought. infallible is not the same thing as sinning Jesus him self said there wil be wolfs in sheep clothing. infallible means being infallible in what you teach to be true.

(Lk 10:16) “whoever hears you hears me whoever rejects you rejects me.” who ever hear us the Apostles and you believe in there sucession. who ever hear them hears Jesus. I dont think they would teach error unless Jesus himself tought error. “whoever hears you hears me.”

(Jn 16:13) Guided by teh Holy Spirit into all truth

here is one John
(Mt 16:19) “Whatever you bind on EARTH will be bound in heaven. Whatever loose on EARTH will be loosed in heaven”
I dont think we are binding and looseing eror here on earth because Jesus would not alow error in heaven.

and Yes we can talk some about baptism but try not to forget to adress what I ahve said.

I would like to add I saw somthing on the history Chanel the other day and they descover some Chruches that Paul himself may have worshiped in. It amases me that the Churches had tabernacles crucifixis and baptismal font in witch you could not get tottaly emersed in.

Here are the distinctives of the “true church” as it exists on earth according to the scripture…

a. Independent Churches
b. Regenerate Church Membership
c. Believers Baptism
d. Baptism by immersion (an illustration of the new birth)
e. Independent soul liberty of believers

But they can believe differently on other matters (non-ecentials)?

 

[TheGarg]

The garg,

Well, they didn’t tell Paul to “shove off” because they realized he was an Apostle, and was given his doctrinal teaching from Jesus Christ Himself.

The Greek word translated “church” throughout the New Testament is “ekklesia” which means: a calling out, a popular meeting, or a religious congregation. This “church” or ekklesia is only referring to a particular congregation. The only place in the scripture that the entire “church” of all those who are in Christ is mentioned is in Hebrews 12:23, where the entire unity of all believers is referred to as the “assembly”. The greek word translated to “assembly” in this context is “paneguris” which means: a mass meeting, or universal companionship. This unity is invisible at present, but will be visible in heaven, and is only visible from heaven…

John
www.gideonsword.net

who says?

this whole rebuttall is personal opinion, with no authority.

and as far as your longwinded rebuttal on why we dont agree…just remember that we all agreed in the beginning, since we were ONE Church, then 900years later someone didnt agree anymore, then 600 years later a heretic named marting luthar didnt agaree, so he spawned many more heretics. the king of england didnt agree and started his own church, so he could be a whore in good standing.

how do you explain that…as a matter of fact, your brand of theoology is only 399 years old…you serve in a religion started by man :
1608: The Baptist church was launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.

hmmm looks like it didn’t take to well…that place is worse then vegas.

i am not trying to be mean, but you dont just “not agree with us”, but you dont agree with the baptist church in the next town, or the hundreds of other denominations. …complete chaos…i am not making this stuff up, seriously …google it…

If you really wanted to follow Jesus, you would be open to ALL that he has to offer…but you are not in a church that was started by Him…so you have no idea what is available to you. My priest just got back from Rome, and got the priviledge of celebrating mass on the pope’s alter…this alter contains the skulls of peter and paul… how is it that the Catholic Church has the only connection to our past in chrisitanity. all you have is a book…whicih you wouldn’t have by the way, if it were not for the Catholic Church.

how do you explain all this?

 

[TobyLue]

My answer to your question will be one to cover all the questions you asked in your previous post.

** I don’t have any authority on my own, or of myself **to proclaim any truth… neither does any church. **But the Holy Spirit who indwells me… who teaches me **(John 14:26), comparing spiritual things with spritual (1 Corinthians 2:13). And the evidence of this spirituality is the act of my acknowledging the scripture as instruction in truth (to which the Holy Spirit is a witness) (1 Corinthians 14:37).

I am not asking anyone on these threads to listen to me ramble reason, or philosophy. I am pointing to **the truth as God has revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, **through the scripture. That is what the “true Church” is supposed to do.

OOOOOOO, I hate to say this, so please don’t take offense. This seems to be a very, very arrogant statement. IOW the Holy Spirit has abandoned the CC for 2000 years until you came along and finally the Holy Spirit who “indwells” in YOU… who “teaches” YOU, you are able to compare spiritual things with spiritual (IOW infallibly) and to prove your point, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in you, (& it seems in you alone,) you now have undeniable evidence that your acknowledgment of scripture and instruction (which I will assume by the Holy Spirit to you only) IS the truth. So also IOW, the CC has spread lies for 2000 years. So God has revealed to YOU, by the Holy Spirit, what “true Church” is supposed to mean. So the Holy Spirit refused to reveal to the Church that Jesus founded any truth and it has been one big deception? Come on… look at your words, you claim no authority on your own, but the Holy Spirit somehow has overlooked the ECF’s, the CC, all the Bishops and saints and theologians for 2000 years and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit now has given you true authority. Do you really mean this? Does it not seem odd that the Church that you deny as the true Church, who authorized the canon is unable to interpret scripture but was able to canonize the books of the Bible that you use to claim that YOU, and not the Church, have the truth?

to which the Holy Spirit is a witness

So we are to receive a grand revelation from the Holy Spirit attesting to us all that YOU have the truth? The Holy Spirit hasn’t revealed this to me or to any Catholic here. I have seen this from many others making the same claim. Now, who are we to believe?

