O
- Status
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
What is it that you want? you know that the CC is here from the beginning. is it not enough prove that Jesus fullfill His promises to His Church.
what is it that the others have that makes you think that they are right with God? please tell me. if these other organizations know anything about Christ is due to God’s Church, is it not?
judge for yourself. if they teach err, explain how these errs are comming from God.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
WOW I missed that post can you tell me the # of the post so I can look it up,I love to see who called it a brothel
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Never Mind.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I normally do not like to reopen dead threads, but am doing so here upon request.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Thank you for doing so maybe we can come to some truths. God Bless.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Who decided which books belong in the New Testament?The Cathloic Church
H
hillsteven
Guest
Since I seem to be the guilty party responsible for having this thread re-opened, I’ll start with my mention in another thread of the Nicene Creed. I have not yet taken the time to dig into this thread to see what has or has not already been hashed out, so if this has been brought up, I humbly ask your forgiveness. I will correct that situation this weekend.
In part, the Nicene Creed states that we believe in “One Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” This creedo predates the Protestant Revolution, which sadly has lead to the splintering of the one church established by Christ into (sadly) literally thousands of independent groups. One could (and many have) debated the specific number of such so-called “denominations”, but the number is largely irrelevant to this conversation.
I have seen and heard arguments that the “one-ness” is still valid, but refers to a unity on a purely spiritual level. History, dating back to the first Apostles, would seem to disagree with that concept. If that is your stance, Amateur Pianist, then I guess I would want to know where you base your defense of that stance. Show me where, both in scripture (which is subject to interpretation) AND in History, where this was presumed to be true in the 15 centuries PRIOR to the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin. There is certainly ample historical proof available even today sustaining the view of Holy Mother Church.
In part, the Nicene Creed states that we believe in “One Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” This creedo predates the Protestant Revolution, which sadly has lead to the splintering of the one church established by Christ into (sadly) literally thousands of independent groups. One could (and many have) debated the specific number of such so-called “denominations”, but the number is largely irrelevant to this conversation.
I have seen and heard arguments that the “one-ness” is still valid, but refers to a unity on a purely spiritual level. History, dating back to the first Apostles, would seem to disagree with that concept. If that is your stance, Amateur Pianist, then I guess I would want to know where you base your defense of that stance. Show me where, both in scripture (which is subject to interpretation) AND in History, where this was presumed to be true in the 15 centuries PRIOR to the likes of Martin Luther and John Calvin. There is certainly ample historical proof available even today sustaining the view of Holy Mother Church.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
To kick this off, I will try to state what I believe (and why)
In the apostolic age the church existed in one organization. Now we can have a debate on whether Peter was a type of “pope” of this organization, but at the very least the office of the apostle seems to be the glue that provides some type of unity in all locations where the church of Jesus Christ exists.
Today there are many organizations that call themselves Christian. Somehow some process of division had to occur starting with the one apostolic age church in order for this to occur. We of course can have a discussion on when this first happened (1500s Protestant Reformation), 1000s (East/West), 400s (Oriental Orthodox), earlier (if any one of those groups like the Donatists that are commonly considered heretical really are not from God’s perspective).
This phenomenon of multiple organization, particularly when they are in competition with each other, anathematize each other, and proclaim contradictory doctrine and dogma seems to be contrary to how Jesus designed the church (John 17, 1 Cor 1:10).
There are some organizations (example Gnostics, Jehovah Witness, etc.) I believe are not Christian. I do not believe that is true for all organizations today that call themselves Christians.
The issues in my mind are
(Actually there is one other possibility that is the premise of the restorationalist churches, we will neglect that for the purpose of this thread).
My beliefs (and although I can not prove them, the evidence that I observe supports them in my mind) are that at some point in time from God’s perspective he adopted the perspective that both parties are wrong to some extent and that He could not bless one party any more than the other. We could have a discussion whether there have been any loss of benefits and graces that God could provide to a united church that He can not to a divided church (I personally believe that is why for example we do not observe the office of the apostle today…not that God did away with the office).
And although, what we observe today is outside of what God’s design is, on the other hand God’s focus has and always has been people. And God can and does work today lthrough the many organizations that do exist (to the extent that we let Him of course) to advance His kingdom and His gospel of Jesus Christ and message of forgiveness through Jesus Christ throughout the whole earth. And since God is still working and advancing His kingdom through what He has, we can not say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.
That is what I believe anyway.
