When did the church become different from what Jesus intended?

[paarsurrey]

What are the primary sources on Jesus’ message by which you can deliver such a verdict ?

Hi

Jesus was a Jew, whatever he said and did must have origination from straight passages from OTBible, must not be against OTBible for a claim as also the reason.

Thanks

 

[Benadam]

However correctness is not the same as infallability. Infallability only applies to a process (Catholicism uses the word in the correct sense btw), and there is nothing in Acts 15 that identifies an infallible process.

'm wondering if you would consider your faith as resting on the law of Moses.

 

[PC_Master]

Good question. According to PCM’s argument, we should really look at what they said. They could be wrong you know, being fallible and all. I mean PCM is just assuming they were infallible. Maybe we should bring circumcision back in and Jerusalem centered temple worship. I mean, why should we believe what they said anyway? We shouldn’t’ allow them to spoon-feed us the truth. For that matter, what were these fallible human beings doing writing scripture. Who do they think they are anyway? We should really only rely on what Jesus said directly… Oh wait…he didn’t write anything … hmmmm …

So God worked through many individuals, revealing his will to them, but can’t do the same with believers today? Interesting logic.

 

[pneuma07]

I have been trying for some posts to express my approach to Church History paradigms which imply that the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation began leading the Church astray.

I don’t know whether the propositions that are quoted here or those in post number 70 have been considered clear enough.
So, I’d like to articulate it in a little different way too.

A) Is it common ground within Christianity that we received Jesus’ message (Who is Himself the Message, the Word), that the message has arrived to us who live in 2007 ?

B) If we know Jesus, who lived on the earth 20 centuries ago, If we do have Jesus’ message, has it arrived to us through the leaders of the first post-apostolic generation ?

If the answer to B) is “No”, then through whom ?

If I, on the contrary, answer “Yes”, how can I state that they were wrong about the message about which I know … through them ?

 

[PC_Master]

A) Yes.

B) No – It came through divine revelation via the holy spirit to individual believers over the centuries, thereby preventing complete corruption and loss of God’s truth.

 

[SFLCatholic]

A) Yes.

B) No – It came through divine revelation via the holy spirit to individual believers over the centuries, thereby preventing complete corruption and loss of God’s truth.

Like Martin Luther for example?

 

[Cardinalsong]

It never did…

 

[PC_Master]

Like Martin Luther for example?

Perhaps, in part. But it doesn’t matter, God’s revelation would have happened to many others even if Luther never existed. That’s the point – it’s not pivotal that any one person had the truth. In fact, I believe that no single person possesses the complete fullness of truth.

 

[pneuma07]

Answering whether we got Jesus’ message, and whether it came to us through the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation or whom else:

A) Yes.

B) No – It came through divine revelation via the holy spirit to individual believers over the centuries, thereby preventing complete corruption and loss of God’s truth.

Thank you for your answer, which is as short as it is thick, with so many implications that we could probably feed several threads. So, I’m afraid I’m going to be a little longer .

Terminology first: “revelation” is usually understood as decribing the delivering of a new message/will by God ( and the delivered message). I guess we share that Revelation, the specifically Christian one, took place - in the mentioned sense - in the First century, and then we have to preserve and understand it. ( a new Revelation, or a continuos revelation would supposedly lead us outside Christianity, wouldn’t it ?) So I guess that if you are a true believer you are “only” divinely assisted in order to preserve and understand the deposit of faith delivered by the Revelation to the Apostles. .

In other words we are speaking about interpretations, are we ?
Moving down-top I’ll try to follow your suggestions in order to find
interpretations that are more trustworthy than the interpretation by the immediate successors of the Apostles.

I don’t know where and whether I can find records of interpretations of the Word of God by “true believers”. That would be ineffectual, in any case, if I am not in a position to acknowledge who was a “true believer”. You confirm
this hurdle with the example of Martin Luther, who in your words was “perhaps, in part” a true believer.

Another possible source is meeting now a “true believer”, teaching me that the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation began to lead the Church astray. But, for example, with due respect, how do we know that you are divinely assisted ?
Moreover, you advise not to trust any human being ( is that possible ?), but only God.

So it appears I can only hope for a divine call myself, communicating a direct illustration of the deposit of faith.

But, what about self-deceptions ? What about the necessary comparison of what is preached by different self-proclaimed true believers ? What if tomorrow, or next year, I told you: “Wow, I got to know by divine assistance that those poor guys around 80 or 100 AD did not go astray after all” ? It appears we could not advance, gain an inch, by our self-appointments to HyperPopes.

So I am back, and decide to bet on the trustworthiness
of the interpretation of Jesus’ message by the leadership of those who listened to Jesus.

