Which church did Jesus set up...the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox Church?

[JRKH]

From a human point of view one would think so; in fact, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and Moslems all point to unity of teaching as a sign that they are the true faith.

Understand that I do not equate the RCC with those above, I do believe the RCC is christian. There are certain doctrines though that seem to be carnally based and one of these is a doctrine of a supreme ruler of the church which identifies it as the true church. The medieval abuses and the lack of repentence which lead to the reformational split are the fruit of a carnal doctrine. The RCC and EOC split is another bad fruit outcome.

No Catholic would dispute that there have been problems and abuses in the past, bad popes etc. However I think that I would have to object to your use of the term “supreme ruler” only in that it gives the impression of a single person with absolute rule and acting in a vaccuum. Such is simply not the case with the papacy. The office is much more a “chairman of the board” than a “supreme ruler”. In considering this I would ask that you consider the office of today rather than of the distant past, when the pope was not only a spiritual leader but a temporal one as well. The mixing of the two, temporal and spiritual, was the cause of many of the problems.
The Split between the RCC and the EOC, while regretable is not one that, in my opinion, should be of great concern among the faithful. Far more troubling to me is the shattering that resulted from the reformation.
When you speak of “carnal doctrine” and “bad fruit” that led up to the protestant reformation there is certainly some truth in it. However, when we look at the “Fruits” of the Protestant reformation (endless schisms and differing doctrinal beliefs), it seems hard to call such chaos “good fruit”.
Also, we must consider that, even after the Church undertook the “Counter-reformation”, the very thing that the Protestant leadership wanted in the first place, those in protest did not “come home” to the Church.
But as you say much of this will get off topic…

The early church was taught prophetically and the words of the prophets were subject to other prophets.

Which is why the Church has the college of Bishops that make up the Mageisterium.

The Holy Spirit is the universal guide. Even though there are many different churches seemingly teaching different things they are not as different as you might expect. If you could gather all the pastors of your city together to draft a statement of faith, you might be surprised how close they would be. Remember, our faith is in Jesus and His death and resurrection - period.

There is other evidence but it goes beyond the topic.

Yes I am sure that we could gather all of the various pastors together and agree on something akin to the Apostles creed, or the Nicene creed. But then what would happen when various other questions would come up (and the would) among these faith filled and spirit guided men. How about when members of their congregations come up with questions? Will all of these pastors agree on the same answers?
Will all the pasors agree that the Bread and Wine are the True and complete and REAL body and blood of Christ?
Will they all agree that unless we eat and drink this REAL body and blood we will have no life in us?
Will they all agree that infants should be baptized? Will they even all agree that water baptism is necessary?
Will they agree on the issues of Predestination? Rapture? Necessity of “Works”? and the many other issues that will just naturally come up?

These are not light or tirvial questions as relating to ones salvation and the proper understanding of the journey.

And one must then ask if all these goodmen, these Spirit guided pastors, just in one town, would be able to come together in council and, seek a unified answer to the questions raised? Even if we leave the Catholics and EOC out of such a council do you think that they could come together and reach a consensus on a single, uniform teaching on all the matters of such import?

It is a daunting proposition indeed…

Peace
James

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Do you really think God, creator of the universe could be contained within the tents or the temple? Yes, the spirit resides in you as well. That’s what omnipresent means.

Scripture says so, not my words. The Spirit residing in my heart is not what omnipresent means for God was omnipresent before He came to live in the heart of the believer.
Scripture does not say that God could be contained within the tent or the temple.

Quote:
Yes the Apostles had authority and power, but Peter was the one Jesus singled out as the leader

.

You keep saying this and I keep saying Peter singled out himself because of his personality and that Scripture does not show him as the supreme leader. I suggest we move on.
This is the fundamental point of the thread, isn’t it. Was Peter annointed by Christ as the leader of the Apostles or not. If he was, then the Orthodox position and particularly the Protestant position become untenable. And you know it so the question can not be avoided.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
I suggest that you re-read Acts. In Acts 1, Peter leads the apostles in replacing Judas. In Acts 2, Peter speaks for the Apostles in explaining Pentacost to the crowds and it is Peter who tells the first converts what to do to be saved (be baptized. It is Peter who heals the lame man in Acts 3 and it s Peter who defends the apostles before the Sanhedrin in Acts 3-4. It is Peter who brings Tabitha back from the dead. It is Peter who condemns Anias and Sapphira. it is Peter that brings Cornelius to the faith and it is Peter who makes the difinitive Doctrinal statement at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Paul is a missionary and a theologian but he is not the leader of the Church.
NonCatholics are always forced into explaning away scripture that doesn’t support their theology.