 

[Stephen_C]

Gee John,
The Catholic Church did not come to being until the 4th century? WOW! did not know that…thanks for sharing that with us. We had one member, before the great 2006 forum crash, who also was a member/preacher of “the one true church” He had the Catholic Church starting at around 1592. Go figure. From all your post’s there seems to be one theme that keeps popping up. If something does not fit your belief/view you throw it out. Examples the ECF’s You got them pegged as pagens and heretic’s. If parts of the bible does not fit, then it is explained away as not meaning what is clearly say’s.
With that said, what really bug’s me the most about what you have said/inferred here is that as Catholic’s we do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, and most of all we are non-christian. Shame on you!

 

[patches]

I am not asking anyone on these threads to listen to me ramble reason, or philosophy. I am pointing to the truth as God has revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, through the scripture. That is what the “true Church” is supposed to do.

But if the truth as the Holy Spirit reveals it to me, or anyone else for that matter, differs from the truth he’s revealing to you, and we’re both dedicated Bible-studying Christians, then the “true Church” cannot be one of unity, nor the Truth absolute. “Truth” becomes subject to the shifting winds of personal interpretation. It’s hard to look at Protestant Christendom and not see that very thing happening.

 

[Philthy]

Hi Alex!

alexaustralia,

I appreciate your resolve to prove me wrong, but I think you are being over zealous by refuting “every” scripture reference I gave.

Translation: If you are thorough in your analysis, the substance of your argument will be ignored by John in favor of another ad hominem attack on you(“over zealous”)
ba:

By attempting to refute every aspect of my answers to the questions that were submitted to me, you have effectually proven my point even further.

Translation: If you are thorough in your presentation, not only will the substance of your argument be ignored, but it will actually be viewed as proving his own argument! :whacky:
ba:

These were the original questions submitted by Philthy, (which by the way, he did not attempt to argue my answers)…

Translation: Despite the fact that Philthy actually did address each of his weak Scripture recitations (See post 52) that will be ignored by John in favor of his fantasies. But he will not end there, a few ad hominem attacks will usually follow to bolster his position and draw attention away from the actual discussion.
ba:

I have shown scriptural evidence for each of these topics.

Translation: Any verse which John determines proves his point is above reproach. For example: John was asked to provide an OT verse to indicate that additional Scripture was forthcoming. This was a requirement which logically followed when he denied that the Church, in its capacity as the pillar and foundation of truth, provided us with the NT. How else could he, and the rest of the world know that the NT is in fact inspired? Surely this would have been part of the prophetic utterances of the OT. John was asked to provide an OT verse to support his NT. How did he respond? He instead provided only NT verses and claimed that the LACK of an OT quote DISPROVING his assertion actually proves his assertion. This is apologetics? Usually such attempts are simply considered uneducated desperation, but in this case - from what has transpired so far - I would describe the approach as insufferable.

 

[Odell]

The garg,

The fifth distinctive of a “true church” is one who respects the independent “soul liberty” of the individual members of that church. That is to say that the Church, to be a “true church” cannot usurp authority from God over the members so as to persuade those members to violate their conscience in order to “obey” the magisterium. For a church to expect obedience from it’s members to the rules, or standards that the church itself sets forth is to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit, and pervert the relationship God has designed to have with His children. A “true church” will not “lord over the heritage of God”…
www.gideonsword.net

no body has been persuaded to violate their conscience John. is this how you feel do you feel we are forcing you or any of our members I dont feel that way.

would you like to read what the catechism says

1782- Man has the rigth to act in conscience and in freedom so as personnally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

1785- in the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,(Ps 119:105) we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our comscience before the Lords Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

see John our conscicence has to be formed the Church is there to help us do that.

we dont force people to do or believe what we do, for that would go aginst there freedom. God would like for us to obey the comandments but he does not force us because that goes aginst our freewill. same with the Chruchs teachings.

In fact those so called rules are not rules at all to a well formed conscience.