 

[PC_Master]

Thank you for your answer, which is as short as it is thick, with so many implications that we could probably feed several threads. So, I’m afraid I’m going to be a little longer .

Thick? I thought it was a pretty straightforward concept, but perhaps not?

Terminology first: “revelation” is usually understood as decribing the delivering of a new message/will by God ( and the delivered message).

Ah, okay, here’s where we’re getting off-track. When I say revelation, I simply mean something that is revealed to a person by a source (God in this case). That is may have been revealed before (perhaps many times to many people) does not matter.

When you say revelation, you obviously think it’s some new truth that’s being revealed, but that’s not what I mean. Think of it this way – suppose for a moment that God did give the whole truth to the apostles, and suppose also that the church then did drift away from that truth. If God then chose to reveal the same original truth to other individuals in history (perhaps yourself, for an example), what would you term that, if not a revelation? (In other words – I’m looking for a word besides revelation that I can use to describe this action which we’ll both understand.)

I guess we share that Revelation, the specifically Christian one, took place - in the mentioned sense - in the First century, and then we have to preserve and understand it.

I certainly agree that God revealed truth to the earliest Christians, though not in perfect completion to each and every one of them, for some obviously fell into error.

However, saying that we have to preserve this truth assumes that God can’t simply reveal this truth to each individual believer on a gradual basis, so as to lead all of us into the fullness of truth in accordance with our consideration of the leadings of the holy spirit. If it was a one-time revelation, with nothing to be added, then we would already completely understand this truth.

However, as the RCC says that it gains further understanding of the truth over time, then they clearly did not receive a complete revelation (or at least they believe such). If one further understands something that wasn’t understood before, where does this understanding truly come from? It can come from only three sources that I can think of – God, Satan, or man. The latter two sources are obviously not of good use to us. This leaves us only with further understanding coming from God, and this I would term as revelation.

( a new Revelation, or a continuos revelation would supposedly lead us outside Christianity, wouldn’t it ?)

While I admit it’s possible to believe that you’ve had some kind of revelation from God, but have in fact not had such, and thus possible to get outside of God’s will, I don’t believe that this is necessary. The real question is, what is the source of the revelation? If it’s from God, go with it. If not, obviously you must consider that it could well be against the will of God, and it is my belief that no one here wants to be involved with such.

So I guess that if you are a true believer you are “only” divinely assisted in order to preserve and understand the deposit of faith delivered by the Revelation to the Apostles.

And if, hypothetically, that deposit of faith became obscured through the actions of man, would it not be within God’s power (and perhaps even in his character) to preserve his truth by revealing it to others afresh?

In other words we are speaking about interpretations, are we ?

Interpretations of the truth? No. The truth is absolute. What varies is our understanding of it. This is why I believe the guidance of the holy spirit is absolutely vital to the preservation of Christianity. Only God is truly capable of maintaining his truth over the centuries, I believe.

Moving down-top I’ll try to follow your suggestions in order to find interpretations that are more trustworthy than the interpretation by the immediate successors of the Apostles.

The current leaders of the RCC are not the immediate successors of the apostles. They could be considered distant successors, but then again, so could the leaders of the Orthodox churches, or even the Anglican church, and so on. If a sort of rite of succession (laying on of hands, etc) is what makes one a valid teacher of the truth, then we have Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy which are obvious violations of this.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Continued…

On the other hand, if you consider that Paul’s words on ordination are a means to an end, and if you consider that the end is to ensure you have those with an understanding of the truth in leadership, then you must concede that no matter how you slice it, large portions of the church failed to live up to that. Paul’s words, nonetheless are vital to understand – in combination with continued revelation by the holy spirit, we can be assured that the truth will survive. The efforts of man alone, through ordination, laying on of hands, etc, cannot accomplish this.

I don’t know where and whether I can find records of interpretations of the Word of God by “true believers”. That would be ineffectual, in any case, if I am not in a position to acknowledge who was a “true believer”. You confirm
this hurdle with the example of Martin Luther, who in your words was “perhaps, in part” a true believer.

You’re looking to have it all in print. Quite honestly, I feel that the biggest draw that Roman Catholicism holds is that it can naturally (in tangible earthly fashion) show you right, wrong, etc. Whether or not this is actually in line with God’s truth, this approach will still draw many to believe, because it’s comforting to know you’re “right with God” without having to have faith.

I know that sounds harsh, but I think it explains a lot of what’s said here.

But, for example, with due respect, how do we know that you are divinely assisted ? Moreover, you advise not to trust any human being ( is that possible ?), but only God.

And what’s the problem with trusting God exactly? The holy spirit was given specifically for the purpose of guiding us into all truth. That, to me, means that all that’s left is for us to follow that guidance.