In the apostolic age the church existed in one organization. Now we can have a debate on whether Peter was a type of “pope” of this organization, but at the very least the office of the apostle seems to be the glue that provides some type of unity in all locations where the church of Jesus Christ exists.
Today there are many organizations that call themselves Christian. Somehow some process of division had to occur starting with the one apostolic age church in order for this to occur. We of course can have a discussion on when this first happened (1500s Protestant Reformation), 1000s (East/West), 400s (Oriental Orthodox), earlier (if any one of those groups like the Donatists that are commonly considered heretical really are not from God’s perspective).
This phenomenon of multiple organization, particularly when they are in competition with each other, anathematize each other, and proclaim contradictory doctrine and dogma seems to be contrary to how Jesus designed the church (John 17, 1 Cor 1:10).
There are some organizations (example Gnostics, Jehovah Witness, etc.) I believe are not Christian. I do not believe that is true for all organizations today that call themselves Christians.
The issues in my mind are
- whether from God’s persepective there is one and only one Christian organization today that He considers the church.
- whether some type of superior->inferior relationship exists between this organization and all remaining organizations (the extent of this superior->inferior relationship can be relatively large or relatively small)
- whether it would be to the advantage of all of God’s people to be a part of this organization
- whether there are some graces, benefits, or what have you that God makes available only to members of this organization and excludes from other organizations.
(Actually there is one other possibility that is the premise of the restorationalist churches, we will neglect that for the purpose of this thread).
My beliefs (and although I can not prove them, the evidence that I observe supports them in my mind) are that at some point in time from God’s perspective he adopted the perspective that both parties are wrong to some extent and that He could not bless one party any more than the other. We could have a discussion whether there have been any loss of benefits and graces that God could provide to a united church that He can not to a divided church (I personally believe that is why for example we do not observe the office of the apostle today…not that God did away with the office).
And although, what we observe today is outside of what God’s design is, on the other hand God’s focus has and always has been people. And God can and does work today lthrough the many organizations that do exist (to the extent that we let Him of course) to advance His kingdom and His gospel of Jesus Christ and message of forgiveness through Jesus Christ throughout the whole earth. And since God is still working and advancing His kingdom through what He has, we can not say that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.
That is what I believe anyway.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
See my post below (hmm…try above)
I think the weakness of the traditional Protestant argument is that it tends to minimize and explain away the fact that the church of Jesus Christ today does exist in multiple competing organizations that mutuallly anathematize each other (or less strong language) and proclaim contradictory doctrines and dogmas. I refuse to do that.
H
hillsteven
Guest
I’ve gotta run some errands, and with company coming tonight, I might not make it back today.
A few random thoughts on your two posts:
*
I’m guessing that you were writing your post at approximately the same time as I was writing mine. I am curious about your thoughts on my post regarding the Nicene Creed. I know that this is not recited solely in the Catholic Church, as I recall reciting it in the Presbyterian Church I attended for a time in College. (I then moved on to the Methodist Church).
A few random thoughts on your two posts:
- You mention “the church”… I read your post above on your thoughts, but I’m still not clear. Would you mind crystallizing for me/us what that term means to you? I’m having a difficult time understanding how you could say in one post that you don’t see that there is any one “church”, yet in your next reference a seemingly singular entity?
- regarding organizations that “…proclaim contradictory doctrines and dogmas. I refuse to do that.”: If there are many organizations claiming to be followers of Christ and believers in God, and only one God to worship, how can anyone be expected to know with any degree of certainty which set of dogmas are TRULY in line with God’s Will? It would seem to me that without one central and temporal authority (Christ is the spiritual head of His church, to be sure, but we are, I presume, discussing the temporal church), we’re all just drifting along in whatever current we find ourselves in, and wherever we feel most comfortable. Our God is profoundly rational and logical (if you can read music, have studied astronomy, chemistry, or biology to any extent, you will know the truth of this statement). It seems illogical that he would promise to send us a guide (I speak of the Holy Spirit), then have that guide send us into a multitude of directions. Only one of them can be true! If there are in fact multiple conflicting AND true dogmas, then the God of the Universe contradicts Himself. I just cannot bring myself to believe that.
- You seem to grasp the principle I list above in (2) with your definition above.
*
I’m guessing that you were writing your post at approximately the same time as I was writing mine. I am curious about your thoughts on my post regarding the Nicene Creed. I know that this is not recited solely in the Catholic Church, as I recall reciting it in the Presbyterian Church I attended for a time in College. (I then moved on to the Methodist Church).