1. Peter proposed the need for a replacement, identified the viable candidates and then defined the methodology to choose between them. This is not fundamentally different from how it is done today. Sure they don’t use the drawing of straws anymore, but I’ll bet the Pope prays over it before making his decision.
2. John was there but Peter made it happen> here is Acts 3:

1 Now Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o’clock hour of prayer.
2 And a man crippled from birth was carried and placed at the gate of the temple called “the Beautiful Gate” every day to beg for alms from the people who entered the temple.
3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms.
4 But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, “Look at us.”
5 He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them.
6 Peter said, “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk.”
7 Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong.

1. Paul was a great Apostle but he was never the leader of the Apostles. Paul says in Galatians 2:
   7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,
   8 for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles,
   9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
   10 Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do.
   And although it is clear that Paul and Barnabas were given approval to preach among the Gentiles, it is equally clear that both Paul and Barnabas were given restrictions (to be mindful of the poor) by the Pillars.
   It is very true that in Galations, Paul is very protective of his right as an Apostle but he can’t ignore the fact that he was sent to the Leaders of the Church by the leaders in Antioch for validation of his doctrine as described in Acts 15:

1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” 2
2 Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3 They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”
12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

You need to be able to reconcile Galatians 2 with Acts 15. In Acts 15, Peter says that God made his choice among the Apostles that the Gentiles wwould hear the word of the Gospel through him. This point is not contested. And Paul states that Peter was given the Apostolate to the Circumcized as well. This means Peter is in charge of everyone. And sure, he agreed to have Paul and Barnabas preach to the Gentiles (but so did Peter) as is obvious from Galatians 2, where Paul describes Peter’s actions among the Gentiles at Antioch.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
This simply is not true. If it was true, you wouldn’t have the obvious situation being played out right now where different beleivers come to different conclusions on the same scripture passages

I never said that Scripture is not true. I said your interpretation of scripture is not true. Isn’t it obvious that you are interpreting scripture differently than the Catholics on this board? If each person who claims to be a beleiver is guided by the Holy Spirit, then how could there be differences in scriptural interpretation? The fact is, the Spirit guides the Church and they guide us.

Quote:
The fact still remains that you have different views than that of the Catholic church. How could that be true if Jesus protects all believers? Apparently being a believer doesn’t mean you understand the truth properly. Someone is wrong. It could be the 1.2Billion catholics or it could be you

Its very big of you to admit that Catholics are Christians. Seriously…what doctrines do you think are “Carnal”. And why do you believe that you are uniquely graced with discernment that allows you to come to the correct conclusions, while the rest of us are not?

Quote:
Actually, paul was writing to Gentiles in Rome:

You claimed that the Jews were in power in the church in Rome and that Romans was written to them. I showed you that Romans was actually written to the Gentiles You counter by saying that Paul was preaching to the jews in Acts 28. However, this just goes further to disprove your point. here is the passage you reference:
16
16 When he entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.
17 Three days later he called together the leaders of the Jews. When they had gathered he said to them, “My brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or our ancestral customs, I was handed over to the Romans as a prisoner from Jerusalem.
18 After trying my case the Romans wanted to release me, because they found nothing against me deserving the death penalty.
19 But when the Jews objected, I was obliged to appeal to Caesar, even though I had no accusation to make against my own nation.
20 This is the reason, then, I have requested to see you and to speak with you, for it is on account of the hope of Israel that I wear these chains.”
21 They answered him, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor has any of the brothers arrived with a damaging report or rumor about you.
22 But we should like to hear you present your views, for we know that this sect is denounced everywhere.”
23 So they arranged a day with him and came to his lodgings in great numbers. From early morning until evening, he expounded his position to them, bearing witness to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from the law of Moses and the prophets.
24 Some were convinced by what he had said, while others did not believe.
25 Without reaching any agreement among themselves they began to leave; then Paul made one final statement. “Well did the holy Spirit speak to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah, saying:
26 ‘Go to this people and say: You shall indeed hear but not understand. You shall indeed look but never see.
27 Gross is the heart of this people; they will not hear with their ears; they have closed their eyes, so they may not see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.’
28 Let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.”
As you can see, the jews in Rome that Paul preaches to are not believers and certainly not the leaders of the Church.

Quote:
What errors are you speaking about?

okay It can readily be shown that there was corruption in the church. I grant you that. But this does not prove your central thesis that Jesus did not authorize a Church leader. And by the way, it also doesn’t disprove any Church doctrine.

 

[Redbaron998]

I am gonna comment on this without reading the previous posts so Ill pray you forgive me if its kinda just throwing in my .02 cents.