So it appears I can only hope for a divine call myself, communicating a direct illustration of the deposit of faith.

Don’t make it so impossible. The holy spirit will lead you into all truth, scripture says, not immediately show you all truth in completeness. Leading requires following. The more you follow, the more leading has happened, and the closer you are to “all truth”.

But, what about self-deceptions ? What about the necessary comparison of what is preached by different self-proclaimed true believers ? What if tomorrow, or next year, I told you: “Wow, I got to know by divine assistance that those poor guys around 80 or 100 AD did not go astray after all” ? It appears we could not advance, gain an inch, by our self-appointments to HyperPopes.

I honestly don’t know how to truly explain to you the difference between true revelation from God, and false revelation, except to say that in every case where I believe I have received revelation from God, it has been in accordance with scripture (and often is in the form of clarifying the meaning of scripture that I previously didn’t understand well) and most times the truth revealed has been reinforced by happenings in my life.

For instance, one notable example is that God revealed to me that his use of limited individuals to do things greater than they alone are capable of still happens today. Shortly after understanding this, several things in my life happened which I know to this day I couldn’t have done without God’s action.

So I am back, and decide to bet on the trustworthiness
of the interpretation of Jesus’ message by the leadership of those who listened to Jesus.

So, your logic seems to be…

1. Jesus is divine, therefore Jesus is trustworthy.
2. Jesus spoke to the twelve apostles and revealed God’s truth, so the twelve apostles are trustworthy.
3. The apostles spoke to the earliest Christians, and thus the successors selected from among these are trustworthy.
4. The successors of the successors of the apostles clearly heard the truth from the successors of the apostles, and thus are trustworthy.

This works until…

1. A large group of the successors (legitimately ordained and selected by supposedly trustworthy individuals – successors of the apostles) choose to split with Rome, forming the Eastern Orthodox Church. These guys were the successors of the successors of the successors of the successors of the of the apostles, so clearly they must be trustworthy, right?

On paper, the idea of “these guys heard from the source, and so and so heard from these guys, so we can trust him” sounds great, but in reality, with each generation, the imperfections of man introduce flaws into this system, which is often where we get schisms and heresies.

 

[pneuma07]

.

When I say revelation, I simply mean something that is revealed to a person by a source (God in this case). That is may have been revealed before (perhaps many times to many people) does not matter.

 

[pneuma07]

Continued…

On the other hand, if you consider that Paul’s words on ordination are a means to an end, …,
man alone, through ordination, laying on of hands, etc, cannot accomplish this.

PCM’s contributions, IMHO, have the noteworthy merit that, in addressing “question A”, they ( by appealing to direct divine communication) bypass “Solascripturaism”, giving so a new sort of approach. I wonder whether other posters prefer to answer
“question A” ( *How do I know that the leaders of the firs post-apostolic generation began going astray ?) *within the framework of “mainstream Solascripturaism”, if we can say so, or by still different approaches.

 

[Pons]

This is assuming it did. The church had and has to evolve in its way, but that doesn’t mean it deviated from what Jesus intended, as opposed to Peter and the apostles’ style of organization… For Catholics, it’s still built “upon kepha”, so that’s it. Jesus never said anything about bishops, or at least in the Gospels he doesn’t.

 

[pneuma07]

This is assuming it did. The church had and has to evolve in its way, but that doesn’t mean it deviated from what Jesus intended, as opposed to Peter and the apostles’ style of organization… For Catholics, it’s still built “upon kepha”, so that’s it. Jesus never said anything about bishops, or at least in the Gospels he doesn’t.

Thanks for the contribution, Pons. There is no problem for me in
stating again that I don’t “assume it did”. My present view - for what that matters - is that the Church, built by Jesus, is lived forward, rather than reconstructed backwards somewhere somehow sometime. But this thread is an invitation, for every Christian holding to any version of the “Deviation - Restoration (or Restorations)” Church History paradigm to place in history these deviation and restorations, in order to understand and, for what is possible, assess those different versions.

A sub-issue has arisen about the tenet according to which the Deviation ( sometimes referred to as “Apostasy”) was set in motion by the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation.
The question is “How can I know that that leadership went astray” ?

 

[pneuma07]

My present view - for what that matters - is that the Church, built by Jesus, is lived forward, rather than reconstructed backwards somewhere somehow sometime.
But this thread is an invitation, for every Christian holding to any version of the “Deviation - Restoration (or Restorations)” Church History paradigm to place in history these deviation and restorations, in order to understand and, for what is possible, assess those different versions.

A sub-issue has arisen about the tenet according to which the Deviation ( sometimes referred to as “Apostasy”) was set in motion by the leadership of the first post-apostolic generation.
The question is “How can I know that that leadership went astray” ?

Looking forward to any new contribution.