P
peary1
Guest
Many Catholics and most protestants do not understand how the Davidic Covenant structured the Church and the Messianic kingdom.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Note: if there are some posts I am not responding to, I have a one-person ignore list.
I believe that there is one church. I believe the one church today exists in several organizations. I do not believe that it is a necessity that this one church exist in one organization and that this one organization will receive graces and benefits that God can and will not provide to the other organizations. I do believe that Jesus has a design in mind for this one church and that it is dubious whether what we see today is in harmony with what Jesus had in mind. I do believe that God can work within what exists today and that He is advancing His kingdom on earth nontheless.
It certainly would be easier if this were not the case. Then I for one would feel safe just believing what this one church with just one set of dogmas and doctrines said was true and not asking a whole set of silly questions at every corner. Even if this one church were wrong on something in the final analysis, I would have a hard time believing that it could be that wrong.
In other words, if what we see today is not quite what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church, well there just might be consequences to departing from His design.
Well I would have to do a study, but perhaps at that point in time the church had not divided upon itself. Or to the extent that it had divided (gnostics and other groups) the relationship from God’s perspective was always True church → false church (like the JW today). That was probably the case at that point in time although I am not sure.
And it is a historical fact that the church of that time period called itself Catholic (universal). And since “name” is one attribute of an entity that can logically be inherited by only one child in case the parent entity divides, that means that you inherited the name Catholic and we did not. However, I do not believe the attribute of “name” is a governing metric for true church versus not true church.
That is ok. I have to leave soon for the day. I will try to be clear, but perhaps I am not.
I believe that there is one church. I believe the one church today exists in several organizations. I do not believe that it is a necessity that this one church exist in one organization and that this one organization will receive graces and benefits that God can and will not provide to the other organizations. I do believe that Jesus has a design in mind for this one church and that it is dubious whether what we see today is in harmony with what Jesus had in mind. I do believe that God can work within what exists today and that He is advancing His kingdom on earth nontheless.
What if the multiple contradictory doctrines and dogmas were a negative consequence of the one church of the apostolic age dividing itself?
It certainly would be easier if this were not the case. Then I for one would feel safe just believing what this one church with just one set of dogmas and doctrines said was true and not asking a whole set of silly questions at every corner. Even if this one church were wrong on something in the final analysis, I would have a hard time believing that it could be that wrong.
In other words, if what we see today is not quite what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church, well there just might be consequences to departing from His design.
What time was the Nicene creed? 300s or so?
Well I would have to do a study, but perhaps at that point in time the church had not divided upon itself. Or to the extent that it had divided (gnostics and other groups) the relationship from God’s perspective was always True church → false church (like the JW today). That was probably the case at that point in time although I am not sure.
And it is a historical fact that the church of that time period called itself Catholic (universal). And since “name” is one attribute of an entity that can logically be inherited by only one child in case the parent entity divides, that means that you inherited the name Catholic and we did not. However, I do not believe the attribute of “name” is a governing metric for true church versus not true church.
B
benidict
Guest
if what we see today, in one organization is not what Christ had in mind, then he is a liar. because he did promise, that he would build His Church. and the gates of hell would not overcome it. either Jesus is God the son, and can preserve that one Church, or we are all deceived by following him. the only divisions that existed at the time of the apostles, were the nicloation heresy which may have been a gnostic movement. maybe a coulple others. but these were not divisions. these were looked upon as a false Gospel. if you follow the historical line all the way back. its the Catholic Church that Christ founded. even some protestant writers have to aknowlege this. Peace
H
hillsteven
Guest
Hrmm… okay. This does seem to be a good place to start then.
If you’d be so kind as to indulge me a little further here, I’d like to point out some linguistic, if not actual logical contradictions in your assertion:
“I believe that there is one church. I believe the one church today exists in several organizations.”
From a linguistic perspective, the church is either one, or it is several. I do note that you parse the two between one church and several** organizations**. This tells me that you see a distinction between the two concepts. Would it be a fair assumption to state that in your definition of the concept “church”, you mean the body of believers that follow Christ? In other words, from your perspective the concepts of “the church” and “Christians” are interchangeable? Stated another way, when you refer to “the church” it is solely in the context of the “Mystical body of Christ.”