I believe this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Great Schism was. The split between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church was not like the Protestants.

If you imagine Christendom as a tree it was more or less united untill the Great Schism. Due to Cultural differences and some disagreements the tree started to grow apart some (You have seen trees that split halfway before im sure) yet was still connected. The Great Schism was like driving an axe down the middle and formulazing that split all the way down to the base of the tree.
The Protestant revolt was more like somebody snapping a twig off the tree and going and planting it somewere else.

The reasoning for this is that the Catholic and EO are both Apsotolic, they both possess valid Succession and authority and Sacrements and both in that manner go back to the very beginning. These things that we hold in common like the Sacrements are the roots of the tree that remain united and they continue to be valid thanks to thier Apostolic Succession.

Which church did Jesus create? Both because they are one in the same, merely divided. Yes there are some Theological issues that they disagree with and this should be apporached with care and respect for both sides, but they are both one in the same Church. (They both have Apostolic Succession, therefore they are both the original Church of Christ, as we know Christ founded one church, therefor they are both one, merely divided)

 

[Carlan]

I am gonna comment on this without reading the previous posts so Ill pray you forgive me if its kinda just throwing in my .02 cents.

I believe this question demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Great Schism was. The split between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church was not like the Protestants.

If you imagine Christendom as a tree it was more or less united untill the Great Schism. Due to Cultural differences and some disagreements the tree started to grow apart some (You have seen trees that split halfway before im sure) yet was still connected. The Great Schism was like driving an axe down the middle and formulazing that split all the way down to the base of the tree.
The Protestant revolt was more like somebody snapping a twig off the tree and going and planting it somewere else.

The reasoning for this is that the Catholic and EO are both Apsotolic, they both possess valid Succession and authority and Sacrements and both in that manner go back to the very beginning. These things that we hold in common like the Sacrements are the roots of the tree that remain united and they continue to be valid thanks to thier Apostolic Succession.

Which church did Jesus create? Both because they are one in the same, merely divided. Yes there are some Theological issues that they disagree with and this should be apporached with care and respect for both sides, but they are both one in the same Church. (They both have Apostolic Succession, therefore they are both the original Church of Christ, as we know Christ founded one church, therefor they are both one, merely divided)

I just now came in without reading the previous posts also.
In a nut shell, Redbaron, you have nailed it.
Christ established only one universal Church.
Dissidents split early on in history
and dissidents split 500years ago.
Peace, Carlan
Continue to pray for Christ’s desire, Unity!

 

[gtrenewed]

No Catholic would dispute that there have been problems and abuses in the past, bad popes etc. However I think that I would have to object to your use of the term “supreme ruler” only in that it gives the impression of a single person with absolute rule and acting in a vaccuum.

I have encountered many who do dispute the past abuses on this forum.
The CCC has this explicit language about the papacy. While they may not act upon it in modern times, they could by doctrine.

In considering this I would ask that you consider the office of today rather than of the distant past, when the pope was not only a spiritual leader but a temporal one as well. The mixing of the two, temporal and spiritual, was the cause of many of the problems.

 

[paul_c]

The primary fruit of the reformation was getting back to the basic salvation doctrine of grace through faith as a gift from God and returning the Scriptures to the entire faithful.

The primary fruit of the reformation was bad: it created the situation where every Protestant felt he was his own pope, capable of defining the faith as he saw fit.

To talk of schisms in the protestant church is not relavent because each person and thus each congregation is answerable directly before God as seen in Revelation.

Every man will answer to God, it is true. Those who are Protestants will need to explain why they chose to follow their own desires rather than the teachings Jesus left with his church.

I don’t pretend to speak for all protestants and I have issue when they deviate from Scripture or water down Scripture.

All Protestants deviate from scripture. this is hypocritical.

Still, the church that Jesus set up is the Spiritual Body of Christ whose members can be found in many visible churches.

So here’s the first example to show your own hypocracy. Where does scripture say this?

Each person, each congregation must deal with these. Each doctrine following salvation can be congregation specific. Every pastor does not have to agree. As long as there is unity in the essential doctrine of Jesus, the cross, the resurrection and liberty to other christians there is not a problem. When each believes that their way is the only way do problems and persecution arise.

Don’t you understand that there is only one truth. it two congregations disagree, at least one is in error. Don’t you see that this is simply a case of people wanted to bend the truth to their own wills, rather than bend their wills to the truth.

They do believe that the Lords’ Supper or communion must be done in remembrence of Jesus. Whether it is the literal body and blood is debated. I happen to believe it is but like many others they don’t see transubstantiation in Scripture. So it is more than just about the body and blood but having a sacrificial priestly order. Also, why did the RCC go away from receiving the bread and wine to receiving just the bread? If it was for sanitary reasons, I would ask how the real body and blood of Jesus can be contaminated?

