What is the one true Church?

[BreadOfLife]

I lost track of what this is connect to.

2nd century Church Father, Irenaeus listed all of the Popes from his own time, back to Peter in his work, Against Heresies.

Eminent Protestant scholar, J.N.D. Kelley lists Peter ass the first Pope in his book, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.

 

[Jim B]

The Catholic Church is the only one founded by Christ. It's nature is decidedly different than all other man-made denominations, in that it is the a living, Divine entity, the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says.
Eph. 1:22-23 says:
And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way.

Colossians 1:24 says:
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,...

Christ didn't come in the 16th century, when Protestantism began, and found a new Church. He only founded one Church. Historically, the only Church that can be is the Catholic Church, since it is, by centuries, the oldest.

Recall when Saul (Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting Christians? And Jesus knocked him off his horse and said to him:

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Acts 9:4

Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church? which he was doing, but "...why are you persecuting ME?" Christ and His Church identify as one! Persecute Christ's Church and you are persecuting Christ! Lie about Christ's Church and you like about Christ!

There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus founded the Catholic denomination. That is nothing but self-serving mythology. He founded His church, i.e., His body of all believers.

And then you quote verses that agree with what I write. They do not apply exclusively to your denomination! As I have said and will continue to say: the Catholic denomination is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

And again, you claim that Peter/Cephas is your founder, yet Paul warns against following Cephas! "What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Has Christ been divided?" 1 Corinthians 1:12-13a Yet you follow Cephas and divide His body!!!

And then you repeat your fable: "Historically, the only Church that can be is the Catholic Church, since it is, by centuries, the oldest." It isn't! It's a single denomination, located in Rome and again (and again and again) the Catholic denomination is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

And then you apply Paul's experience on the way to Damascus as though it applies to your denomination instead of to the true church: the full body of believers.

Lie about Christ's Church and you lie about Christ!

 

[Brakelite]

YOUR problem – besides being wrong – is that your abject ignorance of hos languages work.

My problem? Okay.

 

[Jack]

I've been searching for years. I have seen no church that resembles the NT church.

 

[Grailhunter]

No - I promise to agree with you when you can PROVE your point.

If you send me to a bogus site - I might be able to prove it wrong.
Send me the documented evidence.

Ok....define prove.
And which Protestant denomination will you believe above the Catholic Church's rhetoric?
And how do I prove they are Protestants?

 

[Grailhunter]

2nd century Church Father, Irenaeus listed all of the Popes from his own time, back to Peter in his work, Against Heresies.

He could not list the Popes from his own time because the word Pope is English and English did not exist in his time.
He might list people they were referring to as fathers. But I would have to look into that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Ok....define prove.
And which Protestant denomination will you believe above the Catholic Church's rhetoric?
And how do I prove they are Protestants?

I gave you documented evidence that Peter waas the first Pope.
YOU claim to have evidence that he wasn't.

PRODUCE the evidence and we'll discuss it.

He could not list the Popes from his own time because the word Pope is English and English did not exist in his time.
He might list people they were referring to as fathers. But I would have to look into that.

A foolish argument we've already discussed.
As I educated you earlier - the word "Pope" is is NOT an official title. It is a term of endearment, like "Papa" .

One of his official titles is the "Bishop of Rome".
It is THIS title that Irenaeus cites .

 

[quietthinker]

What is the one true Church?​

It is obvious to me by the 15k views of this thread that folk assume there is some organisational structure that qualifies as the true Church. That assumption needs rethinking.

 

[Illuminator]

I've been searching for years. I have seen no church that resembles the NT church.

Because the NT Church grows and develops over time, without change to the essential core of belief. As an analogy, an acorn is not an oak tree, and an oak tree is not an acorn. You are looking for an acorn.
Short reply:
Development of doctrine is common to all kinds of Christians; it happened in history with regard to doctrines agreed upon by all, and it is also seen in the Bible.

Long reply:
The Catholic Church holds that there was one apostolic deposit, given by Jesus Christ to the apostles, and that there has been no essential change in that. The Catholic Church preserves this apostolic deposit (Jude 3), and is the Guardian of it. But, on the other hand, there is a growth in clarity of those truths, and men’s understanding increases. One must keep this distinction in mind when discussing development.

Protestants believe in progressive revelation. Reading Genesis is a lot different from reading, say, John or Colossians. It is obvious that great development of the thought and the theology occurs. As an example, one could analyze the idea of faith or salvation. First, the Bible presents the Abrahamic Covenant, which is basically Abraham believing in God, and this being “reckoned unto him righteousness.” A little later on, we see the notion of the chosen people, which is somewhat like election, or enabling grace from God. In other words, it’s unmerited. God chose them and gave them grace for His purposes. The Law and the commandments were given to preserve this people.