[Christopher West Book Theology of the body for beginners pg 40]
“Most people look at Christian morality-especially sexual morality-as an oppressive list of rules to follow. How far this misunderstanding is from the living morality proclaimed by Christ! The Gospel dosen’t give us more rules to follow. The Gospel is meant to change our hearts so that we no longer need the rules(see cathichsm 1968) To the degree that we experince this change of heart we experience freedom from the law(Rom7;Gal 5) not freedom to break the law; freedom to fullfill it.”

"Heres an example of what freedom from the law looks like: Do you have any desire to murder your best friend? This may seem like an odd question, but it actually demonstrate the point. Assuming you do not, then you dont need that comandment. Thou shall not murder thy best friend. Because you have no desire to break it. To this extent you are free from the law. In other words, you don’t experience this law as an imposition because your heart conforms to it.

before original sin the human heart comformed to Gods. that is what Christ came back for to show us how to conform our will to his. and the Church is there to help

one last thing
When we allow Chist into our hearts we no longer need the law because we no longer desire to break them. What law do you still need? What teachings of the Church still feel like a burdan or impostion to you? Perhaps the problem isn’t the law or the Church, but with your “hardness of heart” dont throw away the law surender your disordered desires to Christ and let him transform them.

 

[Odell]

Another thing is that the Church has athorirty how do we know this? because the bible says so.

(Mt 28: 18-20) " All power in heaven and earth has been given to me."

(Jn 20:21) Jesus says " Peace be with you As the Father has sent me. so I send you." How did the Father send Jesus with Power and athority. now this athority is given to who? The apostles head of the Chruch.

also read on and the athority to forgive or retain sins is right there. why would Jesus give them the athority to forgive or retain sins if there is no confession and how could they forgive or retain if no body was confessing to them?

One of the reasons why the True Church has confession. You only have a few to Chose from who have this sacrament. But I tell you, you are at the right place.

 

[alexaustralia]

Hi John,
You stated

I would also like to ask you to give me irrefutable proof that the Catholic Church was organized before that time.

Well I would imagine that if the early believers holds those beliefs that we now in the CC well then that would give grounds that we are one and the same or at least identical.

So what beliefs are “very” Catholic

1.  Hierarchy & Unity

2.  Eucharist

3.  Confession

4.  Mariology

Perhaps there are more you wish to address, but I will concentrate in the above otherwise it will go forever. Being that you wish for proof I assume you are asking for historical records showing these beliefs.

POINT NUMBER 1)
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians Address (c. 98 AD)

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters of dispute among you”

So what we have here is the Church of Rome intervening in the affairs of the Church of Corinth because of disputes happening there…hence no autonomy rather Rome has the authority to put order in other areas.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3, 3, 2 (c. 180 AD)

“…by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic Tradition”

Well I don’t know about you but I am certainly having a déjà vu episode here. Succession, bishops, Rome as the head of all churches in the “WHOLE WORLD”, Apostolic Tradition…WOW

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to all his People 43 (40), 5 (251 AD)

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded in Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.”

POINT NUMBER 2)
I think we already given you enough early church documentation on this one to realise that the early Church believed in the real presence.

cont…

 

[alexaustralia]

…cont
POINT NUMBER 3)
Firmilian of Caesarea, Letter to Cyprian 75, 16 (c. 258 AD)

“ ‘Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained.’ Therefore, the power of forgiving sins was given to the Apostles and to the Churches which these men, sent by Christ, established; and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place.”

St. Cyprian, Letters, 18:1 (c. 250 AD)

“Since, however, I see that there is not yet any opportunity of coming to you, …should, without waiting for my presence, before any presbyter who might be present, or if a presbyter should not be found and death begins to be imminent, before even a deacon, be able to make confession of their sin, that, with the imposition of hands upon them for repentance,…”

Tertullian, On Penance, Chap 10 (Born 160 AD)

“Yet [we see] most men either shun this work, as being to public exposure of themselves, or else defer it from day to day. I presume [they do so as being] more mindful of modesty than of salvation; just like men, who, having contracted some malady in the more private parts of the body, avoid the doctors and so perish with their own bashfulness…Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! If we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgement of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par? It is better to be damned in secret than absolved in public?”

POINT NUMBER 4)
St Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27 (Died 373 AD)

“ Truly you, Lord, and your mother are the only ones who are beautiful, completely so in every respect; for, Lord, there is no spot in you, nor any spot at all in your mother. Even my babes are hardly similar to these two pulchritudes!”

St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Chap 21 (340 AD – 420 AD)

“We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage…for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage…You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born”

Origen (185-232 AD) calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings (“Hom. i in diversa”)

Well after all that I guess Christian history is very Catholic indeed!