We recieve both body and blood.

There is direct Scriptural evidence of an adult believers baptism but only supposition of infant baptism.

All scripture is truth, but there are truths not contained in scripture.

Understanding and maturing in the kingdom of Jesus is the journey and a process but becoming a sojourner is a moment. The more ritualized or tradition based, whether RCC or protestant, churches can produce a less mature congregation due to emphasis on the rituals.

Why do you presume that tradition leads to less mature congregations?

 

[Romans_Road]

Hi Bing,

Jesus promised that he would be with His Church until the end of time. When the Orthodox went their own way, they were making a statement that the Church was in error, therefore that Christ had abandonned it. This goes against the faith.

Verbum

Maybe Jesus preserved his church by breaking away from the Catholic church when the Orthodox Church broke away or during the reformation. By breaking away it could have preserved the church by ppurging it of false teachings.

 

[gtrenewed]

The primary fruit of the reformation was bad: it created the situation where every Protestant felt he was his own pope, capable of defining the faith as he saw fit.

A Christian does not need a pope to define the faith - Jesus defined the faith and this was preserved in Scripture. The faith is this: Jesus, the Son of God, suffered, died, and rose again taking the penalty for our sins by His Blood. You make “the faith” equal to the RCC making the RCC all powerful over mens’ lives. When carnal authority assumes all power abuses follow. We see this fruit in medieval times and in the clergy abuses and subsequent cover-ups of our times. Thus when people put their faith in an institution they lose their liberty but when their faith is in Jesus there is freedom for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

We recieve both body and blood.

 

[diggerdomer]

The primary fruit of the reformation was bad: it created the situation where every Protestant felt he was his own pope, capable of defining the faith as he saw fit.

Every man will answer to God, it is true. Those who are Protestants will need to explain why they chose to follow their own desires rather than the teachings Jesus left with his church.

One fruit of the Reformation was the Council of Trent. Another fruit of the Reformation was the Catholic Reformation.

Are you saying both of those are less important (i.e. not “primary”)?

Regarding your comment about Protestants following their own desires rather than the teachings of Jesus, can you please provide us with one (any) example of a Protestant who claims to follow their own desires rather than the teachings of Jesus? thank you.

 

[paul_c]

A Christian does not need a pope to define the faith - Jesus defined the faith and this was preserved in Scripture. The faith is this: Jesus, the Son of God, suffered, died, and rose again taking the penalty for our sins by His Blood.

yes. but this is only part of the truth to be found in scripture. And how you understand and apply it makes all the difference. The Pope provides continuity of understanding and application that you just can’t get by reading a book.

You make “the faith” equal to the RCC making the RCC all powerful over mens’ lives.

The Catholic Church does teach the fullness of the faith so what it teaches is equal to the Faith. However, this doesn’t make the Church all powerful. You are free to disregard what it teaches and you do, right? But you do so at your own peril because the church teaches only what it has been taugth and when you ignore the Church, you ignore the apostolic teaching.

When carnal authority assumes all power abuses follow. We see this fruit in medieval times and in the clergy abuses and subsequent cover-ups of our times.

We can agree that absolute power corrupts. The church has been much stronger when it focused on Faith and morals and not on temporal government.

Thus when people put their faith in an institution they lose their liberty but when their faith is in Jesus there is freedom for whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

Putting your faith in institutions does not automatically result in lose of liberty. Are you suggesting that Anarchy is the way to go? In fact, it is clear that human organization is beneficial to society. And without the Church, you would have no scripture and you would not know Jesus Christ.

Jesus offered bread and wine separately. The RCC only gave a wafer until recently. In fact the cup is optional. Now why would you deviate from the example Jesus gave?

Jesus is entirely present in both the consecrated host and the consecrated wine. You don’t get less Jesus if you only partake of the host or only of the wine.

Scripture is all truth. Any tradition that cannot be confirmed in Scripture is not truth, otherwise you are a Gnostic - a bearer of secret truths.

No. Scripture clearly doesn’t contain all truth. For instance, it doesn’t talk about the law of Gravity or that the Earth is round. That is a truth. Now you can argue, correctly, that the Bible is not a science book. But you can also argue correctly that the Bible was never meant to be a complete Catechism, either. It also doesn’t define Christmas as December 25th or the date of Easter, or tell how Jesus looked or the fact that we celebrate the Lord’s day on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t have a table of contents which defines what is valid scripture either nor does it tell how ot validly interpret the verses contained within it. These are all traditions.