Please confirm or correct my understanding of your definition. I’l leave this post short an focused solely on a working definition of “Church”. My reason for that is that if we’re going to debate the notion of “The True Church”, it would help to start by insuring that we both have the same understanding of what it is we are debating.
God Bless,
~Steven
If you’d be so kind as to indulge me a little further here, I’d like to point out some linguistic, if not actual logical contradictions in your assertion:
“I believe that there is one church. I believe the one church today exists in several organizations.”
From a linguistic perspective, the church is either one, or it is several. I do note that you parse the two between one church and several** organizations**. This tells me that you see a distinction between the two concepts. Would it be a fair assumption to state that in your definition of the concept “church”, you mean the body of believers that follow Christ? In other words, from your perspective the concepts of “the church” and “Christians” are interchangeable? Stated another way, when you refer to “the church” it is solely in the context of the “Mystical body of Christ.”
Please confirm or correct my understanding of your definition. I’l leave this post short an focused solely on a working definition of “Church”. My reason for that is that if we’re going to debate the notion of “The True Church”, it would help to start by insuring that we both have the same understanding of what it is we are debating.
God Bless,
~Steven
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t really see why God would have changed His idea of the Church, between 325 AD and 2010.AmateurPianist said:
“We believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” - Council of Nicea, 325 AD.
Scripture is clear that Jesus only founded one Church, and the books of the New Testament from Acts to Revelation show that it was both visible and authoritative.
I, for one, would not have wanted to be on the receiving end of one of those seven letters from the Apostle John in the Book of Revelation. It seems very clear that those seven churches, which were obviously under his authority, were not allowed to just make things up as they went along, either doctrinally or (more to our point here), in matters of discipline.
H
hillsteven
Guest
Good point, benedict.if what we see today, in one organization is not what Christ had in mind, then he is a liar. because he did promise, that he would build His Church. and the gates of hell would not overcome it. either Jesus is God the son, and can preserve that one Church, or we are all deceived by following him. the only divisions that existed at the time of the apostles, were the nicloation heresy which may have been a gnostic movement. maybe a coulple others. but these were not divisions. these were looked upon as a false Gospel. if you follow the historical line all the way back. its the Catholic Church that Christ founded. even some protestant writers have to aknowlege this. Peace
I would point out that there have been numerous heresies and schisms in the history of the Church. For an interesting and informative treatment on the notion of heresy, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this site. I think it worthy of note that in order to have a heresy, there must be a cohesive set of doctrines and dogmas for one to disagree with. I would also like to point to St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, specifically 1 Timothy 3:15, where we find that even then, the Church was given a place of precidence and authority:
“If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
if I am correct in my assumption of your working definition of “church”, Amateur Pianist, then I would ask how it is that a mystical body that merely refers to a group of believers could be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Where would one go to find that truth in such a mystical body? This is a practical question that must have some sort of logical answer. I’m not saying you don’t have one, but I’m very curious what that might look like.
In contrast, within the Catholic Church, we DO believe that there is a centralized repository of faith. We even give it a name, “The Deposit of Faith”. We believe in Apostolic Succession (a biblical concept, as we see in multiple instances where the apostles viewed their positions as an office, not merely a man. We even see in a couple of places how they went about selecting successors to those offices.) Through this Apostolic Succession, we believe that what we have come to call Bishops are, indeed, the successors of that authority granted to the original Apostles by Jesus. This pedigree, particularly with the Bishop of Rome, the preeminent Bishop in the Church, (i.e. “the Pope”) is well documented and able to be traced by anyone willing to take the time. When referring to the teaching authority of this college of Bishops, we use the term Magisterium. You have mentioned the schism between the Eastern and Western (i.e. Roman) Church. there are certainly differences between the two, but we each do recognize the apostolic succession of the other’s bishops and priests. Sadly, there are divisions still to be reconciled, but I think that at this point each does look forward to a time when we can become so. This is such an important point because we (Eastern and Western Catholics) do long for a time when we can put aside our differences and once again be ONE.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Just by way of a bit of background reading material on the Succession of the Popes, check this and this.
The second is a chronological list of all of the Popes in order, with clickable links to their biographies, where you can see what they accomplished (if anything), what sort of men they were, and how they fit into the whole thing - how they were elected, and how they came to end their reigns.
The second is a chronological list of all of the Popes in order, with clickable links to their biographies, where you can see what they accomplished (if anything), what sort of men they were, and how they fit into the whole thing - how they were elected, and how they came to end their reigns.
- Status