Then God reveals the eternal Davidic Covenant to David, and we slowly see in the Bible a notion of the Messiah, and in Isaiah 53, the “suffering servant” – which predicted Jesus’ Passion. This is all development of doctrine: all the way through the Old Testament, to the gospel being announced, with John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, and even then Jesus said that He came not to “abolish” the Law but to “fulfil” it (Matt. 5:17).

In the Christian era, doctrines continue to develop. The Church especially pondered more deeply the doctrine of Christ in response to heretics; for example, at the council of Chalcedon in 451, which decreed the notion of the Two Natures of Christ or Hypostatic Union: Jesus is both God and Man. That was in response to the Monophysite heresy, which held that Jesus had one nature. Other doctrines which clearly developed were

• the afterlife,
• the Holy Spirit,
• the equality of Jews and Gentiles,
• bodily resurrection,
• Christ’s sacrifice as a development of the sacrifice of lambs, etc.

No doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

Objection!!!

Granted, some doctrines have developed. But Catholics go beyond the Bible when they develop doctrines, such as Mary and purgatory. There is no biblical check on the development, so that it can go off into false teaching and the traditions of men.​

Reply to Objection

There is more evidence for acceptance of the doctrine of purgatory in the Church fathers than for original sin (accepted by all Christians). One cannot have it both ways. If purgatory is unacceptable because it developed “late,” then original sin must be rejected with it. Catholics can give plenty of biblical evidences of purgatory. At the time the Marian doctrines were developing, so were things like the canon of Scripture and Christology and the Trinity. If those things could develop many centuries after Christ, why is it objectionable for the Marian doctrines or eucharistic theology to also do so? The Church decided what was a true development and what wasn’t.

The Bible indicates something like development of doctrine, too (Jn. 14:26, 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:9-16; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10; 4:12-16). The Church is called the “Body of Christ” (e.g., Eph. 1:22-23), and is compared to a seed that grows into a tree (Matt. 13:31-32). Seeds and bodies grow and expand. This is development of doctrine.

Within the limits of the Jewish theocracy and Catholic Christianity Augustin admits the idea of historical development or a gradual progress from a lower to higher grades of knowledge, yet always in harmony with Catholic truth. He would not allow revolutions and radical changes or different types of Christianity. ​

(Philip Schaff, Protestant Church historian, Introduction to St. Augustine’s City of God, in the 38-volume set of the Church fathers, edited by himself, December 10, 1886)

How can an unchanging system survive the continual increase of knowledge? . . . Change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech, that would not be growth, but mere change . . . There is a great difference between counting apples and arriving at the mathematical formulae of modern physics. But the multiplication table is used in both and does not grow out of date. In other words, whenever there is real progress in knowledge, there is some knowledge that is not superseded. Indeed, the very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . ​

​

I take it we should all agree to find this . . . in the simple rules of mathematics. I would also add to these the primary principles of morality. And I would also add the fundamental doctrines of Christianity . . . I claim that the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power, elsewhere found chiefly in formal principles, of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them . . . Like mathematics, religion can grow from within, or decay . . . But, like mathematics, it remains simply itself, capable of being applied to any new theory. ​

(C. S. Lewis, Anglican apologist, God in the Dock, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1970, 44-47. From “Dogma and the Universe,” The Guardian, March 19, 1943, 96 / March 26, 1943, 104, 107)​

Further introductory materials on development:

Classic Catholic Reflections on Development of Doctrine [2-17-91; rev. 1-14-94]

Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching? [1995]<<my favorite

 

[Grailhunter]

I gave you documented evidence that Peter waas the first Pope.
YOU claim to have evidence that he wasn't.

You got dementia?
THE WORD POPE WAS NOT WRITTEN IN THE 1ST CENTURY....IT WAS NOT SAID IN THE FIRST CENTURY!!!!
IT IS ENGLISH AND ENGLISH DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE 14TH CENTURY. LOU LOU LOU

 

[amigo de christo]

How can you guys comment on transition of languages when you cannot even read a sentence.
I did not say that Greek cannot be translated into English, but it could not be translated into English until the English language existed and that was the Middle Ages. Now after the English language existed then you can translate other languages into English. Then you cannot take English or modern words and insert them into earlier time periods because the people did not know of or use English back then. This is pretty simple stuff....use both hands....try to get your head around it.