Why do you presume that tradition leads to less mature congregations?

.
No, this is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by gtrenewed

Understanding and maturing in the kingdom of Jesus is the journey and a process but becoming a sojourner is a moment. The more ritualized or tradition based, whether RCC or protestant, churches can produce a less mature congregation due to emphasis on the rituals.

first of all, why do you think the Catholic Church emphasizes rituals. I would say that the Catholic Church emphasizes what it was taught by the apostles and that it administers the life giving sacraments. Second of all, why do you presume this leads to less mature congregations?

 

[paul_c]

One fruit of the Reformation was the Council of Trent. Another fruit of the Reformation was the Catholic Reformation.

Are you saying both of those are less important (i.e. not “primary”)?

The council of Trent and the Catholic Counter-reformation are clearly important. They clarified doctrine and addressed some real issues in church practice. But clearly, the main fruit of the Reformation was the spread of heresy and the splintering of Christ’s Church into thousands of peices. This was and is a source of lament.

Regarding your comment about Protestants following their own desires rather than the teachings of Jesus, can you please provide us with one (any) example of a Protestant who claims to follow their own desires rather than the teachings of Jesus? thank you.

Just because no Protestant would claim they are following their own desires doesn’t make it any less true. You’ve been on these pages for a long time. You have seen countless Protestants and yes, sadly some Catholics, who will say that they disagree with Church teachings and go another way. It might be on divorce, or contraception or abortion or women priests or gay marriage or to claim they are saved upon declaration of belief regardless of future sin. Sure, sometimes they will try to justify their position through creative use of scripture. But in the end, where they differ from the Church’s teachings, they are following their own desires.

 

[JRKH]

I have encountered many who do dispute the past abuses on this forum.
The CCC has this explicit language about the papacy. While they may not act upon it in modern times, they could by doctrine.
The pope is still a temporal leader of an independent state. The fuedal system is long gone so the papacy is very different today I grant you that.

I’d say that being the ruler of a state comprising about 100 acres doesn’t give him much clout in world affiars. Being the Spiritual leader of over a billion Catholics however does.
And Yes, theoretically the Pope could act completely indendant of the other bishops. But since, in matters of faith and morals, he never has the odds are highly against it.

The primary fruit of the reformation was getting back to the basic salvation doctrine of grace through faith as a gift from God and returning the Scriptures to the entire faithful.

Returning Scripture to the entire faithful??
Interesting since it is only through the offices of the Catholic Church that Scripture was gathered, maintained, copied, distributed, read and taught from at mass, for 1000 years before the reformation.
If you are refering to the Translation of the Bible, and the mass printings. There were several “vernacular” translations predating Luther, and mass printings had only become possible at roughly the same time as the Reformation.
Of course, “returning the Scriptures to the entire faithful”, did not make those faithful any more literate, or any more able to correctly understand what they were reading.

As to “returning to salvation by faith through grace”, I would agree that the reformation caused some good discussion in this direction. However, lake many things that are taken out of context, it swung too far.

To talk of schisms in the protestant church is not relavent because each person and thus each congregation is answerable directly before God as seen in Revelation.

So in Acts, what you are saying is that St Paul, instead of arguing with the Judaizers and going to Jerusalem to get a ruling, should have simply told the Judaizers in Antioch, you go your way and we will go ours. You hold to the Law of Moses, and we will not, - Just so long as we both believe in the Cross and Resurection

I don’t pretend to speak for all protestants and I have issue when they deviate from Scripture or water down Scripture.
Still, the church that Jesus set up is the Spiritual Body of Christ whose members can be found in many visible churches.

The more I hear about this “invisible body” that comprises the “true Church” the more I see a mis-match between the term “Church” and the idea of the “elect”. I heartily agree that there are those in every ecclesial community who are headed toward heaven and those who are not.
However. Trying to fit the term “Church” to soley mean this flies in the face of Mt 18:15-18. It just does not work.
If we accept your definition of Church as being those in all denominations who are on the right path, then in order to “Tell it to the Church” we would have to go around to all of these communities and gather these people together for a conference. Even then how would we know if we ONLY had actual “church” members.
No - The term Church as used in Matthew, and by St Paul and Demonstrated in Acts points clearly to a visible and authoritative Church for the purpose of preserving, expounding on, settling disputes about, and spreading the Good News of Christ.

We are all familiar with the saying that “it is too late to close the barn door after the horses are out.” The pressure for reform occured for over at least 100+ years. Following the release of all that pressure, it was very hard to put it back together. Especially, since the protestants saw the body of Christ in spiritual terms.