Alex

 

[bibleapologist]

The Garg,

and as far as your longwinded rebuttal on why we dont agree…just remember that we all agreed in the beginning, since we were ONE Church, then 900years later someone didnt agree anymore, then 600 years later a heretic named marting luthar didnt agaree, so he spawned many more heretics. the king of england didnt agree and started his own church, so he could be a whore in good standing.

Just because someone decided they didn’t believe the way the Catholic church taught, and left to start their own denomination doesn’t prove at all that the CC is a continuation of Apostolic teaching and is the “true church”. Baptists could also say the same thing, where do you think the Pentecostals came from? not the catholic church. Does that mean Baptists are the true church… of course not, it only means that someone opposed thier teaching. You need to be more specific as to why they left the Catholic Church if you want to make a point.

as a matter of fact, your brand of theoology is only 399 years old…you serve in a religion started by man :
1608: The Baptist church was launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.

You might need to re-read your history books. John Smythe left Amsterdam with his congregation and re-settled in England one religious tolerance was in effect, and that Church was the first one with the name “Baptist”. Before that time John Smythe with Thomas Hellwys were part of an “anabaptist” congregation, which had been influenced by other anabaptists well before the year 1608. John Smythe led his congregation away from Amsterdam to England because of the immoral, and philosophical effect Amsterdam was having on his congregation… this act of leaving Holland would testify to the fact that this particular congregation held to a certain set of moral, and spiritual beliefs before they went to Amsterdam, strove to keep those same convictions while they were there in Holland, and took action to retain their stance by moving to England… Therefore, the Baptist church that John Smythe pastored was “baptist” in distinctive well before they called themselves “Baptist” in England.

If you really wanted to follow Jesus, you would be open to ALL that he has to offer…but you are not in a church that was started by Him…so you have no idea what is available to you. My priest just got back from Rome, and got the priviledge of celebrating mass on the pope’s alter…this alter contains the skulls of peter and paul… how is it that the Catholic Church has the only connection to our past in chrisitanity. all you have is a book…whicih you wouldn’t have by the way, if it were not for the Catholic Church.

I really don’t have any desire for the things of this world; ie. relics, social status, etc… I agree that to hold the skull of the Apostle Peter would be a tangible link to history, and a neat thing to do, it has no spiritual mystical power, and truthfully is nothing but a testimony to the corruptibility of Peter’s flesh, as well as our own. I have the Lord Jesus Christ living in me, occupying and renewing my mind daily… how can the Pope, his altar, or the skulls of dead men compare with that?

By the way, the CC gave the world a corrupted version of the Bible in the 4th century tainted with Alexandrian Stoic philosophy. My bible is a translation of the Byzantine text which was around well before the Latin Vulgate (see post 79 for references).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Toby Lue,

So we are to receive a grand revelation from the Holy Spirit attesting to us all that YOU have the truth? The Holy Spirit hasn’t revealed this to me or to any Catholic here. I have seen this from many others making the same claim. Now, who are we to believe?

Through the main body of your post you seemed to be mocking me by claiming that I have been the only one to recieve this special revelation about the Catholic Church and it’s false teaching, and that it was arrogant statement for me to claim that the Holy Spirit has given me alone this “special revelation” 2000 years later.

You failed to mention the hundreds of other authors throughout history who have made the same claims about the CC’s false teaching, and the hundreds of thousands of Christians who have opposed those teachings by thier actions; ie. Paulicians, Donatists, Waldensians… etc.

But, then you allude to the fact that I am not the only one speaking out against these false teachings…

I have seen this from many others making the same claim. Now, who are we to believe?

Sooooo, I must not be the only one with this “special revelation”… it must not be such a “special” revelation then.

You said “who are we to believe?” Jesus asked Peter a question in an effort to draw an answer to the same question…

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

Peter, in response to Jesus’ question did not side with those who said He was John the Baptist, or one of the prophets… He sided with the truth…

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

This truth was not revealed by man, but by God Himself…

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

We can all know the truth about Jesus… God wants to reveal His Son to you. I’m not asking you to follow me, I am asking you to stop resisting the Holy Spirit, and when you do there will be no question as to what the “true church” is.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Stephen_C]

John,
there you go again…attacking the things you do not understand or that does not fit your view. No one here has said you were not Christian or that you are not following Christ as best you know. We just think you are wrong about more then a few things. But again all you have done here is attack our (Catholic) faith and to go as far as telling we are not even Christians. Well only God has that knowledge. Are you God? Do you know my heart?

John I pray to Jesus every day. It is the first thing I do when I wake up and the last words on my lips when I fall to sleep at the end of the day. I also take the time to listen for his words to speak to my heart.