actually its quite older than that . Our language used to be written in ruinc form .
We actually got our alphabet from latin too . We would not have been able to even read our own langauge
in its ruinc form . Let alone even as it was given a latin alphabet to produce the sounds and spellings .
Around the end of the eleventh century we began to morph into what is called middle english .
It had a lot of french influence and of course lots of latin influence .
Its much easier to read than old english . Then we moved on to a great vowel change
as well as into early modern english . Early modern english was the text of the KJV
Wycliff was middle english . You can compare the two . OH its accurate , but some words like CLEPID , which means
called are still in the middle english . Even in the old english with latin alaphabet we can understand some , not much
but some of it . ME DID a study on the entire devolpment of the english langague .
To prove to all what i already knew . THE BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACCURATE . THEY lying to us
when they try and say older versions of the english or KJV and etc were not accurate .
ITS TODAYS verions that have the problems . And men love to claim KOINE GREEK
as a means to CHANGE SOME things that were written . THEY LIE TOO .
Trying to get us to accept things like homosexaulity and that there is no lake of fire and junk like that .
But this lamb WONT HEED them ever wise sounding things . GOD WAS and IS in control .
The english bibles were ACCURATE . ITS TODAYS men who LIE and have sold lies to the masses
to get them to serve another agenda . AND ITS ONE I WONT BE BUYING .

 

[amigo de christo]

You got dementia?
THE WORD POPE WAS NOT WRITTEN IN THE 1ST CENTURY....IT WAS NOT SAID IN THE FIRST CENTURY!!!!
IT IS ENGLISH AND ENGLISH DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE 14TH CENTURY. LOU LOU LOU

english is older than that . much older . But as far as the popes . YEAH DONT HEED THEM AT ALL . Just saying .
I researched all that as well . Not google , not bias stuff , REAL investigations . DO NOT follow that place .
And out of great love for all peoples i will do all that i can to warn folks to stay away from any place
like it or any other that has wolves leading the flocks to the slaughter of deception and unto the day
of the wrath of GOD . Its more serious than folks realize . Friends dont let friends
sit under false teachings or teachers . Heck we dont even let enemies do such a thing . WE point to CHRIST .

 

[Grailhunter]

actually its quite older than that . Our language used to be written in ruinc form .
We actually got our alphabet from latin too . We would not have been able to even read our own langauge
in its ruinc form . Let alone even as it was given a latin alphabet to produce the sounds and spellings .
Around the end of the eleventh century we began to morph into what is called middle english .
It had a lot of french influence and of course lots of latin influence .
Its much easier to read than old english . Then we moved on to a great vowel change
as well as into early modern english . Early modern english was the text of the KJV
Wycliff was middle english . You can compare the two . OH its accurate , but some words like CLEPID , which means
called are still in the middle english . Even in the old english with latin alaphabet we can understand some , not much
but some of it . ME DID a study on the entire devolpment of the english langague .
To prove to all what i already knew . THE BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ACCURATE . THEY lying to us
when they try and say older versions of the english or KJV and etc were not accurate .
ITS TODAYS verions that have the problems . And men love to claim KOINE GREEK
as a means to CHANGE SOME things that were written . THEY LIE TOO .
Trying to get us to accept things like homosexaulity and that there is no lake of fire and junk like that .
But this lamb WONT HEED them ever wise sounding things . GOD WAS and IS in control .
The english bibles were ACCURATE . ITS TODAYS men who LIE and have sold lies to the masses
to get them to serve another agenda . AND ITS ONE I WONT BE BUYING .

Yes like a lot of languages it was a progression.....with various ancient aspects, even Phoenician. But when did English come into common use? Bibles were not written in obscure tongues, for example.... The first complete Bible in English was published abroad, most likely in Antwerp, in 1535. Myles Coverdale (1488-1569), an Augustinian friar from Yorkshire educated at Cambridge, 'faithfully and truly translated [it] out of Douche [German] and Latin into English'.

The Tyndale Bible (TYN) generally refers to the body of biblical translations by William Tyndale into Early Modern English, made c. 1522–1535.

All but forgotten today, the Geneva Bible was the most widely read and influential English Bible of the 16th and 17th centuries. It was one of the Bibles taken to America on the Mayflower.

 

[Illuminator]

This is a reply to anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist Jason Engwer’s paper, Dave Armstrong and Development of Doctrine, which was in turn a response to my paper, Dialogue on the Nature of Development of Doctrine (Particularly with Regard to the Papacy). Jason’s words will be in blue.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introductory Remarks

II. William Webster and Development
III. Deductive vs. Speculative Developments (the Holy Trinity vs. the Immaculate Conception)
IV. Development and the New Testament Canon (Difficulties for Protestantism)
V. The Development of the Papacy

In replying to Dave Armstrong’s article addressed to me, I’m not going to respond to every subject he raised. He said a lot about John [Henry] Newman, George Salmon, James White, etc. that’s either irrelevant to what I was arguing or is insignificant enough that I would prefer not to address it.