And were blind to how that “spiritual body” view was leading only to more and more confusion.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Contt)

Each person, each congregation must deal with these. Each doctrine following salvation can be congregation specific. Every pastor does not have to agree. As long as there is unity in the essential doctrine of Jesus, the cross, the resurrection and liberty to other christians there is not a problem. When each believes that their way is the only way do problems and persecution arise.

Scripture disagrees with this view. Acts 15 shows us a Church not satisifed to “agree to disagree”. There IS only one way and that way is narrow. The idea that there are many ways is just what teh devil wants us to think.

They do believe that the Lords’ Supper or communion must be done in remembrence of Jesus. Whether it is the literal body and blood is debated. I happen to believe it is but like many others they don’t see transubstantiation in Scripture. So it is more than just about the body and blood but having a sacrificial priestly order. Also, why did the RCC go away from receiving the bread and wine to receiving just the bread? If it was for sanitary reasons, I would ask how the real body and blood of Jesus can be contaminated?
There is direct Scriptural evidence of an adult believers baptism but only supposition of infant baptism.
The other issues are not salvation issues.

You claim they are not salvation issues but a great many would disagree with you…That alone, makes getting proper answers to such questions as the neeed for water baptism, the theology of predestination and necessity of Works etc. The very fact that these issues have been raised, discussed , written about and form the doctrinal positions of differing theologies, na ddividsions in the Body of Christ, elevate their importance.

Let’s look back at Acts again and ask the question if circumcision was a mtter of salvic import. The Judaizers said yes it was, while the Gentiles, taught by Paul, said no it was not.
Both sides agreed that the most important thing was belief in the Cross and resurrection of Christ. So why the need to go to Jerusalem to resolve the issue? According to you, they don’t HAVE to agree.

Understanding and maturing in the kingdom of Jesus is the journey and a process but becoming a sojourner is a moment. The more ritualized or tradition based, whether RCC or protestant, churches can produce a less mature congregation due to emphasis on the rituals.

Yes, it only takes a moment to begin the journey, just as it only takes a moment to stop the journey or even reverse direction.
I would also agree that ritural can become the focus for some people. I would say though that the simplistic view of OSAS can produce just as many immature individuals/congregations. The fault lies less in the traditions, rituals, doctrines etc. than it lies in the choice of individuals to actively pursue their faith journey.

It would be nice but it won’t happen for a variety of reasons and is not necessary as I said. Uniform doctrine is a hallmark of Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses but they deny Jesus in one way or another. When persecution finally comes with the end of the end times, true christians will be easy to see - they won’t deny Jesus and will die for it. Your denomination won’t matter, you will be looking for a christian brother to help.

It is true that uniform doctrine does not equate to true doctrine, but my point in proposing to you the idea of all the pastors coming together in conference to seek a unform doctrine is to equate (roughly) the very thing that occurred in Acts 15. The very thing Christ instructs us to do in Mt 18 15-18. The very thing Christ prayed for in John 17 20-21. to come together and to be united in Love.
Your comments above do not speak to that, and in fact you opening comment about it bein unnecessary speaks against what we see in Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[gtrenewed]

The Pope provides continuity of understanding and application that you just can’t get by reading a book.

Not just a book - it is the Word of God!
A council does the same thing - a supreme ruler is not needed.

Putting your faith in institutions does not automatically result in lose of liberty.

Faith should only be put in Jesus!

In fact, it is clear that human organization is beneficial to society.

Yes, although those with supreme rulers have not treated people so well.

And without the Church, you would have no scripture and you would not know Jesus Christ.

The early church was not Roman Catholic - a term that comes much later. All Christians have just as much right to call the first church ancestors in the faith as you do. Scripture says that the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrence what Jesus taught. So, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, He will make sure Jesus’ Words survive throughout the generations.

Jesus is entirely present in both the consecrated host and the consecrated wine. You don’t get less Jesus if you only partake of the host or only of the wine.

You keep avoiding my question - why did the RCC change from the example that Jesus set - “This bread is my body and in this cup is my blood, do this in remembrence of me.” And then change back and then make it optional?

No. Scripture clearly doesn’t contain all truth. For instance, it doesn’t talk about the law of Gravity or that the Earth is round.

Are you serious? I thought this was a serious discussion. For your information, “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.” 2Timothy 3:16-17
So despite what you say I can say Scripture is a complete catechism and that it doesn’t matter what day we celebrate and how to interpret it.

 

[gtrenewed]

(Contt)

Let’s look back at Acts again and ask the question if circumcision was a mtter of salvic import. The Judaizers said yes it was, while the Gentiles, taught by Paul, said no it was not.
Both sides agreed that the most important thing was belief in the Cross and resurrection of Christ. So why the need to go to Jerusalem to resolve the issue? According to you, they don’t HAVE to agree.

Not the most important, the only thing, Acts 15:11. Judaizers taught Jesus + Moses but the truth is Jesus alone is sufficient. They appealed to Jerusalem because Judaizers came from Jerusalem saying that this teaching was from Jerusalem church.
Acts 15:24

Yes, it only takes a moment to begin the journey, just as it only takes a moment to stop the journey or even reverse direction.

It is not that easy to reverse directions. That thought process shows a sin conscienceness instead of a Spirit conscienceness. When a church constantly focuses on our flesh and failings we forget we were born again and are free, Romans 8:1-2. You see, while we can frustrate the grace of God only by a sin against the Holy Spirit results in death.

By focusing on the flesh we remain immature. That is why those that subject themselves to mortification deny the New Covenant. Our spirit is born again but our flesh will only be changed when Jesus returns. We don’t beat our flesh, see Ephesians 6:10-17. If others beat our flesh that is persecution but we don’t beat ourselves.

I would also agree that ritural can become the focus for some people. I would say though that the simplistic view of OSAS can produce just as many immature individuals/congregations. The fault lies less in the traditions, rituals, doctrines etc. than it lies in the choice of individuals to actively pursue their faith journey.

I agree that OSAS can be an impediment in the maturing process but I disagree that with your fault analysis. If freedom is preached - that is that God is not waiting to condemn with every failure - but that you are in a child-Father relationship people will not lose hope but will strive to please their Father.

That is why children mature better in a positive relationship than in a critical one.

It is true that uniform doctrine does not equate to true doctrine, but my point in proposing to you the idea of all the pastors coming together in conference to seek a unform doctrine is to equate (roughly) the very thing that occurred in Acts 15.

Again, Acts 15 would not apply because the Judaizers came from Jerusalem claiming authority over them.

The very thing Christ instructs us to do in Mt 18 15-18. The very thing Christ prayed for in John 17 20-21. to come together and to be united in Love.
Your comments above do not speak to that, and in fact you opening comment about it bein unnecessary speaks against what we see in Scripture.

I have been part of ministers associations where pastors come together for good works and fellowship. Even though there is differences there is also focus - Jesus is the answer to any question. Whatever the cities problems may be, if more people will turn to Jesus things will get better. It turns out that each pastor or congregation relates to certain segments of society. Of course everyplace is different, some better than others but in general they view each other as equals not as less as RC’s look at believers outside of the RCC.

 

[gtrenewed]

And Yes, theoretically the Pope could act completely indendant of the other bishops. But since, in matters of faith and morals, he never has the odds are highly against it.

Then why have it in the CCC at all? Why is it required to bow and kiss his ring? Why not avoid all appearance of the past medieval abuses?

Returning Scripture to the entire faithful??
Interesting since it is only through the offices of the Catholic Church that Scripture was gathered, maintained, copied, distributed, read and taught from at mass, for 1000 years before the reformation.

Interesting since from the ECF’s to the rerformation it was the leaders that kept Scripture from the laity by practice. At the time of the reformation even the clergy were illiterate and could only mimic ritual as they were taught. Power was consolidated in the papacy.

If you are refering to the Translation of the Bible, and the mass printings. There were several “vernacular” translations predating Luther, and mass printings had only become possible at roughly the same time as the Reformation.
Of course, “returning the Scriptures to the entire faithful”, did not make those faithful any more literate, or any more able to correctly understand what they were reading.

But not for the laity. In fact, the RCC excommunicated and even burned at the stake those that tried to print vernacular translations.

As to “returning to salvation by faith through grace”, I would agree that the reformation caused some good discussion in this direction. However, lake many things that are taken out of context, it swung too far.

There are many parts of our discipleship but as far as the New Covenant is concerned this is the foundation. God extends grace through Jesus, we receive Jesus by faith. This is not out of context it is the context.

So in Acts, what you are saying is that St Paul, instead of arguing with the Judaizers and going to Jerusalem to get a ruling, should have simply told the Judaizers in Antioch, you go your way and we will go ours. You hold to the Law of Moses, and we will not, - Just so long as we both believe in the Cross and Resurection

They went to Jerusalem because the Judaizers came from Jerusalem saying that it came from the authority there.

However. Trying to fit the term “Church” to soley mean this flies in the face of Mt 18:15-18. It just does not work.
If we accept your definition of Church as being those in all denominations who are on the right path, then in order to “Tell it to the Church” we would have to go around to all of these communities and gather these people together for a conference. Even then how would we know if we ONLY had actual “church” members.