If I didn’t think what I wrote was relevant, I wouldn’t have written it. In any event, those remarks stand unrefuted. Mainly I cited these men as a sort of “review of the literature,” to demonstrate how misinformed many Protestant apologists are as to the definitions and historical progression of doctrinal development (and how they don’t seem to recognize the double standards routinely applied, where Protestant developments are fine, but Catholic ones which are operating on the same principle are “excessive”).

I ask the reader, whether he’s Catholic or non-Catholic, to try to think about what he’s reading as objectively as possible. I think that if we approach these things more from a rational and evidential standpoint and less from an emotional and speculative standpoint, we’re more likely to arrive at the truth.

This is well-stated, and I couldn’t agree more. I always wish and hope that readers will react in this fashion.

Dialogue On Doctrinal Development (Papacy & NT Canon)

Marvelously (or excruciatingly) in-depth discussion on Catholic doctrinal development, with the zealous and articulate (but wrongheaded) anti-Catholic Protestant apologist, Jason Engwer.

www.patheos.com

 

[quietthinker]

The Catholic Church is about authority and responsibility, not power. The difference between authority and power is that authority is given; power is taken. Christ gave His authority to His Church, the Catholic Church, to teach, preach, and sanctify. Protestantism took power upon themselves to try to replace Christ's Church, which according to St. Paul is His Body, and therefore, logically, Christ Himself. Those who follow Christ can do so in one of two general ways. They can follow Him according to His way, or they can follow them according to their own way. Protestantism chooses the latter. Catholicism, being the first by a wide margin, follows the former. Protestantism's connection to Christ is solely by their own viewpoint, rather than Christ's. They make up their own doctrines through personal interpretation of Scripture, which Scripture nixes in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The two pillars of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are entirely non-bibilcal, man-made doctrines. And the result of this? Continual splintering into more and more and more man-made, different-believing denominations. That cannot be the foundation of the fullness of truth that Christ gave mankind!

It is clear where the emphasis is in Roman Catholicism as it is in much of Protestantism in spite of the many words just by taking note of the structures they erect and the opulence they relish........and they want to persuade others they are the humble followers of the Nazarene.
Come on guys.....a rort is a rort and only the blind or the ignorant unable to see it

 

[Augustin56]

It is clear where the emphasis is in Roman Catholicism as it is in much of Protestantism in spite of the many words just by taking note of the structures they erect and the opulence they relish........and they want to persuade others they are the humble followers of the Nazarene.
Come on guys.....a rort is a rort and only the blind or the ignorant unable to see it

Your comment sounds an awful lot along the same lines of when Mary poured the expensive perfumed oil on Jesus, and Judas Iscariot complained that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor.

See John 12:5...

“Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages* and given to the poor?”

The Catholic Church, remember, is the Body of Christ.

 

[Marymog]

You are neither curious about reality nor historically or doctrinally accurate. You are filled with self-righteous hatred.

When is your denomination going to take Jesus down from the cross???

hey jim b,

You do know WHY the Crusades happened? Don't you?

 

[Marymog]

Of course you don't mention Peter's hypocrisy in Galatia. He was rebuked severely by Paul. And your saying that "Peter was always esteemed above the other Apostles" is nonsense. Peter was not and never will be anywhere near exalted. Peter was a vacillating, flawed man. Period.

And why do you call this rhetoric acceptable for a Christian? "you and your ilk have a lack of focus and deny the importance of Peter" and "you have either been lied to by your Protestant men or, if you are sitting in your basement doing your own studying of Scripture and Christian history, you are lying to yourself."

Is that where your denominational thinking leads you? That is the same mentality as those who created the murderous Pope-led crusades and murdered both indigenous people who refused the Catholic lie and Protestants who didn't accept Catholic dogma and, more recently, sexually abused children.

hey jim b,

You do know WHY the Crusades happened? Don't you?

 

[Marymog]

Jesus himself wasn’t wearing showy clothing so your interpretation is deeply flawed…

Neither the clothes Jesus was wearing or the Jewish leaders were wearing had anything to do with Jesus pointing out their hypocrisy.

 

[Marymog]

Nice try! I noticed that when Jesus called Peter "Satan" He also said that he was a "stumbling block" to Him. Clearly that is a comparison to the "rock" on which Jesus will build His church.

Peter was a deeply flawed man. Face facts!

Lol....I never said Peter wasn't a flawed man.

Also, listing 4 different web links is more than a "nice try"to prove that you are wrong. It IS proof that you are wrong!!! No biblical scholar agrees with you.

ONCE AGAIN, you dodged the question: What is the significance of Jesus giving Peter, and only Peter, the keys?