Church means assembly of believers. If you have a dispute your local assembly deals with it.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
The Pope provides continuity of understanding and application that you just can’t get by reading a book.

So now you are backing off the Scripture alone idea and advocating a council in its place?

Quote:
Putting your faith in institutions does not automatically result in lose of liberty.

You are not being honest with this. You also put faith in institutions, I would guess. Whether it be your own church, your local government or your bank…

Quote:
In fact, it is clear that human organization is beneficial to society.

It depends completely on the leader and his motivation.

Quote:
And without the Church, you would have no scripture and you would not know Jesus Christ.

This is utterly wrong. Non-Catholic Christians walked away from the Catholic faith because they thought they knew a better way. And they have tried to co-opt Catholic Scripture and now you are trying to co-opt the Church fathers. You can try to bend the truth to substantiate your view, but you will not be the final judge.

Quote:
Jesus is entirely present in both the consecrated host and the consecrated wine. You don’t get less Jesus if you only partake of the host or only of the wine.

What are you talking about? The mass has always had those words and the priests have always partaken of both speices. But it is not required that everyone does.

Quote:
No. Scripture clearly doesn’t contain all truth. For instance, it doesn’t talk about the law of Gravity or that the Earth is round.

It is. so why did you cut out the rest of my response? That seems a little dishonest, doesn’t it: here’s the rest for other readers to judge between us.

No. Scripture clearly doesn’t contain all truth. For instance, it doesn’t talk about the law of Gravity or that the Earth is round. That is a truth. Now you can argue, correctly, that the Bible is not a science book. But you can also argue correctly that the Bible was never meant to be a complete Catechism, either. It also doesn’t define Christmas as December 25th or the date of Easter, or tell how Jesus looked or the fact that we celebrate the Lord’s day on Sunday. Scripture doesn’t have a table of contents which defines what is valid scripture either nor does it tell how to validly interpret the verses contained within it. These are all traditions.

For your information, “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.” 2Timothy 3:16-17
So despite what you say I can say Scripture is a complete catechism and that it doesn’t matter what day we celebrate and how to interpret it.

you can say what you want but it won’t make it any more correct. Your quote doesn’t say that scripture is a complete catechism. and it also doesn’t define what exactly is scripture, does it. How would you know if it wasn’t for tradition?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRKH
And Yes, theoretically the Pope could act completely indendant of the other bishops. But since, in matters of faith and morals, he never has the odds are highly against it

Why do you persist in arguing against strawmen. The Pope’s job is to transmit the truths of the faith from generation to generation. He understands what is at stake and he uses all the insight he can to make sure he gets it right. That includes calling councils when he needs advice . No one is required to bow and kiss the pope’s ring. People do out of respect for the man and the office. But not everyone does. And what appearance of past medieval abuses are you talking about?

Quote:
Returning Scripture to the entire faithful??
Interesting since it is only through the offices of the Catholic Church that Scripture was gathered, maintained, copied, distributed, read and taught from at mass, for 1000 years before the reformation.

This is a false charge. Do you realize that the reason scripture was compiled in the first place was as a teaching tool for the mass. The entire bible is read in mass over a three year cycle. It is hardly kept from the masses. The only thing that kept scripture from the masses prior to the reformation was the great expense in handcopying books prior to the invention of the printing press.

Quote:
If you are refering to the Translation of the Bible, and the mass printings. There were several “vernacular” translations predating Luther, and mass printings had only become possible at roughly the same time as the Reformation
Of course, “returning the Scriptures to the entire faithful”, did not make those faithful any more literate, or any more able to correctly understand what they were reading.

This is not true, nor can you prove it from any legitimate source.

Quote:
As to “returning to salvation by faith through grace”, I would agree that the reformation caused some good discussion in this direction. However, lake many things that are taken out of context, it swung too far.

Sure it is, but its not the whole truth either . Faith without works is dead.

Quote:
So in Acts, what you are saying is that St Paul, instead of arguing with the Judaizers and going to Jerusalem to get a ruling, should have simply told the Judaizers in Antioch, you go your way and we will go ours. You hold to the Law of Moses, and we will not, - Just so long as we both believe in the Cross and Resurection

The went to Jerusalem because thats where the leaders of the church resided in 49 AD.

Quote:
However. Trying to fit the term “Church” to soley mean this flies in the face of Mt 18:15-18. It just does not work.
If we accept your definition of Church as being those in all denominations who are on the right path, then in order to “Tell it to the Church” we would have to go around to all of these communities and gather these people together for a conference. Even then how would we know if we ONLY had actual “church” members

But there is only one truth and its universal. Your local assembly doesn’t have the competency or responsibility to rule on universal truth…